[GNSO-GGP-WG] FOR REVIEW re: REC 5 | Action Items & Notes | GGP Applicant Support WG Meeting #23 on 6 Nov at 20:00 UTC
Satish Babu
sbabu at ieee.org
Thu Nov 9 10:42:14 UTC 2023
Dear all
The ALAC team has the following observations on the Rec 5 wording.
The original recommendation says "No fewer than...", which already
indicates that it is a floor and not a ceiling. Therefore the new text
sounds somewhat repetitive.
We would like to propose the following alternative language the group's
consideration:
ICANN must ensure that, of all successfully delegated gTLD applications, 10
or 0.5 percent (0.005), were from supported applicants. This should be
considered a floor, not a ceiling, and ICANN should strive to exceed this
minimum in order to achieve the aim of facilitating geographic
diversification within the new gTLD program.
With kind regards
satish
On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 9:47 PM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
wrote:
> Dear Working Group members,
>
>
>
> Further to the following action item, please review the compromise
> language suggested by Roz below, taking into consideration the discussion
> during yesterday’s meeting with respect to Guidance Recommendation 5:
>
>
>
> *Action Item 5:* For Recommendation 5, suggest new language that
> indicates the desire for a stretch goal without necessarily putting in a
> specific number.
>
>
>
> Suggested compromise language in brackets from Roz:
>
>
>
> *Recommendation 5: Indicators of Success: *No fewer than 10, or 0.5
> percent (.005), of all successfully delegated gTLD applications were from
> supported applicants. [*This should be a floor, not a ceiling, and as
> such ICANN should stretch beyond this minimum, to achieve the aim of
> facilitating geographic diversification within the new gTLD program.]*
>
>
>
> *Please indicate on the list in response to this message if you have any
> objections to the above language or any suggestions for an alternate
> approach.*
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Steve & Julie
>
>
>
> *From: *GNSO-GGP-WG <gnso-ggp-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Steve
> Chan <steve.chan at icann.org>
> *Date: *Monday, November 6, 2023 at 7:56 PM
> *To: *"gnso-ggp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-ggp-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[GNSO-GGP-WG] Action Items & Notes | GGP Applicant Support WG
> Meeting #23 on 6 Nov at 20:00 UTC
>
>
>
> Dear Working Group members,
>
>
>
> Please see below the action items and notes for the GGP WG Applicant
> Support meeting on Monday, 6 November at 20:00 UTC.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Julie and Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Action Items:*
>
>
>
> *Action Item 1:* For Recommendation 6, capture nuance that countdown for
> 3 three years starts from delegation, which can be further refined during
> implementation.
>
> *Action Item 2:* For Recommendation 6, replace with “future” rounds or
> “subsequent procedures”
>
> *Action Item 3:* For Recommendation 6, add “periodic” and “comparative
> review” elements.
>
> *Action Item 4:* For Recommendation 7 rationale, note that the team has
> made a deliberate decision to not prioritize.
>
> *Action Item 5:* For Recommendation 5, suggest new language that
> indicates the desire for a stretch goal without necessarily putting in a
> specific number.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Notes:*
>
>
>
> *Welcome and SOIs *
>
> - None
>
>
>
> *Public comment review for Guidance Recommendations 6-9*
>
>
>
> *Recommendation 6*
>
> - All comments are grouped in the green section. 1-7 support as
> written.
> - NCSG comment seems to suggest parsing out the data, but this may be
> covered in the implementation guidance.
> - ICANN org suggests making the recommendation forward looking, so
> using “next round” or “subsequent procedures”
> - Suggestion that more specificity is needed to determine when the 3
> year countdown begins. For .kids, the TLD was only just delegated. Registry
> operator implies that the contract has been signed, so at a minimum, this
> must be the case. There are requirements for timeline to delegate a gTLD.
> - Suggestion that the nuance can be captured in the rationale.
>
>
>
> *Action Item:* For Recommendation 6, capture nuance that countdown for 3
> three years starts from delegation, which can be further refined during
> implementation.
>
> *Action Item:* For Recommendation 6, replace with “future” rounds or
> “subsequent procedures”
>
>
>
> - Suggestion for minor textual changes per Maureen’s email.
> - Suggestion that it might be helpful to look at the timeframe beyond
> just 3 years. Perhaps helpful to add periodic checks thereafter. Can add
> after three years “…and periodically thereafter.” It might also be helpful
> to add in possibility to compare rates against non-supported applicants.
> - IRT was looking at issues that blur policy versus implementation.
> Therefore, the IRT might welcome additional guidance from the GGP.
> - We are currently in the first pass of reviewing all recommendations,
> which leaves the opportunity to revisit recommendations as needed.
>
>
>
> *Action Item:* For Recommendation 6, add “periodic” and “comparative
> review” elements.
