[GNSO-GGP-WG] Actions & Notes | GGP WG-Applicant Support Meeting #16 on Monday, 03 July at 2000 UTC

[Julie Hedlund]

Dear Working Group members,

Please see below the action items and brief notes for the GGP WG meeting #16 on Monday, 03 July at 2000 UTC.  Please note that these are not a substitute for the recordings also posted to the wiki.

The next meeting will be on Monday, 10 July at 1500 UTC.

Kind regards,
Steve and Julie

ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK:

Draft Guidance Recommendation Initial Report Section 3:

  1.  Staff to revise per the WG discussion at the meeting on 03 July and produce a clean version for WG members for final review.
Draft Guidance Recommendation Initial Report “boilerplate” sections:

  1.  Staff to provide the Draft Guidance Recommendation Initial Report “boilerplate” sections.
  2.  WG members to review.
Notes:

Draft Agenda
GGP WG-Applicant Support Meeting #16
Monday, 03 July at 2000 UTC

1. Welcome

2. Review of Draft Guidance Recommendation Initial Report Section 3 (the section of the Report with the Guidance Recommendations for Tasks 3-6 and deliberations)  – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xY6IPPfVNcND_AFy1Qw7KJss_hqaNJRn-fwo0LtRenI/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xY6IPPfVNcND_AFy1Qw7KJss_hqaNJRn-fwo0LtRenI/edit?usp=sharing%20%5bdocs.google.com%5d>

a. Tasks 3-5

  *   One WG member asked whether the WG should be providing guidance concerning the budget, but the WG chair, support staff, and ICANN Org staff confirmed that the budget is a task for ICANN Org and it out of scope for this WG.
Tasks 3 and 4 – Analyzing and prioritizing metrics:
Para 1 & 2: Additional text from staff: No WG concerns.

Task 5

Para 1: Additional text from staff: No WG concerns.

Para 2: Sentences 1 & 2:
Comments from Roz 22 June: “I think this needs to be rephrased a bit more strongly to note that because of the limited scope, it was difficult to be fully ambitious with recommendations - for example, we put forward high levels of ambition for the applicant support programme, but then were briefed by staff back in April/May that some limits may not be achievable due to operational constraints (hence, we would like to recommend further operational resources are dedicated to the programme). It therefore becomes a bit of a chicken and egg situation!”
Comments from Maureen 01 July: “👍 While the GAC and At-Large (CPWG) are aligned with regard to  enhanced support for applicants from underserved etc regions, as GGP reps in our last meeting with the CPWG, I must mention that we were reminded by Justine Chew that as advocators for those who may be deserving ASP candidates, we cannot allow ourselves to veer into operational areas that are technically not our "brief". That being said, there are end-user issues that, while they may be "out of scope" of our brief, were important to both GAC and the ALAC and I appreciate that some of these  differing views have been conveyed in the explanatory notes that have been attached.”
Additional text from staff: “Furthermore, at least one Working Group member noted that because of the limited scope it was difficult to be fully ambitious with recommendations.
Additional text from Roz: “However, due to operational briefings and feedback from ICANN staff to the working group, the group lowered some of the initially proposed high-level targets (for example, 5 percent of applicants to be successful) based on information staff provided about operational constraints.”
Comments from Maureen 22 June: “It was interesting that Org is offering pro bono services to ALL applicants (unless I heard that wrong in DC) but if so, that would be fine for ICANN because it is at no cost to them, but it may overload the services with having to deal with people who are not the ones we have identified as deserving of this specialist support. ASP applicants will not therefore get full quality level of support from these services if the service providers have to spread themselves across everyone who takes advantage of their free services.”

Discussion:

  *   One WG member wondered whether it would be useful to include in the deliberations or in a footnote some details about the operation constraints provided by ICANN Org, but the Chair noted and WG members agreed that it was not necessary to go into that level of detail.
Life-Cycle Elements

1. Communications/Awareness

Title: Comments from Maureen 01 July: “ I agree with the inclusion of  "communications" which has become more of the outreach focus than was given in the past but which we have said is going to be more important this time to make sure that the correct messages get out to inform more potential applicants rather than through physical outreach meetings.”

Discussion:  WG members agreed to change the title to Communications & Outreach/Awareness.

Implementation Guidance: Comments from Roz 22 June: “Not to unnecessarily re-open the conversation, but based on feedback we received from the GAC and other community members at ICANN77, many made a push for prioritising comms also on private sector companies, who have good potential to become self-sustaining after several years (perhaps in comparison to non-profits, etc). I know Lawrence made this point before too, so think that maybe this could be included as an additional priority target for outreach?”
Indicators of Success: Text from Roz: add “and pre-agreed”.

  *   The WG members from the GAC and CSG noted that communications also should be prioritized as a target for private sector companies from underserved regions.  The Chair and other WG members noted however that the issue of whether to prioritize communications and outreach to private sector companies was previously discussed extensively (note above also in the methodology section) and the WG generally agreed that while not specifically called out in the guidance recommendation, private sector companies would not be excluded from communications and outreach.
  *   WG members agreed to the text changes suggested by Roz.
Rationale: Text from staff – No concerns from WG members.

