[GNSO-GGP-WG] Actions & Notes |GGP WG-Applicant Support Mtg #13 on 15 May at 1500 UTC

[Olga Cavalli]

Hi colleagues,
my apologies; I was not able to join due to other working commitments.
I will follow up from documents and notes.
Best
Olga

El lun, 15 may 2023 a las 16:04, 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 on
> 15 May.  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 on Monday, 22 May at 2000 UTC.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Steve and Julie
>
>
>
> *ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK:*
>
>    1. *Staff to revise the Task 6 Working Document to capture suggested
>    Recommendation Guidance, assumptions, and deliberations. [COMPLETED – SEE
>    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uoXS6_6VFlg-tOslZFryVVMu7DES9XdubmRcjHa6-X4/edit?usp=sharing
>    <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uoXS6_6VFlg-tOslZFryVVMu7DES9XdubmRcjHa6-X4/edit?usp=sharing>.]*
>    2. *Staff to explore the pros and cons of two options:*
>       1. *OPTION 1:** Wait until all applications are received and
>       evaluated before determining level of support, i.e., based on the number of
>       qualified applicants;*
>       2. *OPTION 2**: Hold a first-in, first-out continuous process while
>       the application window is open and inform qualified applicants that their
>       level of support will be within a range (i.e., 50-75%) – that is, determine
>       if this approach is feasible before all applications are received/evaluated
>       and the window is closed.*
>
> *                                                              i.      **For
> both options, consider the question of timing of when to close the
> application window before the round begins.*
>
>    1. *WG members to add suggestions to the Working Document at
>    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uoXS6_6VFlg-tOslZFryVVMu7DES9XdubmRcjHa6-X4/edit?usp=sharing
>    <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uoXS6_6VFlg-tOslZFryVVMu7DES9XdubmRcjHa6-X4/edit?usp=sharing>.
>    Please **note that when making edits choose the “Suggesting” mode to
>    avoid overwriting other text.*
>
> *Notes:*
>
>
>
> *Draft Agenda*
>
> *GGP WG-Applicant Support Meeting #13*
>
> *Monday, 15 May 2023 at 1500 UTC*
>
>
>
> 1. Welcome
>
>
>
> 2. Begin Discussion of Task 6 – see Draft Working Document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13G807oI3hj61WD-lnBNGo-VpHv11zsdaHTlTvDUacqo/edit?usp=sharing
> [docs.google.com]
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/13G807oI3hj61WD-lnBNGo-VpHv11zsdaHTlTvDUacqo/edit?usp=sharing__;!!PtGJab4!9Wzkd_IVbY5WuH0gev0Stgt010tZu-XOwukrZQkJWWsItbjoYc9QbZbtPGCkPTyzBvv0PwBpBH_S0uO0YRpHjLNMwdFg2ydfiA$>
>  – *note that when making edits choose “Suggesting” to avoid overwriting
> other text.*
>
>
>
> Discussion:
>
>    - Rafik: Assumption – assume we don’t have specific idea about funding
>    to be available.  Is there any guidance?  On fee reduction, can we think
>    about prioritization?
>    - Julie: Assume that ICANN org does not have plans for additional
>    funding.
>    - Mike: Looking at reductions in application fees, or ongoing fee
>    reductions.  Not recommending that ICANN provides cash payments.  We don’t
>    want to constrain the program, so we could look at fee reductions.  As to
>    prioritization – do we recommend that or spread the support evenly over all
>    applicants.
>    - Rafik: so we can start with the assumption, that would be limited
>    funding and we use that as constraint . Org was always very wary about
>    ongoing fee reductions and waivers.
>    - Gabriella: I would like to ask if we have any idea of how many
>    applications the ASP is intended to approve? I suggest to recommend a limit
>    of beneficiaries to have an estimated amount.
>    - Mike: Re: The above comments we’ve suggested that at least 10
>    applicants would be a success – so what happens if we have more? Do we
>    spread the support thinner, or prioritize?
>    - Leon, ICANN org:  I think we discussed last time whether we should
>    look at ASP applicants as a percentage of overall successful applicants, or
>    a concrete figure as a goal. But indeed, I also recall that the figure was
>    around 10.
>    - Lawrence: Reduce the application fee, but consider what it might
>    cost per application.
>    - Maureen: +1 agree that the budget needs to be for at least 10.. but
>    as you say the issue is how do we cater for more than 10.
>    - Sarah: I think this is a better way to look at it - either 10
>    applications or a percentage
>    - Kristy, ICANN org: There is a cost estimate table for ASP in the ODA
>    – see page 334 at:
>    https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/subpro-oda-12dec22-en.pdf.
>    Estimate is per unit of 5 applicants – direct costs to ICANN org.  First we
>    would reduce funding and then talk to the Board about other measures.
>    - Rubens: We should note that ODA has a definition to go against the
>    SubPro report that makes all application support costs to be carried by
>    application fees.  This is simply wrong and the GGP output is a good place
>    to tell them they are wrong, that possibly other funds (such as Auction
>    Proceeds) can be used.
>    - Rafik: @kristy I am confused about the percentage part for the fee
>    reduction. is 75-85%  applicable for 5 or 50 applications? or that decrease
