[GNSO-GGP-WG] GGP Applicant Support WG Meeting #22 on 16 Oct at 15:00 UTC

[Julie Hedlund]

From: GNSO-GGP-WG <gnso-ggp-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org>
Date: Friday, October 13, 2023 at 1:02 PM
To: "gnso-ggp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-ggp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: [GNSO-GGP-WG] GGP Applicant Support WG Meeting #22 on 16 Oct at 15:00 UTC

Dear Working Group members,

Please see below the proposed agenda for the GGP WG Applicant Support meeting on Monday, 16 October at 15:00 UTC.


  1.  Welcome and SOIs
  2.  Public comment review for Guidance Recommendations 2-9: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ODG6uTTbaWlANMnA-uDrF9WSMBgnPJ5Io4RtQC0N32o/edit#gid=1846629737 [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ODG6uTTbaWlANMnA-uDrF9WSMBgnPJ5Io4RtQC0N32o/edit*gid=1846629737__;Iw!!PtGJab4!4PrAZpMXhbG_tmsS3i_zD9lqjlxD4cR3JROgpeVsCANpgOtVbGhpeYA4xHfb3yjp8k3lnhuPv0z70VjIJgb0i8TPUaqDVQ$>

Rec 1:

  *   Steve, staff: Broad agreement to accept the suggestion from Com Laude with Tom’s suggestion to include “private-sector entities” in the list of entities that should not be excluded. 11:05
  *   Lawrence: See the text that Tom had suggested.
  *   Rafik: Don’t think this is aligned with what we are trying to do.
  *   Mike: Share that concern.
  *   Lawrence: Do we need to provide a response to the commenters?
  *   Steve: We usually just capture the high-level response and put summary text into column D.
ACTION ITEM: Rec 1 -- Add GGP Team Response (suggested text): “"Target potential applicants from the not-for-profit sector, social enterprises and/or community organizations from under-served and developing regions and countries. This should not exclude any entities from outreach efforts, such as private sector entities [from developing/underrepresented regions], recognizing the goal is to get as many qualifying applicants as possible."

Rec 2:

  *   Summary: 8 responders without wording changes. BC comments don’t suggest changes.  NCUC suggests responding to 17.2, but this WG has consistently agreed that this is out of scope. NCSG comment had a question about whether the last part of the recommendation is an indicator of success, but the structure of the recommendation is consistent – that it states the goal and the indicator of success is captured separately.
  *   NCSG comment is more about clarification.
  *   GGP will add a response is column D.
  *   GAC comment – Support with Wording Change: Would like to add a few other elements.
  *   GAC: It would be helpful to clarify that ICANN has a role to facilitate, more proactivity.
  *   The word “recruit” should be okay, but could be problematic to including mentoring programs – is there a compromise of ICANN’s neutrality?  We discussed not putting ICANN in the middle of pro-bono support.
  *   GAC: Could we support removing “and mentoring programs”?
  *   The key issue is the reference to vetting and suggestion to put ICANN in the middle.
  *   Since this has been done with registrars in the past there could be a way to avoid risk.
  *   Not expecting for ICANN to take an active role in vetting.
  *   Don’t think we can compare with collaboration with registrars.  Not sure ICANN can do more than just listing service providers – not vetting in particular.
  *   Concern about how ICANN communicates with the applicants about its role.  Want to make sure that the pro-bono services meet the needs of applicants.
  *   There is value in that – question to ICANN org: how do we find out what applicants need?
  *   Staff: Think the IRT would have a pretty good sense of what the applicants need.  ICANN or could address that.
  *   Add language that the ASP has identified the areas where applicants need assistance, but hear from ICANN org first.
  *   Outreach in Rec 1 would also help.
ACTION ITEM: Rec 2 -- ICANN org to formulate a response with respect to potential concerns, as well as applicants’ pro-bono needs, and bring it back to the WG to consider.

Rec 3:

  *   GAC comment/wording change: Clarify what is meant by “resources”.
  *   Suggestion: This one is talking about the “how”. Could add into implementation Guidance.
Rec 4:

  *   Summary: All 8 respondents support recommendation as written.
  *   Could add Implementation Guidance to address multiple language support and timeliness.
Rec 5:

  *   Com Laude comments suggest adding nuance to the recommendation – a deeper analysis of supported applications versus non supported.
  *   Gets complicated; might raise more questions. How to add this and how it could be used.
  *   This recommendation might be misunderstood – we looked at it as a superficial measure.  This seems to be an additional recommendation.
  *   Maybe providing additional information to the community on success of supported applications.  ICANN org could have different ways of measuring. It is a nice to have, but would require additional expenses; there might already be a mechanism to capture this.
  *   Would be helpful to get feedback on from ICANN org.  Could be Implementation Guidance.
  *   Suggestion of the comment that looking only at delegation rates is insufficient.  One way to add this is to capture these types of metrics without being ACTION ITEM: Rec 5 -- ICANN org to provide guidance on the feasibility of providing the data suggested by Com Laude (comparing rates of delegation).

3. AOB: Next Steps

  *   No call at ICANN78.
  *   Meeting on 30 Oct.
  *   Get through these comments as quickly as possible.
  *   Deliver the report in Dec or before.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ggp-wg/attachments/20231016/8d228b5b/attachment-0001.html>