2. Business Case

Qualitative measurements: Comments from Roz 22 June: “Can we be clearer in defining "entities that chose not to participate" - eg "ultimately chose not to submit an application"? We need to capture if applicants who chose to walk away did so because the pro bono service provision was inadequate/not sufficiently helpful”
Text from staff in brackets: “[ultimately chose not to submit an application]”
Comment from staff: “Hmm, to Roz's point, this is an important measure of success, but it's stuck under pro bono services. I don't think the intention was to say that an applicant will decide against applying b/c of pro bono services but rather, they're fully informed but make a conscious decision that a gTLD is not for them. Maybe this belongs in section 4? Or elsewhere?”

Discussion: WG members agreed to move the text identified by Roz to section 4.

Rationale: Text from staff – WG members had no comments or concerns about the suggested added text.

Deliberations:
Para 3, last sentence: “ For example, success is also taking something through the journey, and potential applicants may decide not to apply [for a variety of reasons.] [because they realize they don't have a compelling business case.]”
Comments from Roz 22 June: “Was this the exact phrase used by a working group member? Conscious that part of encouraging the diversification of the DNS market / the programme is to help businesses to build a good business case/run a successful TLD. I worry this phrase potentially misconstrues that”

Discussion: WG members accepted the revised text proposed by staff.

Paras 4 & 5: Various text suggestions from Roz and staff -- No concerns from WG members.

3. ICANN Org Set Up of Applicant Support Program for Success

Qualitative measurements re: “program” – Comments from Roz 22 June: “Re-reading this recommendation - it seems very similar to raising awareness, above. Should we provide an additional ambitious recommendation specifying that several million be provided to cover successful applicants, for example?”

Discussion: WG members did not specifically discuss this suggestion.

Rationale: Text from staff – No concerns from WG members.

Deliberations: Minor text suggestions from Roz/staff – No concerns from WG members.

4. Application Submission and Evaluation:

Data/Metrics to Measure Success re: “process” – Comments from Roz 22 June: “Again, re-reading - do we need a specific timeline as an indicator of success to speak to the 'timely' point above?”

Discussion: WG members generally agreed that recommending a specific timeline was not possible and would unnecessarily constrain the IRT.

Rationale: Text from staff – No concerns from WG members.

Deliberations re: “This language was stricken to avoid suggesting that the Applicant Support Program could somehow ensure success of an application.” – Comments from Roz 22 June: “I would contest this notion - we need to ensure the ASP does deliver more successful applicants, and thus, stronger and more credible submissions. It is imperative we do not have only 1 submission that meets requirements” and “Rationale clarifies this below, but want to really emphasise this point.”

  *   Staff added text in the deliberations to emphasize the point.
Last para/sentence: “ICANN Org noted that it does not have an ICANN Learn module on the Applicant Support Program, but there have been discussions on whether or how to do that.” Comments from Roz 22 June: “Should we as a GGP consider recommending that an ICANN Learn module on the ASP be developed?”

Discussion: WG members generally agreed that a guidance recommendation for ICANN Org to create an ICANN Learn module on the Applicant Support Program was out of scope.

5. Contracting/Delegation

Guidance Recommendation: Comments from Roz 22 June: “It's worth reflecting on feedback from the GAC during ICANN77 that .5%/no fewer than 10 seemed low ambition. Some GAC members informally suggested raising the floor to 20 successful applicants and raising the percentage to 5%. Again, not trying to reopen unnecessarily, but this is likely to be fed in in a formal public comment so might be worth reflecting in our work now”

Also re: Comments at 13 June meeting from Lawrence: “Consider revising this to count as applications, not applicants (considering that a single supported applicant may receive support for more than one application).” And “Mike to review previous discussions to determine if captured correctly. If not definitive from previous discussions, then note disagreement in summary of Rationale and deliberations.”
Note staff has suggested changes in text to “applications” instead of “applicants” as follows:

Guidance Recommendation 5: Of all successfully delegated gTLD applications, the goal is that a certain percentage no fewer than 10, or 0.5 percent (.005), of them should be from supported applicants.were supported applicantions.s
Indicators of Success:
No fewer than 10, or 0.5 percent (.005), of all successfully delegated gTLD applications were from supported applicants.
Data/Metrics to Measure Success: 0.5 percent (.005) of successfully delegated gTLD applications are from supported applicants.  Note that this percentage is not in relation to the number of strings applied for, rather the number of applications.

Discussion: The WG agreed to further consider the suggested edits.

Deliberations re: Roz’s comments and staff suggestion to delete text. -- No concerns from WG members.

6. Ongoing Operations of the gTLD

Rationale: Text from staff -- No concerns from WG members.

Deliberations: Minor suggested text changes from Roz. -- No concerns from WG members.

b. Task 6

Guidance Recommendation 7

Text suggested by Roz 22 June: “ This recommendation is made in the context of no additional funding being made available, however the group recommends that ICANN Org, as a high priority, makes every effort to provide additional funding so that all successful applicants are supported.”

Discussion: The WG did not discuss this suggestion.

Rationale: Text added by staff -- No concerns from WG members.

Guidance Recommendation 8:

Rationale: Text added by staff -- No concerns from WG members.

Guidance Recommendation 9: Revised text from Rafik review by WG.  No concerns from WG members.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ggp-wg/attachments/20230706/7225f59a/attachment-0001.html>