[At-Large] Confidentiality

Aida Noblia aidanoblia at gmail.com
Thu Dec 19 07:23:03 UTC 2013


Dears all:

IMHO:The problem seems to be between two rights as stated, the right to
privacy and the right to information , transparency . There are laws that
recognize both rights and there is a limit to be analyzed . There are
called sensitive data , making the person himself , his privacy laws
considered private data that can not be disclosed without the express
consent of the person . Additional data are still being personal data and
sensitive data can not be disclosed. These are data that are normally
freely available in public records . The right to transparency is another
right that must be present in this case : the data relating to the function
or office held and are not data rate law data reserved. It is the right of
every citizen of all data to let you know how people carry out their duties
. The laws distinguish these types of data and in each case have to see
what kind of data we are talking about and if they fall into one category
or the other according to the laws . In general, it takes into account the
purpose for which the data have been collected , the purpose for which you
want to take knowledge of such data : no data that are necessary to know
how the person may fulfill its function.

Regards


2013/12/18 Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig at comunica-ch.net>

> Dear all,
>
> having nothing (officially) to say on this list, I tend to agree with the
> arguments raised by Carlton and Leon. As most of you may know, I am a
> usually a strict proponent of privacy and data protection (incl.
> confidentiality in justified cases). In the given case, it's not a usual
> NomCom application and selection procedure or application for any other
> corporate enterprise position (with all confidentiality granted) but it's a
> selection for a - more or less - "public" position with a final electorate
> of over-seeable and known names of 20 people (15 ALAC reps and 5 RALO
> leaders) -- and only EURALO will conduct a broader consultation with its
> members to allow its chair a guided or directed vote (as we did in 2010
> already, as an exception but not as a common rule, unfortunately).
>
> If I apply for any public or political position (not any job with a
> private enterprise), I need to expose myself to *public scrutiny* (and
> nobody is forced to do it). But if I do it, I cannot request procedures and
> rules of confidentiality which are usually applied for private enterprises
> and positions. Therefore IMO, these completely different *political* levels
> - public or "private" - shouldn't be mixed or confused and broader
> considerations, as suggested by Carlton and Leon, may apply.
>
> Kind regards,
> Wolf
>
>
> León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote Wed, 18 Dec 2013 18:55:
> >Dear All,
> >
> >I too understand that confidentiality is a very important part of the
> process. However, I don’t see how anyone is expected to vote on someone
> they have little or no knowledge on why they should vote on that person.
> >
> >As a suggestion, would it be feasible to have a middle point in between
> full confidentiality and full disclosure? I would think of a “public
> version” of the candidates information to be posted or distributed for
> evaluation by those who will be voting and by the larger community that can
> direct the vote of their elected representatives maybe.
> >
> >As far as I understand when we talk about confidential information,
> there’s two strains within this information. The first being fully
> confidential and the second being fully public either because it has been
> disclosed publicly by the person to whom the information belongs or because
> it is in public knowledge or because it is accesible via legal public
> databases.
> >
> >Having said this, confidentiality could (should) remain on the strain of
> data effectively confidential but could (should), however, not be the same
> for public information related to the candidate.
> >
> >This might be a solution for both, avoiding the undermining of the
> process as a consequence of lack in confidentiality and at the same time
> providing confidence in that the votes will be casted in an informed
> fashion.
> >
> >Does it make sense?
> >
> >
> >All the best,
> >
> >
> >
> >León
> >
> >El 18/12/2013, a las 12:05, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com>
> escribió:
> >
> >> 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
> >> principles trumps?
> >>
> >> -Carlton
> >>
> >>
> >> ==============================
> >> Carlton A Samuels
> >> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> >> *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>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> 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
> >>>>
> >>>> CW
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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
> >>>> 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
> >>> 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
> >> 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
> >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> >
> >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> >
> >
>
> EuroDIG Secretariat
> http://www.eurodig.org/
> mobile +41 79 204 83 87
> Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
>
> EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation
> http://euralo.org
>
> Profile on LinkedIn
> http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
Aida Noblia



More information about the At-Large mailing list