[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 11:58:07 UTC 2023
Hi Roz
Thanks. We are fine with the tweak that you've suggested.
With kind regards
satish
On Thu, Nov 9, 2023 at 5:23 PM Kennybirch, Rosalind (DSIT) <
rosalind.kennybirch at dsit.gov.uk> wrote:
> Thank you Satish for this positive suggestion,
>
>
>
> I would support this with a small tweak to be in line with the compromise
> language the group supported on Monday’s call:
>
> - 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 *by adopting a stretch target* in order to
> achieve the aim of facilitating geographic diversification within the new
> gTLD program.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Roz
>
>
>
> *From: *GNSO-GGP-WG <gnso-ggp-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Satish
> Babu via GNSO-GGP-WG <gnso-ggp-wg at icann.org>
> *Date: *Thursday, 9 November 2023 at 10:43
> *To: *gnso-ggp-wg at icann.org <gnso-ggp-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [GNSO-GGP-WG] FOR REVIEW re: REC 5 | Action Items & Notes
> | GGP Applicant Support WG Meeting #23 on 6 Nov at 20:00 UTC
>
> 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/20231109/41d7f8e0/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the GNSO-GGP-WG
mailing list