>
> *Recommendation 7*
>
> - Support from 7 respondents for recommendation as written
> - ICANN org notes concerns inconsistencies between recommendations
> 7-9, unless considered to be interdependent. Also worried about potential
> inconsistency with IDNs EPDP recommendation.
> - NCSG wonders if prioritization is worthwhile, even if it is a
> difficult task. Concerns that this prioritization might be out of scope.
> - Prioritization has been discussed before, but to do so now will
> challenge timelines. Agreement that prioritization in this context is not
> warranted and it’s better to focus on ensuring additional funds are
> available if this circumstance arises. In addition, the team has made a
> deliberate decision to not prioritize.
>
>
>
> *Action Item:* For Recommendation 7 rationale, note that the team has
> made a deliberate decision to not prioritize.
>
>
>
> - It may be helpful to note that recommendations 7, 8, and 9 should be
> considered interdependent.
> - Curiosity about who/what determines funding for ASP. The question is
> out of scope for this group. There is a recommendation already adopted by
> the Board that a funding plan must be developed during implementation.
> - Reminder that recommendation 3 asks that adequate resources be
> allocated to ensure the goals of the program are achieved.
>
>
>
> *Recommendation 5*
>
> - It may sound like going from 1 to 10 ASP applicants is success, but
> this does not seem like it goes far enough. There is a perception that the
> GGP is validating that even only 10 successful applicants means the program
> has succeeded.
> - There were several successful applicants from the Global South who
> ended up operating their gTLDs. Running a registry is running a business
> and it needs registrants in order to be successful. It may also be helpful
> to look at domains under management in ccTLDs where in some instances,
> there are few DUMs.
> - Applicants from the previous round may not have known they might
> qualify for ASP. They would therefore be able to invest more in the
> registry’s operations.
> - The purpose of having a number and a percentage is to help account
> for a very large number of applications.
> - Potential pro bono service provider capacity can accommodate more
> than the goal of this program.
> - The GAC wants the program to be ambitious. Maybe helpful to identify
> a stretch target which helps address the GAC’s concern without unduly
> setting the program for success (e.g., receiving 19/20 successful
> applications). Setting too ambitious of a goal can create an avenue for the
> program to be attacked as a failure.
> - Need to be careful to not make recommendations too prescriptive as
> can be seen from the SubPro recommendations, the Board may push back
> against something overly prescriptive.
> - Suggested text from Roz: Indicators of Success: No fewer than 10, or
> 0.5 percent (.005), of all successfully delegated gTLD applications were
> from supported applicants and a stretch target of 175-315 successfully
> delegated gTLD applications, based on the target range identified in the
> results of the Expression of Interest Survey - Applicant Support Pro Bono
> Service Providers.
> - Continued concern with the overly ambitious number of a number in
> the range of 175+. Identify a stretch target as 50, and reference this as a
> GAC a position. This is already 5 times the agreed upon target of the GGP.
> Suggestion to include goals of the program (e.g., fostering diversity and
> choice).
> - The numbers in the survey are in relation to the number of providers
> not applicants that have indicated their intention to apply.
>
>
>
> *Action Item:* For Recommendation 5, suggest new language that indicates
> the desire for a stretch goal without necessarily putting in a specific
> number.
>
>
>
> - Another suggestion for text revision: Indicators of Success: No
> fewer than 10, or 0.5 percent (.005), of all successfully delegated gTLD
> applications were from supported applicants. This should not prevent a
> stretch target, to achieve the aim of achieving greater global
> diversification of the new gTLD application program.
>
>
>
> *Recommendation 8:*
>
> - All respondents support the recommendation, with the NCSG and GAC
> providing some input.
> - ICANN org has some concerns about exceeding minimum level of
> support. What to do in this scenario?
> - It is important to ensure that successful applicants have a sense of
> how much support they will receive. That is the goal, at least partially,
> for recommendation 8.
> - Will pick back up with this recommendation at the next meeting.
>
>
>
> *Recommendation 9:*
>
> - N/A
>
>
>
> *AOB*
>
> - N/A
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Steven Chan*
>
> VP, Policy Development Support & GNSO Relations
>
>
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
>
> Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
>
>
>
> Email: steve.chan at icann.org
>
> Skype: steve.chan55
>
> Mobile: +1.310.339.4410
>
>
>
> Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=o7Auz997kA-HPv9PHJCjFVZw7Pgo8krw4MxfqCwBrIU&e=>
>
> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNSO&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=kWw4fQPNjw2lVKy1UjTxS2F0BmjEAzaDFWNmsYywbmE&e=>
>
> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are
> located on the GNSO Master Calendar
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-2Dactivities_calendar&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=-L6chFfv0OperrXHHpTF722WnH3FZIutn4cS16IvpOg&e=>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20231109/6a1ba40c/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the GNSO-GGP-WG
mailing list