[GNSO-GGP-WG] Actions & Notes | GGP WG-Applicant Support at ICANN77 on 13 June at 1530 EDT
Mike Silber
silber.mike at gmail.com
Tue Jun 20 14:27:27 UTC 2023
Thank you for sharing Roz!
On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 at 16:07, Rosalind KennyBirch via GNSO-GGP-WG <
gnso-ggp-wg at icann.org> wrote:
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/a3587078/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the GNSO-GGP-WG
mailing list