[GNSO-GGP-WG] Feedback after listening to the GGP meeting of Oct 2

[Mike Silber]

Thanks for the feedback Maureen

I appreciate your responses on my comments and I will take those into
consideration going forward.

Regards

Mike

On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 at 08:56, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Julie
>
> 1. I finally got to listen to the whole recording of the GGP meeting.. and
> my first comment is that in the last call I attended where we were invited
> to prepare comments for discussion, I too had supported the intent of the
> wording of Gabriel's first recommendation.  I do not agree that the
> additional wording did not add anything. In fact, I felt that the
> addition gave more depth and in fact added "more sense" to our
> recommendation to ensure that more support was given to enhance
> understanding by more prospective applicants.
>
> 2. To belabour that point, with regards to raising awareness and
> engagement I believe that mentoring should also be included as they are all
> means of SUPPORT which is what we are talking about here. Mentoring here
> does not necessarily mean a full mentoring programme. When you are trying
> to raise someone's awareness and to engage them, mentoring in its simplest
> form by a staff or community member is one way to do this. I certainly do
> not feel that this is "muddying" the recommendation at all. In fact, it
> adds to the level of support that some applicants may require.  If the IRT
> believes that it is not appropriate then (as Paul suggested) they or the
> small team can make that decision. But surely, if the GGP team thinks
> mentoring is appropriate then why can it not stay?
>
> 3. As Lawrence suggested, the outreach recommendation that we (the GGP)
> would like to support is to ensure that Org provides enough information
> about the application process, and the purposes of each step along the way,
> so that ANY applicant can assess for themselves whether they would actually
> qualify for ICANN support to continue with the actual application process.
> Information about how an applicant will qualify for applicant support (as
> set by Org) should be accessible by all applicants.
>
> 4. There was concern raised that there may be people who may want to game
> the system, but the criteria for appIicant support which is to be made by
> CANN, should clearly identify whether an applicant qualifies or not, and it
> would be "muddying the waters" to suggest that anyone could benefit
> financially from the applicant support process. ASP information will stress
> that the only support that prospective ASP applicants will receive, will
> only be by way of a discounted application fee and pro-bono support.
>
> 5. In order to forestall questions about where the $$millions that is
> funding the ASP programme, is going.  I am assuming that the funds will go
> back to ICANN to cover the cost of the discounts that they are offering ASP
> applicants (if this is not so, then perhaps someone should be telling us!)
>
> 6. I appreciated Tom Barrett's attempt to reword the current statement
> (supported by Lawrence) to include the GAC's intent to widen the scope of
> applicants who may apply for applicant support especially if they are from
> underserved regions - whether they are for-profit or not-for-profit - but
> the recommendation should point out that the target group is
> not-for-profits. Again, I feel it is appropriate for us to suggest this and
> if the IRT or the small group consider one of the groups "ineligible" then
> it is up to them to withdraw that criteria from the recommendation.
>
> 7. Finally, I was taken aback by the Chair's comment in response to the
> GAC's suggestion to broaden the outreach as "appalling and self-serving"
> which I did not feel was appropriate, nor was his comment that the "GAC and
> BC might be able to bully their way...."  Such comments were uncalled for
> in light of the fact that the public comment was requested from these
> communities and did not deserve such responses from the Chair.
>
> I hope that my travel arrangements go as planned so that I can be at the
> next meeting on the 16th (@4am in NZ!!)
>
> Maureen
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> *Maureen Hilyard*
>
> Development Consultant
>
> Cook Islands Internet Action Group
>
>
>
> *Mobile (Cook Islands) *+682 54641
>
> *Mobile (NZ) *+64 2108192283
>
> *hilyard at oyster.net.ck <hilyard at oyster.net.ck>*
>
> *maureen.hilyard at gmail.com <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com> *
>
> *Linkedin
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/maureen-hilyard-consultant/?original_referer=>*
>
> PO Box 156, Avarua, Rarotonga
>
> COOK ISLANDS
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20231012/f6302964/attachment-0001.html>