[GNSO-GGP-WG] FOR REVIEW re: REC 5 | Action Items & Notes | GGP Applicant Support WG Meeting #23 on 6 Nov at 20:00 UTC
Mike Silber
silber.mike at gmail.com
Mon Nov 13 10:03:31 UTC 2023
Thanks Roz and Satish
I am fine with the concept, but I am not sure that the proposed language of
ICANN "adopting" a stretch target is the most appropriate. I will look to
staff guidance as to the implication before I express my support.
Regards
Mike
On Thu, Nov 9, 2023 at 1:59 PM Satish Babu via GNSO-GGP-WG <
gnso-ggp-wg at icann.org> wrote:
> 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.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20231113/9b19ff9d/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the GNSO-GGP-WG
mailing list