[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 1 - 5 September 2017

[Emily Barabas]

Dear Work Track members,

Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today.  These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording or transcript. See the chat transcript and recording at: https://community.icann.org/x/7hkhB.

Slides are attached for reference.

Kind regards,
Emily

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes:

2. SOIs
-- No SOI updates

3.  Review of CC2 responses to WT1 questions

a. Applicant Support

- Summary of discussions to date: possible reasons that may have contributed to the liminted number of applications; suggestions on how to address the issues identified (see slides for details).
- Question 1.2.1 - feedback on proposal to expand the Applicant Support Program
- BC, RySG, and ALAC provided feedback on Applicant Support for IDNs.
- BC, RySG, ALAC, and Jannik Skou submitted comments on the concept of the "middle applicant."
- Nominet and Afilias suggested focusing on other areas of the New gTLD ecosystem.
- Valideus suggested research and studies into program needs and weaknesses.
- John Poole opposed expanding the Applicant Support Program.

- Question 1.2.2 - feedback on other support mechanisms beyond financial support/application submission.
- Nominet - shorter and simpler documentation and publicity/education.
- RySG – focus on application process and improving outreach and publication of the ASP.
- ALAC – make criteria less stringent, expand the definition of communities, and expand technical training, mentorship, and knowledge/capacity building.
- BC - support applicants targeting registrants in underserved regions that use the language and script of that region, leverage lessons learned from the JAS program;  mechanisms should address TLD operator's needs; work with local/regional experts.

From the chat:
Jeff Neuman: I was wondering if there was anyone from the BC that could expand on the comment on "behavoir experienced in the last round."

- Question 1.2.3 -- suggestions for improving publicity/outreach.
- Jannik Skou – engage with ccNSO/GAC/ALAC, add multilingual customer support, improve outreach materials.
- Nominet – leverage regional IGFs.
- RySG – improve outreach ans publication, build relationships with business associations.
- Afilias - identify appropriate partners.
- BC - simplify the process
- ALAC – improve communications and expand training and awareness opportunities.

From the chat:
Jeff Neuman: I was wondering if there was anyone from the BC that could expand on the comment on "behavoir experienced in the last round."
Jeff Neuman: I like trying to use the regional IGF networks if that is possible
Jeff Neuman: just dont know if their rules allow that
Jim Prendergast: as long as its basic awareness building and info sharing - shouldnt be a problem
Jeff Neuman: How far in advance do we need to suggest topics to the IGF organizations
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Jeff there is a strong nexus between Regional igfs and our ICANN hubs so should be ways
Jim Prendergast: schedule varies - http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-regional-and-national-initiatives[intgovforum.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.intgovforum.org_multilingual_content_igf-2Dregional-2Dand-2Dnational-2Dinitiatives&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=lgdWr4G9TPwpNcHj7vFTgSrojVR5GXGznYvilffz3cY&s=3kIc8h6eyRd4b6KNU5H0QUJP2rUxiwJ_TAp1In71d6Q&e=>
Alan Greenberg: Important to understand that the only applicants for the program were ICANN insiders.
Greg Shatan: ISOC and its chapters could be used as well.
Rubens Kuhl: Some ccTLDs see ICANN outreach regarding new gTLDs as ICANN promoting one of their "sons" instead of applying similar amounts of money to also promote ccTLDs.
Vanda Scartezini: EVEN IGF DOS NOT ACCESS COMPANIES AROUND THAT COULD APPLY
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): and the National Initiatives are opportunities for outreach
Vanda Scartezini: in our region is more associations in general that can make the information flows.
Greg Shatan: Agree with Vanda that a way to reach the business sector is important.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yep
avri doria: Basically should use as many of these channels as possible.

- Question 1.2.4 - suggestions for metrics that could be used to evaluate success.
- Jannik Skou –number of domain names registered.
- BC - number of workshops, attendance, and follow up communication
- RySG - number of applications and number of successful applications.
- ALAC – consider broader context of success; in terms of metrics, look  at numbers of people within LDCs who participate and are successfully trained as registrars.

- 1.2.5 - additional recommendations for improving ASP
- BC - streamline the application process and improving the network of informal support for applicants.
- ALAC - support people from underserved regions to improve chances of meeting eligibility criteria.
- RySG - applicant must be able to demonstrate that there is a business case for the TLD.
- NCSG - better advertising and an exclusive round for applicants from developing countries.
- GAC - referenced CCTRT Draft Report comments.

From the chat:
Jeff Neuman: THere are alo of responses that are great at a high level, but I am not sure that it helps us on a micro level.  For example the BC says we should streamline the process, but what specifically can be streamlined?
Jeff Neuman: I would love to state in the Preliminary report a question that states: "What can your SO/AC/Constituency do to improve awareness of the program
Jeff Neuman: I agree with Cheryl that most of the comments do seem positive on keeping an Applicant Support Program in some form
Jeff Neuman: Most also state that Applicant Support should involve more than just financial support, but also technical support, etc.
Vanda Scartezini: during the survey I did in this region I promise to several companies to infrom them when the program will start
Vanda Scartezini: even here cost was not the main point - infromation about on how to apply will be more relevant

- Important to take the next step in consolidating feedback and looking at specific opportunities for improvement in the program.
- Applicants that received support were required to pay a part of the application fee in the 2012 round. Did this hinder applicants?

From the chat:
Jeff Neuman: Applicants that wanted to be in the JAS program had to pay $47,000 up front as the reduced application fee

b. Communications
- 1.9.1 - suggestions for additional areas for improvement in communications.
- Jannik Skou - produce a video.
- BRG - develop tailored information information and processes for different business models.
- ALAC - regional teams need to be organized within underserved regions to more effectively introduce, educate and inform.
- GAC UK - leverage regional IGFs.
- RySG, Afilias - push notifications, SLAs for responding to applicant questions, helpline, searchable FAQ page and knowledge base, webinars and sessions with detailed minutes.

- 1.9.2 - metrics to measure success of communications
- BRG - mainstream media coverage, response time.
- RySG, Afilias - hire an experienced firm to do comms, use established metrics.
- ALAC - training program participation and successfully meeting goals, number of RSPs set up, number of outreach opportunities that get people to apply.
- John Poole - total "revamp"

From the chat:
Vanda Scartezini: video with cations in aseveral language would be good
Vanda Scartezini: captioning

- We don't know to what extent reducing the application fee was addressing the main issue. Are there other other impediments to having successful application from developing economies? If so, what are those impediments? Not clear if more information would have helped. Hard to tell if we know what we are trying to accomplish and how we are going to accomplish it.
- For some applicants, it wasn't so much an issue of the cost, it was that there wasn't a good enought business case to apply.
- There was also a punitive aspect. If you applied for support and didn't succeed, that was the end of your application. Did this effect anyone? Timing issue may also have had an impact.
- Agree the timing issue could have been important. A single awareness-raising event without sustained follow up may not be enough. Needs and approach may vary by region. It may take more time in some regions to develop plans and prepare applications.

From the chat:
Phil Buckingham: Q : so how much should ICANN put  up to support a programme . How we do we arrive at this number .
Vanda Scartezini: to strat a new gTLD offer in the market you will need much more money than just the fees. so As I ahve asking here , the fees was not the barrier.
Vanda Scartezini: the knowledge, timely aware, on how to trust to be backend technical etc are the barriers

4. AOB
- None

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1/attachments/20170905/e0975fa2/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Sub Pro Track 1 20170905 FINAL.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 297402 bytes
Desc: Sub Pro Track 1 20170905 FINAL.pdf
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1/attachments/20170905/e0975fa2/SubProTrack120170905FINAL-0001.pdf>