[CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-ACCT request for information on CEP

[Robin Gross]

Thanks Becky and Sam,

Thanks for the information about the CEP process.  I note a few proposed improvements to this process below.

A party who files a CEP should not be required to keep those discussions confidential.  While I understand a party may wish to have the process be confidential, there have been times, when this imposed confidentiality rule has been problematic.  For example, NCSG participated in a CEP about how an ICANN policy was decided, and we requested that these CEP conversations be recorded and transcribed in the interests of transparency around the internal decision making process.   This request was denied by ICANN.  We also requested that our written submission to the CEP become part of the public record of the process and ICANN also refused to post the NCSG CEP submission to its website.  So there are times when the imposed confidentially of the CEP is in great contrast to our promises about policy being made in a transparent fashion.  A party's CEP written submission should be published at the option of the filer, who can waive his/her confidentiality if desired.

We also need a much clearer process than "there will be discussions on unresolved issues" type statements that we currently have.  The lack of any clear expectation on the part of someone going through this CEP process about what those discussions will entail and how to prepare for them has been an impediment to the process.  The details of this engagement process need to nailed down more tightly so people know how this process is managed and what to expect.  There is currently too much leeway for ICANN to dictate the terms of the CEP discussions on an ad hoc basis and this puts filers at an unfair advantage due to the lack of clarity.

So these would be my suggested improvements to the CEP - more transparency and more clarity in the process.

Thank you,
Robin



On Apr 10, 2015, at 12:35 PM, Samantha Eisner wrote:

> Hi Becky - the Cooperative Engagement Process is set forth here:
> https://www.icann.org/en/news/irp/cep-11apr13-en.pdf.
> 
> ICANN is now publishing updates as it relates to items that are within the
> CEP process, and those updates can be found on the IRP document page, at
> the top (including archives) at
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/accountability/irp-en.
> 
> There is also a reference to the Cooperative Engagement Process within the
> Bylaws on the IRP (Art IV, Section 3, paras 15-17)
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#IV.
> 
> Best, 
> 
> Sam
> 
> On 4/10/15, 6:19 AM, "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz> wrote:
> 
>> Hello ICANN folks.
>> 
>> As you probably know, I am serving on WP2, which is focused on reviewing
>> and proposing reforms/enhancements to existing accountability mechanisms.
>> One issue that has been raised, and about which there seem to be strong
>> feelings, is the Constructive Engagement Process.
>> 
>> Could you please point me to documentation for this process, and any
>> rules, guidelines, principles applicable to it.
>> 
>> Many thanks
>> 
>> Becky
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150410/fc261209/signature.asc>