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

[Maureen Hilyard]

My apologies that I will not be in the room for the IRT meeting, but will
be in the zoom room in case there are any references to the work of the GGP.

M

On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 10:45 AM Leon Grundmann <leon.grundmann at icann.org>
wrote:

> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20231026/7a2bf7c8/attachment-0001.html>