[GNSO-GGP-WG] Actions & Notes | GGP WG-Applicant Support at ICANN77 on 13 June at 1530 EDT

Tue Jun 20 14:06:33 UTC 2023

Hello all,

I wanted to circulate GAC advice published on the applicant support
programme - this was a key topic of discussion at ICANN77. Copied and
pasted below (and linked here
<https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/icann77-washington-d-c-communique>).

Kind regards,
Roz

*3. Applicant Support in New gTLD Applications*
a. The GAC advises the Board:

i. To specify ICANN’s plans related to steps to expand financial support
and engage with actors in underrepresented or underserved regions by
ICANN78 in order to inform GAC deliberations on these matters.

ii. To take steps to substantially reduce or eliminate the application fees
and ongoing ICANN registry fees to expand financial support for applicants
from underrepresented or underserved regions.

iii. To take timely steps to facilitate significant global diversification
in the New gTLD program by ensuring increased engagement with a diverse
array of people and organizations in underrepresented or underserved
markets and regions, including by:
● Raising awareness of the Applicant Support Program;
● Providing training and assistance to potential applicants;
● Exploring the potential to support the provision of back-end services;
and
● Providing adequate funding for the Applicant Support Program consistent
with diversification targets.

*RATIONALE *
The GAC reaffirms the importance of increasing the number and geographical
distribution of applications from underrepresented or underserved regions
in future rounds of New gTLDs through the Applicant Support Program. The
GAC reiterates its “support for proposals to substantially reduce or
eliminate the application fees and ongoing ICANN registry fees to expand
financial support” , in order to sufficiently cover all such applications.

Without a substantial reduction in, or financial support for, the
application and ongoing fees, many potential applicants in underrepresented
or underserved regions would be unable to apply due to the status of their
economies, where available capital for ICT/digital initiatives has been
historically limited.

The GAC highlights that non-financial support is also an important element
of an applicant support programme, for example awareness raising, capacity
development services and training. Assisting in the provision of back-end
services may also be appropriate in some cases.

