[GNSO-GGP-WG] FOR REVIEW: Action Items #1 & #3 | GGP WG-Applicant Support Mtg #15 on 05 June at 1500 UTC
Rosalind KennyBirch
rosalind.kennybirch at dcms.gov.uk
Sat Jun 10 09:52:15 UTC 2023
I also support Rafik/Maureen's suggested changes! :)
On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 at 00:16, Mike Silber <silber.mike at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Maureen
>
> I think that is a positive change and support it!
>
> On Thu, 08 Jun 2023 at 18:25, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Julie and GGP team
>>
>> I like Rafik's proposed merging of the two recommendations into one
>> cohesive recommendation, and if I may, I would like to make some tiny
>> wordsmithing changes.
>>
>> "ICANN Org should develop a flexible and responsive Applicant Support
>> Program that will in order to communicate the results of the evaluation
>> process and allow inform applicants to know about their range of support
>> allocations, as early as possible and in a transparent manner."
>>
>> *Clean version*
>>
>> "ICANN Org should develop a flexible and responsive Applicant Support
>> Program that will communicate the results of the evaluation process and
>> inform applicants about their range of support allocations, as early as
>> possible and in a transparent manner."
>>
>> Maureen
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 3:52 AM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Working Group members,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Per Action Item #1 below, Rafik has provided a suggested revision of
>>> Task 6 Recommendation Guidance 3 & 4 as follows and in the Working Document
>>> at:
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MkFbMitHIwtQyGBVdhfU4BQzfh6rhwGq3UTwBot6UHk/edit?usp=sharing
>>> :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "ICANN Org should develop a flexible and responsive Applicant Support
>>> Program in order to communicate the results of evaluation process and
>>> allow applicants to know about their range of support allocations as early
>>> as possible in transparent manner."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Per Action Item #3 below, WG members are requested to review the
>>> suggested text from Rafik and the redlines based on Monday’s discussion and
>>> provide comments if any in the Working Document at the link above.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Julie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From: *GNSO-GGP-WG <gnso-ggp-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Julie
>>> Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
>>> *Date: *Monday, June 5, 2023 at 3:58 PM
>>> *To: *"gnso-ggp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-ggp-wg at icann.org>
>>> *Subject: *[GNSO-GGP-WG] Actions & Notes | GGP WG-Applicant Support Mtg
>>> #15 on 05 June at 1500 UTC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Working Group members,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please see below the action items and brief notes for the GGP WG meeting
>>> on 05 June at 1500 UTC. These also are posted on the wiki at:
>>> https://community.icann.org/display/GGPGIRFAS/2023+Meetings. Please
>>> note that these are not a substitute for the recordings also posted to the
>>> wiki.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The next meeting will be *during ICANN77 on Tuesday, 13 June at
>>> 1530-1700 EDT (local time), 1930-2200 UTC.* See the ICANN77 Schedule
>>> at: https://icann77.sched.com/event/1NMtv/gnso-guidance-process-for-applicant-support-working-group?iframe=yes&w=&sidebar=yes&bg=no
>>> [icann77.sched.com]
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann77.sched.com/event/1NMtv/gnso-guidance-process-for-applicant-support-working-group?iframe=yes&w=&sidebar=yes&bg=no__;!!PtGJab4!6l5Maz8iy6KaOiEWhXEXzKHAW2lenfbLDtwbQ-LImCzwD_awNpJLM1X5AjtPFv7AYx8-cJ8_s12mwQk7_vBGZWJxxEq51N0uTg$>.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Steve and Julie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK:*
>>>
>>> 1. *Rafik to combine Recommendation Guidance 3 and 4 for WG
>>> consideration.*
>>> 2. *Staff to revise the Task 6 Working Document based on the
>>> discussion and submit it for final review to the WG.*
>>> 3. *WG members to review the final revised version of the Task 6
>>> Working Document.*
>>> 4. *Staff to prepare the Task 3-5 Working Document to include
>>> rationale and deliberations, along with a slide deck, to guide the
>>> discussion at the ICANN77 meeting.*
>>>
>>> *Notes:*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Draft Agenda*
>>>
>>> *GGP WG-Applicant Support Meeting #15*
>>>
>>> *Monday, 05 June 2023 at 1500 UTC*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. Welcome
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2. Work Plan & ICANN77 – see attached slides, #4.
