Page History

Action Items:

Action Item: Add details about the facilitative nature ICANN org will lead with as it relates to pro bono service providers, as opposed to match-making.

Action Item: Retain language, or similar, “This should be considered a floor, not a ceiling, and ICANN should strive to exceed this minimum.” In addition, add to the rationale that adequate resources should be made available if the number of qualified applicants exceeds or greatly exceeds the indicator of success, since the indicator of success should be seen as a floor, not a ceiling.

Notes:

Welcome and SOIs

• Despite no apologies given, it seems that Roz is out of office

Complete second pass public comment review – focus on suggested changes only – Guidance Recommendations 7-9

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

• Document to capture two action items found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12D_m3Y6Qck7WLAud5ipNLCfTlz8bE4ei2RmJ1w2yurQ/edit [docs.google.com]
• Support from members on the call as the edits make sense. Members may want to review offline in further detail.
• Agreement from staff that the edit is responsive to the issue raised during public comment.
• Also important to see the text in the context of the fuller report.

Review outstanding staff input re: action items for Guidance Recommendation 2 and 5

Guidance Recommendation 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.

• Org response: will do due diligence on potential providers, but will not do match-making. Will be able to raise awareness of both the needs of applicants, but also identify opportunities provided by pro bono providers. The onus will still be on the potential applicants to reach out for help.
• Can include this information in the rationale.

Action Item: Add details about the facilitative nature ICANN org will lead with as it relates to pro bono service providers, as opposed to match-making.

• There was also a question about whether or not there is adequate coverage from pro bono services. From the survey, it appears that there is generally adequate coverage from both a capacity perspective/regional coverage, but also from a capabilities perspective, with the exception of technical expertise.
• Need to be clear what the results of the survey mean. The survey is indicative of pro bono service provider capacity, NOT of potential interest from potential applicants to ASP.
• The survey was also intended to help identify opportunities for additional outreach if there were significant gaps in available capacity, which could be in capacity, regional support, capabilities, etc. The results of the survey, without even additional communications and engagement, is encouraging in showing a good deal of latent interest in supporting the Applicant Support Program.

Guidance Recommendation 5:

1) GGP support staff to work with GDS colleagues to suggest language to the GGP for recommendation 5.

2) ICANN org to provide guidance on the feasibility of providing the data suggested by Com Laude (comparing rates of delegation).

• Suggestion was to gather a number of additional metrics, including as it relates to non-ASP applicants, to better allow for comparison. There is a need to allow for some flexibility for the expert provider to help determine what the proper metrics should be.
• Review 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."
• There was some discussion of putting forth a specific number for a stretch target, but the group did not reach agreement on doing so. “Adopting” a stretch target can create mis-aligned expectations which can create a perception of failure if the stretch is not achieved. May want to remove “by adopting a stretch target” to try and avoid this concern.
• Confirming: that 10 or .5% represents success. This would seem to mean that .7% would represent greater success. The goal here is to try and capture the concern of the GGP of not being ambitious enough, without unintentionally creating additional bars that must be reached.
• More data would be needed to establish a specific stretch goal. This would require more time.
• Extending the timeline of the GGP by several months will most definitely impact the implementation of the ASP and potentially the overall timeline for the New gTLD Program.

Action Item: Retain language, or similar, “This should be considered a floor, not a ceiling, and ICANN should strive to exceed this minimum.” In addition, add to the rationale that adequate resources should be made available if the number of qualified applicants exceeds or greatly exceeds the indicator of success, since the indicator of success should be seen as a floor, not a ceiling.

• Suggestion to drop the reference to geographic diversification or if kept, make clear it is only one element.
• Suggested text from ICANN org: “Meeting 10 or .05% or going beyond that indicates success for the program. At the same time, the GGP WG deliberated on whether and how to indicate higher ambition for the Program. As such, it is important for ICANN org to consider how to prepare for/resource the program with the aim of having adequate resources available should significantly more applicants (than 10 or .05%) qualify for support.”

Begin review of draft Final Report – final Guidance Recommendations, rationale, and deliberations (time permitting)

• Suggestion to defer since staff is still awaiting completion of some outstanding items that need to be resolved in order to finalize recommendations and draft the report.

AOB

• None