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

[Olga Cavalli]

Dear Julie,
many thanks.
When is our next call?
best regards
Olga

El vie, 16 jun 2023 a las 9:34, Julie Hedlund (<julie.hedlund at icann.org>)
escribió:

> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ggp-wg/attachments/20230622/180a91d3/attachment.html>