[GNSO-GGP-WG] Action Items & Notes | GGP Applicant Support WG Meeting #22 on 16 Oct at 15:00 UTC
Julie Hedlund
julie.hedlund at icann.org
Mon Oct 16 17:10:48 UTC 2023
Dear Working Group members,
Please see below the action items and notes for the GGP WG Applicant Support meeting on Monday, 16 October at 15:00 UTC.
Kind regards,
Steve & Julie
Action Items:
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 -- 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 5 -- ICANN org to provide guidance on the feasibility of providing the data suggested by Com Laude (comparing rates of delegation).
Notes:
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:
* Staff: Summary of previous discussion -- 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
* See the text that Tom had suggested.
* Don’t think this is aligned with what we are trying to do.
* Share that concern.
* Do we need to provide a response to the commenters?
* Staff: 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 support 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/e56f9a41/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the GNSO-GGP-WG
mailing list