carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Wed Dec 18 18:05:13 UTC 2013
Um, IMHO, the issue is a lot more textured that it is being discussed. I
briefly referred on the chat at the ALAC conference but seems to me we have
a concern regarding two things, equity and accountability.
If - and only if - the report on the Board member's stewardship is a normal
part of accountability framework to the constituency that member represents
on the board, then it is arguable that accountability does not just rest
with the Chair but also the voters who elected that member to the Board.
If the Board Member is seeking re-election to represent that constituency,
it is arguable that 'what have you done for us lately?' is both a rational
and desirable question for that candidate. This is not just for opponents
to ask. And in context, any relevant information, even that arguably
anecdotal, is part of the discourse.
We cannot contest the compelling interest for sentient voters to be
informed. In the same breath, one could not argue away the general
At-Large interest in selecting the Board member it deems best located to
project and defend their shared interest.
The matter now rests with our collective sense of equity. Is it fair under
all circumstances to release unfavourable specific information about a
candidate to the electorate when such information cannot be developed or
accessed for all candidates?
Reasonable men and women can agree to disagree. But if the choice is
between accountability and equity, the question is, which of these
Carlton A Samuels
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Vanda Scartezini <vanda at uol.com.br> wrote:
> I also agree fully with Roberto and the points raised are very relevant.
> Merry Christmas to whom this is an important date to celebrate.
> Vanda Scartezini
> Polo Consultores Associados
> Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
> 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
> Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
> Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
> On 12/17/13, 17:01, "Christopher Wilkinson" <cw at christopherwilkinson.eu>
> >> Good evening:
> >May I say that having served on both the ICANN Nominating Committee and
> >on the BCEC, I agree with and support the constraints and concerns
> >described by Roberto here.
> >Regards to you all, and with the Season's Greetings
> >> Da: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com]
> >> Inviato: martedì 17 dicembre 2013 12:20
> >> A: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond (ocl at gih.com)
> >> Cc: 'ICANN At-Large Staff'; 'ALAC Working List'
> >> Oggetto: Confidentiality
> >> 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
> >> had discussed and agreed in Buenos Aires our common position. The wider
> >> number of people that have access to a piece of information, the higher
> >> risk that we have leaking data, and from that on the step to the
> >> being public is very small.
> >> · BCEC has taken the issue of confidentiality very seriously, I
> >> 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
> >> by the voters, although being a theoretically valid question, brings as
> >> corollary the question on why should the voters also not have access to
> >> 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
> >> 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.
> >> Thanks,
> >> Roberto
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> At-Large mailing list
> >> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> >> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> >At-Large mailing list
> >At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
More information about the At-Large