>>>
>>> - Reminder that the WG is on schedule to post the preliminary
>>> Recommendations Guidance Report for public comment in July per the work
>>> plan and timeline.
>>> - The WG is expected to finalize the Task 6 recommendations during
>>> today’s meeting and the Task 3-5 recommendations during the ICANN77 meeting
>>> (noting that the Task 3-5 recommendations have already been discussed, so
>>> WG members will be considering only the rationale and deliberations).
>>> - Staff will insert the text into the Recommendations Guidance
>>> Report format as agreed in the task working documents after ICANN77 for
>>> discussion at the meeting on Monday, 26 June at 2000 UTC. (19 June is a
>>> holiday for the ICANN US offices and also generally meetings aren’t held
>>> the week following an ICANN meeting due to travel.)
>>> - Per the concern that some members of the WG may not be able to
>>> attend the ICANN77 meeting remotely due to time-zone issues, staff
>>> emphasized that nothing would be finalized at that meeting – further
>>> discussion would continue on the list at during the meeting on 26 June.
>>> Staff noted also that WG members will be able to review the text in its
>>> final form in the Recommendations Guidance Report before it is posted for
>>> public comment.
>>> - Mike Silber, Chair, noted that in order to ensure that the Report
>>> is posted for public comment as envisioned by the work plan timeline, the
>>> WG can take no more than two, and preferably one, meeting to finalize the
>>> text of the recommendations, rationalization, and deliberations for all the
>>> tasks.
>>>
>>> 3. Continue Discussion of Task 6 – see Draft Working Document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m_C4abtrloC21hzbTayllfTwBcgIJ5sB5PGHHzgn9kg/edit?usp=sharing
>>> [docs.google.com]
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1m_C4abtrloC21hzbTayllfTwBcgIJ5sB5PGHHzgn9kg/edit?usp=sharing__;!!PtGJab4!4ooPtnYSboxrBdRylUWD1LE1mSTeqjgKdMRIaFzlSKiMDv5WC78m2wYrrevXLLlOsdD-hkduXs3ievrKTslJjynznc4yGMM0cg$> and
>>> attached slides, starting on slide 6.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *ODA:*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Comment from Maureen*: “additional resources such as the portal,
>>> showcase events, brochures, banners. etc are all these included in the
>>> costings that may or may not be ASP-specific but still ASP-related?”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Discussion:
>>>
>>> - As part of the recommendations – Mike suggested adding a footnote
>>> to Recommendation Guidance 1 “that program costs should be dealt with
>>> separately.” More specifically: “sufficient funds for applicant support
>>> doesn't include the funds required for actually running the program, which
>>> should be dealt with separately.
>>>
>>> *Recommendation Guidance 1:*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Comment from Maureen*: “refresh my memory, but can an ASP applicant
>>> use ASP "funds" to purchase post-pro-bono-services? And, apart from a fee
>>> reduction (which would come out of the applicant's share), what else could
>>> an ASP applicant's possible equal allocation be used for?”
>>>
>>> *Comment from Julie, Staff*: Thanks Maureen, as the funding is in the
>>> form of a fee reduction, there would be no "funds" that the applicant could
>>> use to purchase anything. I think what the WG envisioned is that the equal
>>> allocation of funding would only be in the form of an equal fee reduction.
>>> The WG did not discuss how the applicant could "use" the fee reduction.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Discussion:
>>>
>>> - The assumption is that the funding would bein the form of fee
>>> reduction. So there aren’t any funds being provided to an applicant. Then
>>> there's no way to purchase anything, because there's no funds, but also the
>>> pro bono services are free. Not sure what language we need to add to
>>> clarify.
>>> - What if there are additional services that they want to purchase?
>>> How do they get support for that?
>>> - We can make it clearer in the recommendation that the funding is
>>> limited to a fee reduction – add in brackets “[by way of fee reduction]”.
>>> On pro bono services that is clear – we don’t have to say more.
