[GNSO-GGP-WG] Actions & Brief Notes | GGP Applicant Support WG Meeting #19 on 18 Sept at 2000 UTC

[Julie Hedlund]

Dear Working Group members,

Please see below the action items and brief notes for the GGP WG Applicant Support meeting on Monday, 18 September at 2000 UTC.

Kind regards,
Steve and Julie

Draft Agenda
GGP WG-Applicant Support Meeting #19
Monday, 18 September at 2000 UTC

ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK:


  1.   Staff to schedule 60-minute meetings every Monday for the rest of September/October, up until ICANN78, taking mind of IGF 8-12 Oct.
  2.   WG members to review public comments for recommendation 1 in advance of the 25 Sept meeting, in particular the more substantive comments from the NCSG, Gabriel Karsan, Com Laude, and BC.
  3.  WG members to review also public comments for recommendation 2 in advance of the 25 Sept meeting.

Notes:

1. Welcome & SOIs

  *   No SOI updates.

2. Work Plan and Meetings

a. Review Work Plan
b. Determine Length and Frequency of Meetings



  *   Reviewing work plan. Concluded public comment period on 11 September although there were two requests for extension. The request was granted to the GAC and NCSG specifically, though the overall comment period was not extended.
  *   This partial extension better allows this group to maintain its schedule, given dependencies with the SubPro implementation. The goal was to allow for flexibility, but still seek to maintain this group’s schedule, by allowing review of all of other comments already received.
  *   However, this approach means we may need to return to public comment reviews for recommendations already reviewed, once the GAC comments come in.
  *   In order to meet deliverable dates, may need to consider a different meeting cadence (e.g., meet for longer or more frequently). Chair proposal is to maintain weekly meetings for 60 minutes before moving to a different cadence. Support for this approach.
  *   Some may have a conflict with the IGF in a few weeks. At least two members will be absent.  Consider moving that meeting to the APAC time rotation of 2000 UTC.

ACTION ITEM: Staff to schedule 60-minute meetings every Monday for the rest of September/October, up until ICANN78, taking mind of IGF 8-12 Oct.

3. Public Comment Review Tool: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ODG6uTTbaWlANMnA-uDrF9WSMBgnPJ5Io4RtQC0N32o/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ODG6uTTbaWlANMnA-uDrF9WSMBgnPJ5Io4RtQC0N32o/edit?usp=sharing__;!!PtGJab4!7je2wEyhFOdfZ69idETXfsK_WuCeq64_T9PMl8f5UcAZlAZSIJG3G-3UIq5nYuZyCf7jXKzUru-auvwu3mMNI2rzwH5Jc9pdiA$>.

a. Preview Tool


  *   This public comment review tool is commonly used, included as recently as for the EPDP on IDNs. The first tab is a handy resource to be able to understand the nature of the comments at a glance, including who commented, how many recommendations received comments, etc.
  *   The expectation is that members will review the comments themselves, in advance of the meeting. The reason for this is that WGs generally do not read comments together as a group. Groups are expected to review all comments carefully, which is why members reviewing in advance is so critical.
  *   The homework for members will be to review the comments in advance and it will be signaled ahead of time which recommendations will be reviewed each week.
  *   As the WG reviews the comments, the comment review tool will be updated as we go, including updating the report iteratively as needed.
  *   If significant changes are made to the Final Report, there is the possibility to conduct an additional public comment period, although this is unlikely and is not foreseen in the work plan.
  *   There is a tab for questions (there is only a single question) and an Other category, which is generally a summary of the commenters sentiments.
  *   Mostly, the comments were supportive of the recommendations as written. In several cases, the commenters support the recommendations with minor wording changes. There appears to only be a single comment that suggested significant changes are needed. This overall assessment seems to indicate that the GGP is on the right path.

b. Begin Reviewing Public Comments with Guidance Recommendation 1 (time permitting)

Begin Reviewing Public Comments with Guidance Recommendation 1

  *   3 comments support as written, with no additional comments, though the ALAC noted its consensus support for the recommendation. The NCUC noted that the implementation guidance was especially important to the recommendation. The NCSG comment suggests additional details for the target audience of the recommendation. Since this is a dense comment, we will come back to this the next week.
  *   It was noted that the NCSG comment was one of the commenters that submitted after the deadline.

ACTION ITEM: WG members to review public comments for recommendation 1 in advance of the 25 Sept meeting, in particular the more substantive comments from the NCSG, Gabriel Karsan, Com Laude, and BC.


  *   Gabriel and Com Laude made specific text changes that members should review. The suggestion from Com Laude is something the WG has already discussed but will discuss again. The BC comment also raises a point of discussion that the WG has already engaged in.
  *   Need to consider the approach for ASP – will it be realistically used by applicants for commercial purposes?

Begin Reviewing Guidance Recommendation 2

  *   Support from commenters for the recommendation as written. One comment suggested that the GGP review SubPro Rec 17.2, although this in the scope of the Council’s small team. Another comment suggested rearranging comments.

ACTION ITEM: WG members to review also public comments for recommendation 2 in advance of the 25 Sept meeting.

4. AOB: None
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ggp-wg/attachments/20230918/65a121f6/attachment-0001.html>