Opponents of the secret ballot say it would diminish the so-called "transparency" of the proceedings and destroy the credibility of the IWC. Lapointe contends this is not true. 

"To begin with," said Lapointe, "the actions of a delegation must be transparent to their government, but no delegate should be obligated to explain their voting behavior to delegates from other countries and certainly not to Non-Governmental Organizations!" He went on to point out that the only real result of IWC's type of transparency that it allows the possibility of coercion and pressure on smaller nations from more powerful nations or wealthy NGOs. 

Many international groups have begun to allow secret ballots as a means of protecting members from coercion by activist groups. "It is important," says Lapointe, "to make sure a delegate's vote reflects principles and not fear of reprisal."  The list of groups allowing secret ballots includes CITES, the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species, the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, and many others. 

Some, who object to the use of the secret ballot process, fear it will replace the current reliance on consensus. Lapointe asserted there would be no such effect at all. "At present the body seeks consensus," Lapointe said, "and only if that does not occur, does a formal vote take place. This would simply be another tool for IWC to conduct its business in a reasonable manner."  He also noted that one of the proposals would make it necessary for a principal in an action to ask for a secret ballot before it could be used. 

The discussion about instituting the possibility of a secret ballot process is expected to take place fairly late in IWC 50 proceedings.