[NA-Discuss] GIGO (was Re: omblog.icann.org)

Thu Jun 7 22:09:23 EDT 2007

Basically, the Ombudsman has said on many occasions when ALAC members have
publicized information related to the investigation and process that ALL the
communications were confidential, and he actually took the ALAC to task in
the report under discussion for breaking such confidentiality. Therefore, in
order to meet the previous demands of confidentiality made by the ombudsman
with regard to this investigation, we have agreed to keep the documents
relating to the investigation confidential - which is actually against our
preferred way of working. 
If he says that we can publish (he is the person who determines, according
to previous correspondence) then I'd certainly publish ALL the emails,
reports and discussions that have taken place over the past 6+ months of
this investigation.
My main problem is that parts are published selectively. Either the whole
thing is published or none. 
Jacqueline

-----Original Message-----
From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan at telly.org] 
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 10:51 AM
To: NA Discuss
Subject: [NA-Discuss] GIGO (was Re: omblog.icann.org)

> 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

_______________________________________________
NA-Discuss mailing list
NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica
nn.org
---
Draft MoU with ICANN:
http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU

Draft Operating Principles:
http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP

Draft Code of Conduct:
http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.11/837 - Release Date: 6/6/2007
2:03 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.11/837 - Release Date: 6/6/2007
2:03 PM