2023-10-16 Applicant Support GGP - Meeting #22

PROPOSED AGENDA

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]

3. AOB

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

PARTICIPATION

Apologies:  none

RECORDINGS

Audio Recording

Zoom Recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript and chat)

GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar

Notes/Action Items

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]

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.