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

Thu Jun 22 18:36:11 UTC 2023

Dear Olga,

The next call is on Monday, 03 July at 2000 UTC for 60 minutes.

Kind regards,
Julie

From: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, June 22, 2023 at 2:33 PM
To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
Cc: "gnso-ggp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-ggp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] Re: [GNSO-GGP-WG] Actions & Notes | GGP WG-Applicant Support at ICANN77 on 13 June at 1530 EDT

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<mailto: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 [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1LTHZpqnfyobWqwApefHRYOlOPxrDZ4HBJL8hAvDV5HY/edit?usp=sharing__;!!PtGJab4!5jF9gtsT4g2v4uBEyZcYR-y3o_GOwWF7hUc2Jx_UePc1jUYa8T6iqd9qTI1TmUTnm4WQz76ynqFJY9qUWtf3VKM7mldWgA$>

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<mailto: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/c04b403c/attachment-0001.html>