Page History

Action Items:

Action Item 1: Make clear that the funding plan referenced is not connected to SubPro Rec 17.12.

Action Item 2: GGP support staff to work with GDS colleagues to suggest language to the GGP for recommendation 5.

Action Item 3: GGP support staff to develop language that notes the interdependence of at least recs 7, 8, and 9.

Notes:

Welcome and SOIs

• None

Timeline and Work Plan for December Delivery

• On second to last line, working through public comment.
• What’s new today is a meeting by meeting schedule to deliver the Final Report to the Council by 11 December 2023.
• Second pass is about potential amendments to recommendations stemming from public comments. In most cases, not changes appear to be needed.
• Stemming from this effort, Final Report will be amended and integrate deliberations from reviewing public comments.
• Begin Consensus Call on 27 Nov and complete it on 4 Nov and incorporate outcome into the report.

Complete first pass public comment review for Guidance Recommendations 8-9

Recommendation 8

• Support as written from all respondents though the NCSG and GAC provided comments.
• Re: GAC comment, unclear what “consultation” means in this context and result in delays. The text may be more problematic than helpful.
• The IRT already seems to constitute a community consultation.
• “Should” in the recommendation makes it optional.
• The ICANN org comment has three elements: 1) how to provide funding in the event the number of qualified applicants exceeds the designated minimum level of funding 2) that the funding plan should not only be developed if funding drops below the level and 3) that recs 7, 8, and 9 are interdependent.
• The GGP may want to designate all recs as interdependent, while drawing particular attention to 7, 8, and 9.

Action Item: Make clear that the funding plan referenced is not connected to SubPro Rec 17.12.

Recommendation 9

• 7 respondents support as written, with comments from the GAC.
• Support intent with wording change from Gabriel Karsan and ICANN org reiterating the interdependence of 7, 8, and 9.
• For the suggestion from the GAC, may just want to emphasize how important early notice is to applicants.
• For the comment from Gabriel Karsan, it seems to be overly complicated and does add new information to the recommendation.

Begin Second pass public comment review – focus on suggested changes only – beginning with Guidance Recommendation

Recommendation 1

• Recommended language: "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], recognising the goal is to get as many qualifying applicants as possible."
• No objections on call.

Recommendation 2

• No agreement from GGP to amend language based on the GAC comment. The ICANN org feedback is still being reviewed internally. Match-making does not seem to be in scope or appropriate for ICANN to perform.
• Question about whether there has been outreach to potential providers. There can also be some categorization for the providers to help designate what expertise the providers possess. This might be a good middle-ground between just a list and match-making.
  • ICANN org has indeed already begun outreach to potential providers. Match-making, which creates a new responsibility, also seems to create potential accountability and liability concerns.
• The approach suggested above seems to get at the intent of what the GAC is worried about – applicants will know where to go for the assistance that they require.
• ICANN org will have a response available soon and share on list.

Recommendation 3

• It seems that “necessary resources” would already include financial and human resources, as the term is already broad. The deliberations will of course be captured in the Final Report. Can also consider adding text in the rationale, but no agreement to amend the recommendation itself.

Recommendation 4

• There did not seem to be any necessary changes to this recommendation.

Recommendation 5

• Discussion had focused around setting up a stretch goal, with additional conversation on list. Suggested text from Roz/Satish: "Indicators of Success: ICANN must ensure that, of all successfully delegated gTLD applications, 10 or 0.5 percent (0.005), were from supported applicants. This should be considered a floor, not a ceiling, and ICANN should strive to exceed this minimum by adopting a stretch target in order to achieve the aim of facilitating geographic diversification within the new gTLD program."
• Concerns about “adopting” a stretch goal and what requirements that would place on ICANN org; this wording seems to establish a requirement for ICANN org.
• Noting the concern that achieving the stretch goal (e.g., double) may impact funding.
• Question for this group: does it need to come up with a number to stretch for? Or is it better to just simply say, “floor, not a ceiling”. Previous discussion from the group indicates that it is not comfortable providing a specific number for the stretch goal.
• Suggestion to replace “by adopting a stretch target in order to achieve” with “with the”. Concern that the stretch goal can be used as a stick to aim at ICANN if it “only” receives 10 successful applications.
• A floor allows for expectations to be met and if it is exceeded, it can be seen as exceptionally successful.

Action Item: GGP support staff to work with GDS colleagues to suggest language to the GGP for recommendation 5.

Recommendation 6

• Some minor language tweaks.

Recommendation 7

• Given that a number of members dropped at the top of the hour, conclude early. Next call, return to recommendations 7, 8, and 9.

Action Item: GGP support staff to develop language that notes the interdependence of at least recs 7, 8, and 9.

AOB

• Next call will be at the 20:00 UTC time.