[council] Final Report of the GGP on Applicant Support and Motion to Adopt Same

Tue Dec 12 21:25:21 UTC 2023

Dear Anne,

Thank you for your thoughtful questions relating to guidance recommendations 7-9 in the Final Report of the GGP on Applicant Support.  In a broad sense, staff thinks you have touched on an issue to which the working group called attention in the Final Report and that was raised by ICANN org in its public comments: specifically the issue of dependencies and possible inconsistencies in the implementation of the three guidance recommendations.  As noted in the public comment review (page 22):

For all three recommendations, the working group noted the ICANN org concerns in its comments that there could be inconsistencies between recommendations 7-9 unless they are considered to be interdependent. When asked by the working group to explain their comments about dependencies, ICANN org emphasized that it is about considering guidance recommendations 7, 8, and 9 together, because on the one hand, the working group said that they would like to have a floor -- a minimum amount that that would want to have respected. At the same time, the recommendation is to let applicants to know as early as possible whether they'll receive support. Also at the same time, the recommendation is for funding to be equally distributed. ICANN org noted that some of those requirements might seem contradictory.  So, ICANN org emphasized that these three guidance recommendations should be read together to ensure that when implemented, they don’t conflict.

Accordingly, the working group agreed to add the following text as a preamble to guidance recommendations 7, 8, and 9 (page 20):

As noted above, the GNSO working group emphasizes that ICANN org’s Next Round implementation team should take into consideration potential dependencies among all the recommendations.  In particular, with respect to Guidance Recommendations 7, 8, and 9 relating to recommending a methodology for allocating financial support where there is inadequate funding for all qualified applicants, the working group clarifies that these recommendations are to be interpreted as interdependent and that the objectives therein are to be balanced as a key aspect of the program’s success.

As to your specific questions, for the first question relating to the methodology for allocating funding the working group’s guidance is, “the recommended methodology for allocating financial support should be for ICANN org to allocate limited funding by way of fee reduction equally across all qualified applicants…”. That seems to be the same thing that you are saying but worded slightly differently.

With respect to your second question, “how this "minimum" amount would be determined and how ICANN will budget for that?”,  I have referred it to ICANN org GDS in case they have more details, although this may be an implementation detail to be determined.

Regarding your third question, the working group extensively discussed the focus of the Applicant Support Program specifically relating to guidance recommendation 1 to “Target potential applicants from the not-for-profit sector, social enterprises and/or community organizations from under-served[1] and developing regions and countries” as being consistent with the GAC’s Consensus Advice as well as its public comments and contributions to the working group’s deliberations.  The working group also noted in the rationale for guidance recommendation 7 with respect to prioritization, “After completing the public comment review, the working group agreed that it was important to emphasize that it made the deliberate decision not to prioritize groups of applicants seeking support.” From a staff point of view it seems that the working group was able to reconcile the GAC’s Advice and GGP’s focus on “under-served and developing regions” with the GGP’s guidance recommendations on funding, whilst noting that care should be taken that there are no contradictions in implementation.

We hope this is helpful, but we invite Lawrence, Mike, and Paul if they wish to add their thoughts.

Kind regards,
Steve & Julie

From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Anne ICANN via council <council at gnso.icann.org>
Reply-To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso at gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 1:25 PM
To: "lawrence at microboss.org" <lawrence at microboss.org>
Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>, Mike Silber <silber.mike at gmail.com>, Nathalie Peregrine via council <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] Final Report of the GGP on Applicant Support and Motion to Adopt Same

Many thanks Lawrence, Paul, and all those who participated actively in this inaugural GGP.  Congrats on what appears to be a very successful use of this new process!

My only questions relate to Guidance 7,8, and 9 in terms of available funding to be determined by ICANN.  The guidance suggests that ICANN will determine the amount of fee reduction it wishes to put in the budget and then divide that number by the number of qualified Applicant Support candidates who actually apply for a new gTLD in the next round.  Am I reading that correctly?

Then it says that nevertheless, an absolute minimum amount of fee reduction should be available for ALL qualified Applicant Support candidates who actually apply.  Has ICANN GDS provided input on how this "minimum" amount would be determined and how ICANN will budget for that?

In addition, the GGP determined that no prioritization of applicants should be applied in the event there are more applicants that qualify than available funds/budget allocated for fee reductions.  However, it also appears that the GAC has provided Consensus Advice on favoring applications from underserved regions and peoples.  Are we comfortable that these recommendations from the GAC and the GGP are consistent and can be effectively implemented by the Board and ICANN Org?

Thanks for all the hard work - appears to be a huge success for our very first GNSO Guidance Process!

Anne  (reminder that I am non-voting but just wanted to ask for further information for Council)

Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
anneicanngnso at gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso at gmail.com>

On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 6:05 AM Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts via council <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>> wrote:
Happy to second this motion

Lawrence

Get Outlook for iOS [aka.ms]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/aka.ms/o0ukef__;!!PtGJab4!49gd3VmGyNQVag2XzP5KyPT892ZrUG6TAN6vXHixn3PFCNcJqMgWeXHasnCmucoRAkv5vs19W0XRWsQHW1NS-iCmVKx9Yw$>
________________________________
From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Paul McGrady via council <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 9:58:16 AM
To: Nathalie Peregrine via council <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> <gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>; Mike Silber <silber.mike at gmail.com<mailto:silber.mike at gmail.com>>
Subject: [council] Final Report of the GGP on Applicant Support and Motion to Adopt Same

Dear Council Colleagues:

I am very happy to attach the GGP Final Report and a Motion to adopt the same!  Congratulations to Mike Silber and the rest of the GGP members on completing this work.  I’m asking Staff to add this as a motion to our next GNSO meeting agenda.  Thanks.

Best,

Paul

[cid:image001.jpg at 01DA2D17.CD3C74C0]

Paul McGrady

Partner

Elster & McGrady

3847 N. Lincoln Avenue

Second Floor

Chicago, IL 60613

Office Direct: +1 (312) 515-4422

paul at elstermcgrady.com<mailto:paul at elstermcgrady.com>

www.elstermcgrady.com [elstermcgrady.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.elstermcgrady.com/__;!!PtGJab4!49gd3VmGyNQVag2XzP5KyPT892ZrUG6TAN6vXHixn3PFCNcJqMgWeXHasnCmucoRAkv5vs19W0XRWsQHW1NS-iDZEtJFXg$>

Schedule a call: www.HuddleWithPaul.com [huddlewithpaul.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.huddlewithpaul.com/__;!!PtGJab4!49gd3VmGyNQVag2XzP5KyPT892ZrUG6TAN6vXHixn3PFCNcJqMgWeXHasnCmucoRAkv5vs19W0XRWsQHW1NS-iBvNXyyIg$>

Download Contact Information and Read Bio [linqapp.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/linqapp.com/paul_mcgrady?r=link__;!!PtGJab4!49gd3VmGyNQVag2XzP5KyPT892ZrUG6TAN6vXHixn3PFCNcJqMgWeXHasnCmucoRAkv5vs19W0XRWsQHW1NS-iBNCLSBPQ$>

_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

________________________________

[1] The working group agreed to cite from the Initial Report the GAC's definition of under-served: https://gac.icann.org/working-group/gac-working-group-on-underserved-regions-usrwg, specifically: “An under-served region is defined as one that: Does not have a well developed DNS and/or associated industry or economy…”
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20231212/dc23a430/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 55804 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20231212/dc23a430/image001-0001.jpg>