[GNSO-GGP-WG] Action Items & Notes | GGP Applicant Support WG Meeting #22 on 16 Oct at 15:00 UTC

[Leon Grundmann]

Dear Working Group Members,

As you may remember, there were some questions for ICANN org around which (developing) regions and countries might have a high demand for pro bono services, or which might have a high supply of pro bono service providers. We do plan to present on this topic at the SubPro Implementation Review Team (IRT) session at ICANN78 in Hamburg on Thursday 26 October at 09:00-10:00 CEST (07:00-08:00 UTC). See the session link here: https://icann78.sched.com/event/1T4Kf/gds-subsequent-procedures-irt-3-of-3 (there, you will also find the agenda [https://community.icann.org/x/OwDCDw] with further information and access to the slide deck).

As promised, I have taken the other questions forward to the team and will return to those at our next meeting on the 30 October.

Looking forward to hopefully having you attend the SubPro IRT ICANN78 session on Applicant Support!

Best regards and thank you Julie and Steve for keeping this process moving along,
Leon Grundmann (ICANN org GDS Liaison to the GGP on Applicant Support)

P.S. - As a side note: we have reopened our survey for Expressions of Interest from potential pro bono service providers<https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-seeks-pro-bono-service-providers-for-applicant-support-program-01-06-2023-en> for the Applicant Support Program (it closed on 31 August, but is now reopened) – if you or anybody you know would be suitable for this, please do not hesitate to participate in the survey or to share it with someone who can (if applicable).

It is also available in the following languages (UN6):

Español / Spanish: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdLTMlRA-S7HyAt-9g7Oga8SuMAWdnNHXGmULVk0jC7SpCaFQ/viewform?usp=sharing

English: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdolczIynMqbbbrhHL4o8_9Bj6X5bX1TYT_ugZKpzseKvvm-A/viewform?usp=sharing

العربية / Arabic: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfyjutyTzzTVy2nKmKhq5mNxorEG6A3Wy-O7MkFzefPt6l3EQ/viewform?usp=share_link

Pусский / Russian: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeK2DL75o-tn6urpj2dTxRLmVArMhPqgPComcsVbl5Bzek4hA/viewform?usp=share_link

Français / French: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScD_C7kccFSHaY2x2Hun_wZZQtalpXs_QGtnfIVtnD6hmk-ag/viewform?usp=share_link

中文 / Chinese:https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScsbSAJQCq9XAuDZ5nOsok63S4VqGP3svkc1oFhfzb_2jsw6A/viewform?usp=share_link

From: GNSO-GGP-WG <gnso-ggp-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
Date: Monday, 16 October 2023 at 19:10
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 #22 on 16 Oct at 15:00 UTC

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/20231023/cecc5c7d/attachment-0001.html>