On Sun, 18 Jun 2023 at 17:50, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Julie
>
> Thank you for these notes following up on the discussions from our last
> meeting.
>
> Are we going to be getting a copy of the clean version of this document
> before it goes out for public comment? (so that we can prepare our
> communities as to what it will look like.
>
> How long will public comment take? and when will we be able to include the
> suggestions that came from our communities to assist the IRT with
> identifying measures for success which was the main focus of our first
> discussions (well mine I guess, because I came onto the GGP late)..
>
> The version of the document that was discussed at the DC meeting didn't
> cover a lot of the discussion that took place at our meetings. I was just
> wondering when that additional information was going to be added.
>
> Maureen
>
> On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 12:34 AM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Working Group members,
>>
>>
>>
>> Please see below the action items and brief notes for the GGP WG meeting at
>> ICANN77 on 13 June at 1530-1700 EDT (local time), 1930-2200 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 in *two weeks* on * Monday, 03 July at 2000 UTC*
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Steve and Julie
>>
>>
>>
>> *ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK:*
>>
>>    1. *Staff to insert the finalized text for Tasks 3-6 Recommendation
>>    Guidance into the Report format for WG review.*
>>    2. *WG members to provide comments on 1) any gaps in the rationale or
>>    deliberations summaries for Tasks 3-6; 2) re: Task 3-5 Recommendations
>>    Guidance 5 – whether “applications” should replace “applicants” in, “Of all
>>    successfully delegated gTLD applicants [applications], the goal is that no
>>    fewer than 10, or 0.5 percent (.005), of them were supported applicants
>>    [applications]” and in the text that follows.  If so, please provide a
>>    rationale for the change.*
>>
>> *Notes:*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Draft Agenda*
>>
>> *GGP WG-Applicant Support Working Session at ICANN77*
>>
>> *Tuesday, 13 June at 1530-1700 EDT (local time), 1930-2200 UTC*
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. Welcome
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. Overview of the GGP – see attached slides
>>
>>
>>
>> 3. Review of the Draft Recommendation Guidance: Tasks 3-5 Working
>> Document – see:
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LTHZpqnfyobWqwApefHRYOlOPxrDZ4HBJL8hAvDV5HY/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>>
>>
>> Overview:
>>
>>    - GGP Support Staff noted that the WG has agreed to the
>>    Recommendations Guidance for Tasks 3-5 but has likely not had a chance to
>>    review the new text on the methodology and the rationale and deliberations.
>>    - The GGP Chair noted that because of travel and the timing of the
>>    distribution of the working document the WG members would have additional
>>    time to review the document.  Thus the WG’s next meeting would be postponed
>>    for two weeks to Monday, 03 July.  During the intervening period WG members
>>    could provide comments on gaps, if any, in the rationale and deliberations
>>    for Tasks 3-6.
>>    - GGP Support Staff read through the working document, beginning with
>>    a summary of the methodology the WG followed in the development of the
>>    final draft recommendations for Tasks 3-5.
>>    - Next the staff read the text of each Recommendation Guidance, while
>>    noting that the WG had previously discussed and agreed to the text as
>>    reflected in the redlines and comments.
>>    - In the interest of time staff did not read the text of the
>>    rationale and deliberations but displayed them on screen to be read or via
>>    the link to the document.
>>    - The Chair noted that there would not be time to discuss the revised
>>    text of Recommendation Guidance 3 & 4 of Task 6, but staff noted that the
>>    WG had already had the opportunity to review the text and that it was
>>    accepted with minor typographical (non-substantive) changes.
>>    - Some WG members expressed concern that the Task 3-5 working
>>    document contained redlines and comments when they thought that the text
>>    was already finalized and ready to put out for public comment.
>>    - Some WG members noted that there were issues the WG discussed or
>>    should have discussed that were not covered in the rationale or
>>    deliberations.
>>    - Staff noted that the redlines and comments were included to
>>    illustrate the development of the text as summarized in the rationale and
>>    deliberations and because in previous iterations of the document WG had
>>    expressed concerns when redlines and comments weren’t included because it
>>    was then unclear how the text had been developed.
>>    - Staff also noted that when the clean text is circulated in the
>>    report format for the WG to review, members will have the opportunity to
>>    note any gaps or raise issues that they think should have been discussed
>>    with the appropriate rationale.
>>
>> Recommendation Guidance 1:
>>
>>    - Noting the discussion around “underserved” and that the deletion of
>>    some text resulted in the deletion of the footnote with the definition,
>>    which staff will reinsert.
>>    - Re: Indicators of Success: The Chair noted new suggested text
>>    (shown in brackets) to clarify.  No objections from WG members.
>>       - *Indicators of Success:*
>>       - *Quantitative*: Conversion rates proportionate with industry
>>       standards for online campaigns and in-person events, [with specific metrics
>>       to be determined] in consultation with ICANN org Communications and
>>       applicable contractor(s).
>>       - *Qualitative*: Survey results about quality and clarity of
>>       information that are proportionate with industry standards, [with specific
>>       metrics to be determined in consultation with ICANN org Communications and
>>       applicable contractor(s).]
>>
>> Recommendation Guidance 5:
>>
>>    - Lawrence requested that the WG should discuss the use of
>>    “applications” versus “applicants” in this recommendation (see in brackets
>>    below).
>>    - Staff noted that the WG had already discussed and agreed to
>>    “applicants”, so this would be a new issue and as such it could be raised
>>    in public comment.
>>    - Lawrence emphasized that it was an important distinction to be
>>    discussed and should not have to be raised in public comment.
>>    - The Chair noted that the WG should consider the suggestion in the
>>    final review of text and that it would be helpful if the suggestion could
>>    be accompanied by rationale for the change.
>>    - Staff noted that the action would be captured that WG members could
>>    comment on the text noting any gaps both in the rationale and deliberations
>>    as well as in issue that should have been discussed by the WG but weren’t.
>>
>> Recommendation Guidance 5:  Of all successfully delegated gTLD applicants
>> [applications], the goal is that no fewer than 10, or 0.5 percent (.005),
>> of them were supported applicants [applications]
>>
>> *Indicators of Success:*
>>
>> No fewer than 10, or 0.5 percent (.005), of all successfully delegated
>> gTLD applicants [applications] were supported applicants [applications].
>> *Data/Metrics to Measure Success: 0.*5 percent (.005) of successfully
>> delegated gTLD applicants [applications] are supported applicants
>> [applications].  Note that this percentage is not in relation to the number
>> of strings applied for, or [rather] the number of applicants [applications].
>>
>>
>>
>> 4. AOB
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20230620/cb98900a/attachment-0001.html>