Page History
...
Tip | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Apologies: none |
Info | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Zoom Recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript and chat) GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar |
Note |
---|
Notes/ Action Items ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK:
Notes:
2. Continued Discussion of Goals and Metrics Relating to Tasks 3, 4, 5 -- Draft Suggested Revision (60 min) – start at section 5 -- see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bU_QTPqYKvwOp0l90sHLigCNmTE8Ykvrx59FlPelTjQ/edit?usp=sharing
Section 5 Comment from Leon, ICANN org: I would suggest changing to 0.5%. If we expect ~2000 applications to go through, then with 0.5% we expect 10 supported applicants under the applicant support programme. If we say 5%, then this would mean 100 supported applicants. Perhaps this is what was meant and I'm wrong, but according to the previous conversations, the 10-15 figure seemed more prevalent as a goal. Discussion:
Section 6: Comment from Sarah: From ALAC: We are proposing that we adjust this period from two to three years. Please see comment below: "Three years after launch might be a better option as the second year is the Junk Dump for new TLDs when undeveloped/speculated domain names are dropped. By Y3, the patterns of a new TLD start to emerge." Discussion:
Comment from Roz: “From Roz: Think there's something still about collecting data which needs to be captured.” Discussion:
Section 1: Comment from Gabriela: “The concept of "underrepresented" can be confusing as it is primarily used to describe a lack of political representation in multilateral contexts. From Roz: “Underserved is great! Agree that if that is kept, underrepresented can go.” From Kristy, ICANN org: “we may want to propose a clarification here that the targets are particular audience segments (e.g., nonprofit, social enterprises, community) with emphasis on under-* regions but not limited to those regions. The reference to the GAC definition of under-served is geographically based and the SubPro Final Report explicitly said they do not want to limit to geographic regions or national level economic classifications. So perhaps the rewrite is something like: "Target potential applicants from the not-for-profit sector, social enterprises and/or community organizations with emphasis on developing, under-represented and/or under-served regions." or something along those lines? The point being that we don't want to limit comms and outreach to particular regions for ASP but it's about finding potential applicants that would qualify from all regions, while emphasizing that more attention should be paid to under-* regions.” Discussion:
Section 2: Comment from Maureen (on moderate): “I know that we are trying to keep things high level, but these indicators of success seem overly simplistic.. is that it? (especially taking into account the range of expertise that is required to make a successful business case).” Discussion:
Comment from Maureen re: “application”: “Are we setting criteria on volunteers of pro bono services so that we at least ensure a minimum degree of quality and usefulness of services?”
Section 3: Comment from Maureen re: “usefulness” under Qualitative Measurements: “when would this survey be administered? I’m assuming they would only be able to gauge the usefulness of the ASP and its resources, at the end of the application process and whether their application has been successful or not?” Discussion:
Section 4: Comment from Maureen: “Has an ICANN Learn module (101) been produced already that details everything that an ASP applicant would need to know in order to make a successful application? especially if your indicator of success is "a STRONG understanding". Several modules may be required to cover the different areas of knowledge that an ASP applicant may need, in order to be successful.” Discussion:
Next Steps: Staff will produce a draft Recommendations Guidance Report text incorporating the recommendation guidance for Tasks 3, 4, and 5 as discussed by the WG, filling in the rationale and deliberations from the discussions as well as some suggested assumptions for the WG to review. Staff also will produce a draft Working Document for Task 6 for the WG to begin the discussion at the meeting on Monday, 15 May. |