[CPWG] Results of the GGP survey
lists at christopherwilkinson.eu
lists at christopherwilkinson.eu
Wed Sep 6 16:10:14 UTC 2023
Dear Maureen:
Please find attached, below, nmy comments,.
Thankyou and Regards
Chrisdtopher Wilkionson
1963-65 - Commonwealth Secretariat
1965-66 - OECD Human Development Mediterranean program
1966-1973 - World Bank (IBRD)
1973.2005 - EU Commission (Regional Developent, Industrty and ICT.)
The ALAC appreciates the opportunity etc etc
1. COMMUNICATIONS And OUTREACH/AWARENESS
Guidance Recommendation 1: Increase awareness of the Applicant Support Program of the next round of gTLD applications among those who may need and could qualify for support. Implementation Guidance: Target potential applicants from the not-for-profit sector, social enterprises and/or community organizations from under-served and developing regions and countries.
Poll result
81.1% Support Recommendation as written
5.4% Support Recommendation intent with wording change
5.4% Significant change required: changing intent and wording.
8.1% Do not support Recommendation.
If you support the intent of Guidance Recommendation 1 but think it requires a wording change, please provide your revised wording and reason here. [open ended response, optional]
Delete < among those who may need and could qualify>
If you do not support the Guidance Recommendation 1, please provide your reason here. [open ended response, optional]
Regrettably, there is NO ICANN entity qualified or mandated to ‘filter’ such applications. Least of all GNSO itself, whose delegates to Sub-Pro and subsequently have unapologetically opposed expansion of Applicant Support.
Are there any comments or issues you would like to raise pertaining to the Rationale for Guidance Recommendation 1? If yes, please provide your comments here. [open ended response, optional]
<The procedure should begin with a serious budgetrary target, say, 25% of the whole program >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. "BUSINESS CASE" ALSO KNOWN AS APPLICANT UNDERSTANDING AND DETERMINING NEED/OPPORTUNITY AND DEVELOPING APPLICATION
Guidance Recommendation 2: That the Applicant Support Program has cultivated pro bono services as well as ICANN-provided information and services to be available for supported applicants to inform their gTLD applications; that ICANN will communicate the availability of pro bono services and the parameters in which they are offered to potential supported applicants; and that supported applicants report that they found the information and services offered by pro bono providers to be useful.
Poll result
83.8% Support Recommendation as written
2.7% Support Recommendation intent with wording change
8.1% Significant change required: changing intent and wording.
5.4% Do not support Recommendation.
If you support the intent of Guidance Recommendation 2 but think it requires a wording change, please provide your revised wording and reason here. [open ended response, optional]
<“pro bono support “ needs to be explicitly defined, including financial costs, to be paid by ICANN.
In this context pro bono support clearly failed in 2012. Why? What lessons have been learnt?>
If you do not support the Guidance Recommendation 2, please provide your reason here.
Qualified staff or paid consultants should be trained, supported and designated as the ‘project officer’ for EACH AS application.
Are there any comments or issues you would like to raise pertaining to the Rationale for Guidance Recommendation 2? If yes, please provide your comments here.
Pro Bono support alone in the context of IDNs is quite unlikely to be available and to succeed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. ICANN ORG SET UP OF APPLICANT SUPPORT PROGRAM FOR SUCCESS (IN OPERATIONAL TERMS)
Guidance Recommendation 3: That the Applicant Support Program has the necessary resources to achieve its goals
Poll result
75.7% Support Recommendation as written
8.1% Support Recommendation intent with wording change
10.8% Significant change required: changing intent and wording.
5.4% Do not support Recommendation.