>    every 5 unit?
>    - Mike: We suggested at least  10 for success – should we suggest that
>    ICANN org budget for more than 10?  Or prioritize?
>    - Rubens: Application Support costs would be taken from application
>    fees – that goes against the SubPro recommendation.  It was decided not to
>    specify that in the SubPro Final Report.  If we disagree we should tell
>    them so.
>    - Kristy: We said 75-85% fee reduction, to be determined during
>    implementation. We did not prescribe the number of supported
>    applicants—again to be defined during implementation.
>    - Mike: We should come back to this issue.
>    - Rafik: We can have different scenarios because we might have
>    different ways to divide.  To provide more flexibility, but not to
>    anticipate every case.
>    - Mike: What we should focus on 1) prioritize; or 2) dilute?
>    Possibly: when budgeting don’t use 10 applicants as a determinants, but use
>    a percentage. Recommend that org doesn’t budget on 10.  Secondly, it would
>    look bad if we gave equivalent funding to applicants in developing and
>    developed world, but prioritization puts ICANN in a bad position.  Should
>    be equal for all applicants, unless an applicant has indicated it doesn’t
>    need full support.
>    - Kristy, ICANN org: We explored different levels of support in the
>    ODP.  Also the ODA envisioned an 18-month application period, so we would
>    have to wait until all have applied before determining qualification –
>    which doesn’t give applicants much time.
>    - Lawrence: Where we would like to measure success by the % of
>    applications received, that index would only be available after the entire
>    round is done. It is expedient that we set a number but not less than 25
>    where we are looking at a minimum of 10.
>    - Rubens: Underdeveloped communities can exist within developed
>    regions. Flint, city in Michigan - USA, is a textbook example.
>    - Lawrence: Some regions are not well represented compared to others
>    with cost as a huge constraint, we should seek to drastically reduce those
>    barriers.
>    - Mike: Can we give some early indication of a percentage of support
>    for applicants?
>    - Kristy: We can look into that.
>    - Maureen: Like any application process, then we have to choose the
>    best (most needy) applicants from within the possible qualified applicants.
>    - Gabriela: I think we need to evaluate and rank proposals based on a
>    matrix with weighted factors.
>    - Maureen: There has to be a specific timeframe within which people
>    have to be evaluated.
>    - Lawrence: Lot of value in looking at how we can give early
>    responses, since we are looking at an 18-month application period.  If we
>    have very good applications coming in, we could say we can be sure you
>    would get at least 50% for example.  Could let them know that the
>    application has ticked the right boxes, what level of support is safe to
>    confirm.
>    - Rafik: Are we talking about a pre-evaluation before the final
>    evaluation when all applications are in?
>    - Gabriela: To approve the first applicants would be detrimental to
>    the ones who don’t have any previous experience, and therefore, just the
>    ones we are interesting to have for inclusion.
>    - Kristy, ICANN org: It is an interesting idea – if you qualify here
>    is the range you would get; consider the timing of closing the window prior
>    to the application window – was 4 months, could be 2 months.  That would
>    allow more time but could be too short.
>    - Mike: Don’t think we could say 50%, but could suggest a range.  And
>    2 months is too short.  Hoping that if the communication program is good
>    enough we could have a shorter time. Go back to the question: do we make a
>    single decision at the end of the application process, or do we have a
>    first-in, first-out process. But need guidance on whether we can provide a
>    range of support.
>    - Gabriela: Prefer to wait until all applications are in.
>    - Maureen: I prefer option one.
>    - Sarah: Option one.
>    - Kristy: It might be helpful to take back both options to Finance and
>    Operations to see what is feasible.
>    - Sarah: I think if we do outreach as we have discussed during tasks
>    3-5, we shall have many applications within the specified period.
>    - Maureen: There is too much uncertainty for applicants if the process
>    is drawn out waiting for other people to decide to apply.
>    - Gabriela: Or that we need at least 6 month in advance and clarity
>    and transparency on the criteria.
>    - Steve, Staff: The ODA relies on a $2 million figure, which tracks
>    2012, but doesn’t mean it couldn’t be higher.  The ODA envisions that if
>    funding is exceeded we look first at getting more funding.
>    - Maureen: I’d prefer to go back to option one…where Org makes a
>    decision and then we move ahead with supporting the group that is selected
>    as most needy... rather than drawing out the process.
>    - Mike: An issue is how do we make a recommendation since this is a
>    guidance process?  For next week, are we going to recommend a
>    prioritization of needy applicants?
>    - Gabriela: If we get more than 10, prioritization would be needed.
>
> 3. 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/20230515/5b55f8d6/attachment-0001.html>