>>> - There is recommendation 17.2, which isn’t in scope for this WG,
>>> which the Board has concerns about: “The Working Group recommends expanding
>>> the scope of financial support provided to Applicant Support Program
>>> beneficiaries beyond the application fee to also cover costs such as
>>> application writing fees and attorney fees related to the application
>>> process.” We don’t have to reference that because it’s not within scope and
>>> is being dealt with separately.
>>> - Mike made some suggested edits in the document to respond to a
>>> question from Gabriella concerning Option 2, to note that that is the
>>> “equitable solution”.
>>>
>>> *Recommendation Guidance 2:*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Comment from Maureen*: “should that not be "allocated" or any other
>>> term that does not imply that the applicant will "receive" any funding?”
>>>
>>> - Good point – suggest change in brackets “[be allocated]” instead
>>> of “receive” as in: “In particular, the Working Group agreed that ICANN org
>>> could determine the minimum level (or floor) of funding each qualified
>>> applicant should receive [be allocated].”
>>> - One WG member asked whether the recommendation provided sufficient
>>> guidance with respect to setting a funding “floor”. ICANN Org GDS staff
>>> agreed that the recommendation guidance as currently written was helpful
>>> guidance because it's establishing that there's a purpose and a goal behind
>>> the allocation of support.
>>>
>>> *Recommendations 3 and 4:*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Comment from Maureen*: “We need to start the process of getting
>>> information out to ALL potential gtld applicants very soon, so that we can
>>> identify who the ASP applicants might be, and to start on the ASP as the
>>> next step! The timing of this whole process is critical. In the interest of
>>> fairness and equity, we cannot rush the ASP but at the same time, we can't
>>> drag it out for other applicants.”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Discussion:
>>>
>>> - This is very specifically in terms of communicating the results of
>>> the evaluation and the likely support that applicants are going to get
>>> after they've already so applied. Not people.
>>> - It is important to highlight transparency and clarity on how much
>>> is the benefit and how many beneficiaries from the very beginning
>>>
>>>
>>> - The timeline needs to give potential applicants time to make an
>>> application or to make a decision about any other direction they may decide
>>> on.
>>> - Wondering if using term “flexible” is appropriate.
>>> - We aren’t going to set a limit but we are going to recommend an
>>> equitable process with a minimum threshold. We rejected Option 3 in our
>>> previous discussion (and as noted in the rationale), which was
>>> prioritization.
>>> - And as a reminder of the process that we're looking at now is that
>>> the working group has discussed these recommendations and has agree to the
>>> terminology. We're really looking at the rationale and deliberations to
>>> make sure that those are clear.
>>> - I think what we're trying to tell stuff is that they must design a
>>> program which allows for timely and transparent communication
>>> - and then give them some flexibility. We're not trying to tell them
>>> what to do here.
>>> - Note that the more prescriptive we are, the more likely the Board
>>> will flag it, the more likely it will go back to Council. It may have to be
>>> the subject of a clarification process, or some sort of other supplemental
>>> recommendation. In other words, it could really get hung up for months and
>>> months. and so to the extent that you guys have an opportunity to say it
>>> must be sufficient. It must be timely. Those are the kinds of things that
>>> will make it easier to get past Council and past the Board, and then
>>> ultimately, those things go to the IRT who decide what's sufficient and
>>> timely.
>>> - Some WG members agreed that it was optimal for the recommendation
>>> to not be overly prescriptive, and in that regard the word “flexible” is
>>> sufficiently clear.
>>> - At least one WG member emphasized that the recommendation was too
>>> vague with respect to the term “flexible.”
>>> - Nonetheless, the Working Group also agreed that it would be
>>> helpful for Rafik to combine Recommendation Guidance 3 and 4 in some
>>> fashion (perhaps as two parts of one recommendation); staff captured this
>>> as an action item.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *ACTION ITEM: Rafik has agreed to combine Recommendation Guidance 3 and
>>> 4 for WG consideration.*
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GNSO-GGP-WG mailing list
>>> GNSO-GGP-WG at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ggp-wg
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GNSO-GGP-WG mailing list
>> GNSO-GGP-WG at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ggp-wg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> GNSO-GGP-WG mailing list
> GNSO-GGP-WG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ggp-wg
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ggp-wg/attachments/20230610/33d274f3/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the GNSO-GGP-WG
mailing list