If you support the intent of Guidance Recommendation 3 but think it requires a wording change, please provide your revised wording and reason here. [open ended response, optional]
<delete < based on the GGP Guidance Recommendation Report. Indicators of Success: >
If you do not support the Guidance Recommendation 3, please provide your reason here. [open ended response, optional]
<(a) I question the motivation of the GGP Report:
(b) Understandably we do not have indicators of success. Rather the opposite.-
Are there any comments or issues you would like to raise pertaining to the Rationale for Guidance Recommendation 3? If yes, please provide your comments here. [open ended response, optional]
<provide rationale or remove this section>
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————
4. APPLICATION SUBMISSION AND EVALUATION
Guidance Recommendation 4: Make application materials and the application process timely and accessible to diverse potential applicants, with the aim of facilitating successful applications in the Applicant Support Program
Poll result
70.3% Support Recommendation as written
13.5% Support Recommendation intent with wording change
8.1% Significant change required: changing intent and wording.
8.1% Do not support Recommendation.
If you support the intent of Guidance Recommendation 4 but think it requires a wording change, please provide your revised wording and reason here. [open ended response, optional]
<Delete <among those who may need and could qualify for support>
If you do not support the Guidance Recommendation 4, please provide your reason here
The text would give too much arbitrary power to the few individuals charged with making the selection.
Are there any comments or issues you would like to raise pertaining to the Rationale for Guidance Recommendation 4? If yes, please provide your comments here. [open ended response, optional]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. CONTRACTING/DELEGATION
Guidance Recommendation 5: Of all successfully delegated gTLD applications, the goal is that at least 25% of them should be from supported applicants.
Poll result
67.8% Support Recommendation as written
10.8% Recommendation intent with wording change
13.5% Significant change required: changing intent and wording.
8.1% Do not support Recommendation.
If you support the intent of Guidance Recommendation 5 but think it requires a wording change, please provide your revised wording and reason here. [open ended response, optional]
Delete < a certain percentage>
Insert <At least 25 %.>
If you do not support the Guidance Recommendation 5, please provide your reason here. [open ended response, optional]
The text provides unknown and unaccountable powers to filter and reject applications.-
Are there any comments or issues you would like to raise pertaining to the Rationale for Guidance Recommendation 5? If yes, please provide your comments here. [open ended response, optional]
In 2012 the ‘delegated gTLDs’ were exaggerated by extraordinary numbers of EN portfolio applications many of which have subsequently failed.
Unless the continued threat of portfolio applications is under control, that is not a suitable ‘base’ from which to assess successful AP applications.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. ONGOING OPERATIONS OF THE GTLD
Guidance Recommendation 6: ICANN org to investigate the extent to which supported applicants that were awarded a gTLD are still in business as a registry operator after three years.
Poll result
78.4% Support Recommendation as written
8.1% Support Recommendation intent with wording change
5.4% Significant change required: changing intent and wording.
8.1% Do not support Recommendation.
If you support the intent of Guidance Recommendation 6 but think it requires a wording change, please provide your revised wording and reason here. [open ended response, optional]
<Delete < investigate the extent to >,
< Replace with “collect and publish statistics about>”.
This could useful be extended to the 2012 decisions.
If you do not support the Guidance
Recommendation 6, please provide your reason here. [open ended response, optional]
<provide rationale or remove this section>
Are there any comments or issues you would like to raise pertaining to the Rationale for Guidance Recommendation 6? If yes, please provide your comments here. [open ended response, optional]
<The recommendation raises the general issue of poor statistical collection and reporting on ICANN’s part.- There is apparently no branch of ICANN.org <http://icann.org/> which is charged with economics and statistics of the industry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guidance Recommendation 7:
In the scenario that there is inadequate funding for all qualified applicants in the Applicant Support Program, 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, while not hindering the efficiency of the process. In this context the working group agreed to assume, for the sake of equity, that one application equaled one string. This recommendation is made in the context of no additional funding being made available. However, the group recommends that ICANN org give high priority to and make every effort to provide additional funding so that all successful applicants are supported.”
Poll result
75.7% Support Recommendation as written
8.1% Support Recommendation intent with wording change
10.8% Significant change required: changing intent and wording.
5.4% Do not support Recommendation.
If you support the intent of Guidance Recommendation 7 but think it requires a wording change, please provide your revised wording and reason here. [open ended response, optional]
Delete entirely. >
If you do not support the Guidance Recommendation 7, please provide your reason here. [open ended response, optional]
<The text provides a general cop-out against the success of the program.
Are there any comments or issues you would like to raise pertaining to the Rationale for Guidance Recommendation 7? If yes, please provide your comments here. [open ended response, optional]
It is already well known that providing ‘free reductions’ alone is quite inadequate for financing TLD start-ups. The proposal would ensure that a too small amount of money would be wasted on failing projects.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guidance Recommendation 8: To mitigate the risk that the allocation of support under the Applicant Support Program could be diluted to the point of being unhelpful, ICANN org should designate a minimum level of support each qualified applicant must receive, and develop a plan if funding drops below that level.”
Poll result
78.4% Support Recommendation as written
5.4% Support Recommendation intent with wording change
10.8% Significant change required: changing intent and wording.
5.4% Do not support Recommendation.
If you support the intent of Guidance Recommendation but think it requires a wording change, please provide your revised wording and reason here. [o8pen ended response, optional]
Delete entirely.
If you do not support the Guidance Recommendation 8, please provide your reason here. [open ended response, optional]
seems to somewhat contradictory with Recc. 7
Cannot evaluate the Recc. Without budgetary information.
The indications are that ICANN does not , and probably cannot, know what is the “minimum level of support” necessary for success.
Is it just a small reward for daring to apply but no more?
Are there any comments or issues you would like to raise pertaining to the Rationale for Guidance Recommendation 8? If yes, please provide your comments here. [open ended response, optional]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guidance Recommendation 9: ICANN org should develop a flexible, predictable, and responsive Applicant Support Program in order to communicate the results of evaluation process and allow applicants to know their range of support allocations as early as possible in a transparent manner.”
Poll result
78.4% Support Recommendation as written
10.8% Support Recommendation intent with wording change
5.4% Significant change required: changing intent and wording.
5.4% Do not support Recommendation.
If you support the intent of Guidance Recommendation 9 but think it requires a wording change, please provide your revised wording and reason here. [open ended response, optional]
<insert any proposed text by CPWG>
If you do not support the Guidance Recommendation 9, please provide your reason here. [open ended response, optional]
Promote Recc 8 tp recc. 1.
Are there any comments or issues you would like to raise pertaining to the Rationale for Guidance Recommendation 9? If yes, please provide your comments here. [open ended response, optional]
There is no reason why ICANN.org <http://icann.org/> has not done this, several years ago.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Comments and Submission
Are there any issues pertaining to Tasks 3, 4, 5, and/or 6 that the GGP Team has not considered? See the list of tasks on pages 3–4 of the Initial Report. <https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/gnso-guidance-process-applicant-support-guidance-recommendation-initial-report-31-07-2023> Note issues not addressed by these tasks are out of scope of this GGP working group. If yes, please provide details below. [open ended response, optional]
<provide comments or remove this section>
Other comments
Applicant Support would appear to be a prime candidate for joint financing with national and international aid and development agencies.
However, on the basis of these Recommendations and Report, I rather doubt whether any would be prepared to do so,
Are there any other comments or issues you would like to raise pertaining to the Initial Report? If yes, please provide your comments here. If applicable, please specify the section or page number in the Initial Report <https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/gnso-guidance-process-applicant-support-guidance-recommendation-initial-report-31-07-2023> to which your comments refer. [open ended response, optional]
Christopher Wilkinson
6 September 2023.
> On 6 Sep 2023, at 15:00, Hadia El Miniawi via CPWG <cpwg at icann.org> wrote:
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20230906/b83b6c06/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GGP Survey results 6 Sep 2023.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 20124 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20230906/b83b6c06/GGPSurveyresults6Sep2023-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20230906/b83b6c06/attachment-0003.html>
More information about the CPWG
mailing list