Before one can make comment on such an issue, I'd like to know more about why the document was confidential in the first place.
In general, I think we all agree that the ALAC's operations should be open, and I think in that regard the ALAC has done a better job than other parts of ICANN. For example, the in person meetings are all open, unlike most other ICANN groups. In theory, the Ombudsman process is supposed to be confidential both so that people who file complaints and the targets of the complaint don't have to worry about retribution. Personally, I would prefer a process where the complaints and responses are all public so people can draw their own conclusions about who's behaving reasonably and who's not. In practice, the Ombudsman's attitude toward confidentiality has been completely capricious and self-serving. In the last go-round, as I recall, the ombudsman sent copies of a screed to one of the board members, then went ballistic when the ALAC chair sent a copy of her response to the same person. About a year ago the ALAC turned down an ALS application from a Swiss group because it was an org of orgs. They filed a complaint, the Ombudsman swung into full gear, and wrote up a report full of unsupported conclusions and factual errors. When we wrote back pointing out quite politely the errors and asking that he fix his report, his response was to put his unaltered report on his shiny new blog (which sure looks to me like he set it up to have a place to publicise this decision), and to tell us that not only would he not include our response, but it was confidential so we couldn't show it to anyone else. Like I said, he's utterly out of control, I would stay away from him, and I would specifically decline to respond to any demands he makes. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://johnlevine.com, Mayor "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.