It is distressing that the Ombudsman has determined that he should publicly post selected contents of a confidential document sent by the ALAC to the Board during the determination of the reconsideration request, and forwarded to him as a courtesy, without consulting the principals in this communication with regard to the disclosure of the confidential document.
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. Personally, I would always applaud the act of an Ombudsman who helped the public to know information which was falsely or needlessly classified as confidential. Indeed, one could easily argue that this kind of activity is specifically within the mandate of someone in that role. For ICANN, openness is an obligation, not a courtesy. We who are in advisory capacities, in the ALS/RALO process, need honest and open access, so that we can best serve in our roles. GIGO. OTOH, whose interests are served by secrecy? The public's? How can ICANN claim to represent the public interest when the public doesn't know the bases upon which its Board makes its decisions? How can its advisory processes work properly -- or even be claimed to do so -- if not offered complete access to relevant resources and information? I take to heart John's comments about the existing Ombusman's behaviour, yet I have a hard time understanding the specific complaints here. Specifically, I an concerned with the issue of "exposing" public information that perhaps should have been public in the first place. I have a hard time understanding why _any_ of ALAC's communications -- especially Board recommendations -- would be confidential. If full disclosure exists, then issues such as "taking out of context" and misleading interpretations can be appropriately answered. Without full disclosure, the "unknowing" must judge the conflicting words of others who have been blessed with the whole picture. And in a highly-politicized, highly-lobbied environment such as ICANN, I suspect that those with appropriate funds and initiatives already know most of the "secrets" witheld from the rest of us. Indeed, I can understand how a Ombudman -- charged to protect the public interest -- could easily become a position of confrontation if constantly coming in contact with elements -- even supposedly public-interest advocacy elements such as ALAC -- who choose secrecy over transparency. I'm obviously inexpereienced in specific dealings at this time, and don't know the person. However, I can understand how the nature of such a role could unfortunately lead to hostility and mistrust, even when started with the best of intentions. I have a hard time heeding John's request to reject any requests or demands of the Ombudman out of hand. Personally, I would judge any specific request on its merits, but I would not offer any information to the Ombudsman that I would not be prepared to publish. Berhaps there would be less opportunity for "disgraceful ways" if more of ICANN was open to public view in the first place and its people acted accordingly. The more one thinks about the role of ICANN, the less one understands the need for *any* secrecy in its operations (with the possible exceptions of negotiations with staff and business interests).
The process is before the Board and the ALAC awaits their recommendation. As such, I believe that it is not proper to engage the issue in public fora until a decision is made by the Board.
I must humbly, yet emphatically, disagree. Now -- BEFORE the Board has made a decision -- is the _best_ time to bring new issues forward if relevant. Else, what's the point of debating the issue once it's already been decided? - Evan