[governance] privacy vs transparency (was Re: ICANN RFC)

[Norbert Bollow]

Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com> wrote:

> d) Unlike you, I've lived in a state, where not only all mine, my 
> father's and grandfather's meetings were audio-recorded. Actually 
> since 1975, after my father's death in a car accident,  also all our 
> phone calls were recorded, and my grandfather was followed 24 hrs/day 
> by a body guard, who was reporting every move of his. I don't want 
> this to happen to any director in the 21st century, at least not 
> against her or his will. If they all agree - fine, but if even one 
> feels monitored, and it is not in the by-laws, so that they would 
> have know beforehand about this requirement, then I am for their free 
> will, not yours. Sorry.

Karl is only asking for recordings to be made of conversations that
are related to _governance_ activities.

When discussing how much privacy there should be, the distinction
between personal activities, business activities and governance
activities is crucial.

With regard to personal activites, there should be great respect
for privacy.

With regard to business activites, there should be a balance between
the public interest (that businesses should be checked upon to verify
that they fulfil their obligations and responsibilities) and privacy
interests (to safeguard legitimate business secrets as well as the
personal privacy of the people who work in the firms.)

With regard to governance activities, there should be great respect
for the principle of transparency.


It may be true that not everyone is able to work productively in a
highly-transparant governance institution.  But if ICANN board members
were decently well-paid for the work they're supposed to do, I'm sure
that enough well-qualified candidates could be found who would be happy
to work under conditions of full transparency with regard to all
discussions that pertain to matters of internet governance.

> >Tell me why the recommendation that ICANN's directors each receive a 
> >stipend so that they can afford the time and expense to 
> >independently inform themselves on matters is a recommendation that 
> >is somehow stale or inappropriate?
> 
> The people who are on the Board do not need money, as far as I know. 

In other words, ICANN's current practices ensure that among all the
people who would potentially be capable of doing the work that ICANN
directors are supposed to do, everyone who is not a member of the
small subset of people who "do not need money" is institutionally
excluded from having any chance of becoming an ICANN board member.

Now I think it's very plausible to predict that when decisions are
made by those who "do not need money", the decisions will tend to
unduly favor well-financed business interests.


I'm sure that it'd be a good step forward when the requirement for
ICANN board members to "not need money" is replaced by a requirement
for being willing and capable of working under conditions of full
transparency with regard to all discussions that pertain to matters of
internet governance.


While I'm sure that there must be some truth in what is being said
again and again about ICANN making positive steps in good directions,
I don't believe that it would be realistic to expect ICANN to undergo
a sufficiently deep transformation to really solve the problem as long
as there is no credible threat to ICANN that it will lose its internet
governance powers unless true tranparency and accountability are
implemented.

Greetings,
Norbert.


-- 
Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>                    http://Norbert.ch
President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG  http://SIUG.ch
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance