[GNSO-GGP-WG] Actions & Notes |GGP WG-Applicant Support Mtg #6 - 06 February 2023 20:00 UTC

[Julie Hedlund]

Dear Working Group members,

Please see below the action items and brief notes for today’s GGP WG meeting.  These also are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GGPGIRFAS/2022+Meetings. Please note that these are not a substitute for the recordings also posted to the wiki.

The next meeting will be in three weeks on Monday, 27 February at 1500 UTC (alternating time).

Kind regards,
Steve and Julie

ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK:

TASKS 3, 4, and 5:

  1.  WG members to continue to provide feedback on indicators of success in the document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KNRUuW7KtBEL0_OcS3Fxd0FouzyI0PFJNV-LCCpRfjg/edit?usp=sharing (set in Editing mode, but select Suggesting).
  2.  ACTION ITEM: Staff to provide input on recommendations in the ODA that do not have dependencies to the GGP WG recommendations, particularly those relating to Pro Bono services.
  3.  ACTION ITEM: Staff to develop a template of a Recommendations Report.
Notes:

Draft Agenda
GGP WG-Applicant Support Meeting #6
Monday, 06 February at 20:00 UTC

1. Welcome & Updates to Statements of Interest (5 min.)

  *   Paul McGrady – Updated SOI to reflect to reflect new law firm.  See new SOI<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Paul+McGrady%2C+SOI>.
2. Continue Discussion of Tasks 3-5 (50 min.) based on homework -- WG members to provide suggestions for indicators of success for the Applicant Support Program lifecycle elements in the Google document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GeUbWy2uhltbVktNJpSxqGAu1l3PZJmOHhvIwxcTk7E/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1GeUbWy2uhltbVktNJpSxqGAu1l3PZJmOHhvIwxcTk7E/edit?usp=sharing__;!!PtGJab4!5xJPcI8wAqtBDP2X1IBbTfs0dy3YbpKpw1ZD5bn5rGaL5XsPko-Y8dZUvuzz7xwUrasRW7MHWzc7YuMaGj5LlLz-F5Zufz6hsQ$>.

  *   Slightly difficult task – measures we should apply, on which we could base the metrics for the program to assess in the future; other option is to make suggestions now on recommendations that can influence the program positively.  Can recognize this we can achieve both.
  *   First two comments are items we could be assessing now --- need to be clear which it is.
  *   In the ALAC CCWG they were considering how to describe the success measures and weren’t sure so they put them in as questions.  Could be thinking more about guidance.
  *   The key question is “what does success look like” – could be diversity of applications is a desired outcome, to include geographic diversity; not-for-profit as well as for profit, and diversity of business models.  Should just be number of successful application.  Count # from diverse backgrounds and successful applications, but also those who were made aware of the program and could fully assess whether an application makes sense for them.
  *   Number of events is easy to count but not a useful measure of success.
  *   Number of events might not be useful.  It is easy but a lazy way of collecting metrics.  Just counting doesn’t mean you are speaking to the right people and helping them make informed choices.’
  *
  *   It would be nice to compare historically – not just putting numbers.
  *   Is it not also success when someone considers the process and decides it’s not for them?
  *   Maybe look at a percentage, not a number.
  *   We need also to account for the feedback we get from those events.
  *   Can we multitask?  Events are an opportunity to get feedback – could we introduce the ASP a few months from now.  Not sure if it is a remit of this group.
  *   Staff could start developing materials now.
  *   Board will make the decision on whether to move forward now without the GGP being complete based on recommendations in the ODA. The GGP also will produce a Recommendations Report for the GNSO Council, which also will go to the Board for consideration.
  *   Interest in the sorts of criteria of what the application process would involve.
  *   Is there a team internally reviewing what forms of Pro Bono services could probably be offered in the next rounds and if those services could be contextualized by regional effects in line with new global developments like Privacy laws.
  *   ICANN will not be providing Pro Bono services but a list and also not funding for them.
  *   It’s not in scope for the WG to provide recommendations on Pro Bono services but can provide recommendations on metrics related to them (which could suggest guidance on the structure of the ASP with respect to these services.
ACTION ITEM: GDS staff to provide input on recommendations in the ODA that do not have dependencies to the GGP WG recommendations, particularly those relating to Pro Bono services.
ACTION ITEM: Staff to develop a template of a Recommendations Report.

3. AOB (5 min.)

Informal get-together (birds of a feather) of people who are in Cancun – schedule is full but might be able to get last-minute room signups.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ggp-wg/attachments/20230206/33c2ff84/attachment-0001.html>