Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
ocl at gih.com
Tue Dec 17 17:59:31 UTC 2013
apologies for this - you must have been muted because I did not hear you.
Your comments are well received and I note your last point regarding
confidentiality and the hypothesis of having BCEC members share
The discussion is open.
On 17/12/2013 17:19, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> I was trying unsuccessfully to ask for the floor after the comments
> from Tijani and Alan, maybe my line was muted, then I had to go back
> to my meeting, where I am right now.
> I would like to go on record saying that:
> · I share completely what Tijani has said -- as a matter of
> fact we had discussed and agreed in Buenos Aires our common position.
> The wider the number of people that have access to a piece of
> information, the higher the risk that we have leaking data, and from
> that on the step to the information being public is very small.
> · BCEC has taken the issue of confidentiality very seriously,
> I have consulted with the NomCom Chair and with ICANN General Counsel
> and then decided to require the non-disclosure to be signed by all,
> before giving access to confidential material.
> · If the principle of access to the current Board member
> evaluation by the voters, although being a theoretically valid
> question, brings as a corollary the question on why should the voters
> also not have access to the reference letters for all candidates. You
> see that, step by step, we can undermine completely the
> confidentiality, and therefore the trust in the process.
> · The ALAC can decide to open up to a larger audience but I
> would strongly recommend, if you do so, to at least require a
> non-disclosure similar to the one that BCEC members have signed. I
> would also encourage you to look for advice by General Counsel.
> · The hypothesis of having BCEC members to informally share
> information with the regional voters is in open violation of the
> confidentiality agreement signed by BCEC members.
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
More information about the ALAC