2022-12-05 Applicant Support GGP - Meeting #02

Notes/ Action Items

ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK:

 Work Plan and Liaison: Motions to approve the GGP Working Group Work Plan and to confirm Paul McGrady as GNSO Council liaison to the GGP to be submitted to the GNSO Council per the document and motion deadline for the meeting on 15 December.

TASK 1: Staff to request a briefing from GDS on implementation of Applicant Support Program, ideally for 19 December.

TASK 2:

1. Staff to suggest revisions to the TASK 2 input request document providing clarification in line with the GGP Initiation Request, and particularly Tasks 3, 4, and 5. (DONE – See attached)
2. By Monday, 12 December, WG members to review the revised draft TASK 2 input request document and provide comments on the list.

TASKS 3, 4, and 5:

1. WG members to review the attached document with the text of Task 3, 4, and 5 from the GGP Initiation Request.
2. Staff to develop a framing document to assist the WG in its analysis of tasks 3, 4, and 5.

Notes:

1. Welcome & Updates to Statements of Interest (5 min.)

• No updates to SOIs.
• Homework assignments have been provided over the mailing list.

2. Brief Review of GNSO Guidance Process Manual Annex 5 of the GNSO Operating Procedures -- see: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-5-ggp-manual-24oct19-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org](5 min.)

• Much of the language in Annex 5 focuses on the establishment of the GGP.
• Types of output from the GGP – The GGP may provide a number of different outputs, as detailed in Annex 5. A GGP may NOT provide policy recommendations. This GGP will be providing guidance on the policy recommendations and implementation Guidance of the SubPro Working Group.
• The GGP Initiation Request (essentially the WG charter) and GGP Manual note that the GGP Team will follow section 3.6 – Standard Methodology for Making Decisions in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines of the GNSO Operating Procedures in determining consensus levels for its Final GNSO Guidance Recommendation Report.
• Section 3.6 – Standard Methodology for Making Decisions in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines of the GNSO Operating Procedures defines the different levels of support (consensus levels) for a given output and the process by which the Chair determines the level of support in the group.

3. Draft Work Plan and Timeline(s) (15 min.) – see attached

• Work plan and timeline was shared as homework. Any comments/questions/concerns?

• Comment – one GGP member has limited availability during certain periods that the GGP will be operating. It was noted that that if members are unable to attend certain meetings, the work should be able to progress. Meetings are recorded and transcribed, and members are able and expected to provide input between calls over the mailing list and through any relevant working documents to ensure that their perspectives are taken into account. 
• We have two timelines because the GNSO has not done a GGP before: there is an aspirational timeline, as well as a version for delivery to Council which allows for the possibility of unexpected delays.
• The aspirational timeline aims to deliver the report in September 2023. The version for delivery to Council anticipates delivery of the report in December 2023.

• Question to the group -- ready to submit new revised version to GNSO Council for confirmation?
• The version for Council is to avoid the need for a Project Change Request if possible if there are delays.
• Clarification – the timeline that is sent to Council will include the interim milestones specified in the slides.
• No objection received to submitting the workplan.
• In addition to submitting the workplan, a motion will be submitted to confirm Paul McGrady as GNSO Council liaison to the GGP.

ACTION ITEM: Motions to approve the GGP Working Group Work Plan and to confirm Paul McGrady as GNSO Council liaison to the GGP to be submitted to the GNSO Council per the document and motion deadline for the meeting on 15 December.

4. Task 1 (10 min.) – see links to documents above:

• Sharing of thoughts/experiences from the original Applicant Support Program
• Request for a briefing from org GDS to provide any additional details that are not in the report, for example with respect to the implementation of outreach activities?
• Support expressed for requesting such a briefing.
• Confirm completion of Task 1 – Confirmed.

ACTION ITEM: Staff to request a briefing from GDS on implementation of Applicant Support Program, ideally for 19 December.

5. Task 2 (20 min.) – see attached document:

• Thoughts about applicability and timing of input? Any additional comments/questions/concerns?

• Suggestion that the quote beginning, “The Working Group has the flexibility/discretion to rely on. . .” from the Initiation Request is not sufficiently clear. Alternative suggested text: “The Working Group has the flexibility/discretion to rely on the advice of Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) in specific fields for certain tasks.”
• Response: It is not clear what problem we are trying to solve with this edit.
• Response: The focus is to look for SMEs that can assist with the WGs deliberations on tasks 3, 4, 5. There may be opportunities later to further leverage SMEs.
• Suggestion in light of IG 17.9 to adopt the suggested text above.  
• Question about whether the outreach performed will be limited to groups within ICANN or whether it will go beyond the ICANN community.
• This will depend on the deliberations of the WG as they consider tasks 3, 4, and 5.
• Could the WG identify where the lifecyle of an application the WG is seeking SMEs?
• At the moment, we are looking to provide guidance into the process to be used rather than the process to identify applicants and the types of support they might require. The above input appears to be more closely associated with implementation rather than design, which is the task of this group.
• Comment: "Certain tasks" include topics such as the qualification of candidates for the Program and the ability to reach expectations? (f.i. are LDC alone able to expand dns market throughout all regions? or we need to expand the criteria)
• Response: “Certain tasks” refers to tasks 3, 4, and 5. Staff will try to assist with these tasks by breaking them out into sub-elements, including metrics that have already been identified and possible additional metrics. It’s possible that these metrics will touch on qualifications of candidates for the Program, but staff will be able to speak to this more precisely once the analysis is complete.
• Additional context about the letter, we want to reach out the Constituencies. We have knowledgeable people on this call, but we may need additional expertise. This does not prevent us from doing broader outreach to identify experts in the future, but taking this early step helps to prevent possible delays.
• Suggestion: Look at what areas we need experts in. Is it possible to already possible to enumerate the types of expertise that would be helpful?
• Response: We are trying to proactively identify SMEs in the community early in a general way, and then if there is a specific gap that we need to fill, we can go to the broader community to fill that gap. This will reduce the risk of extending the timeline.
• Comment: It seems like we won't know what we need until/if we hit a wall we can't climb on our own.  I think the question now is whether or not we know a spot on expert who is amazing that should be roped in now.
• Clarification – this is not about finding expertise within this group. This letter is about identifying expertise in the community.

ACTION ITEMS:

1. Staff to suggest revisions to the TASK 2 input request document providing clarification in line with the GGP Initiation Request, and particularly Tasks 3, 4, and 5. (DONE – See attached)
2. By Monday, 12 December, WG members to review the revised draft TASK 2 input request document and provide comments on the list.

6. Homework for next meeting (4 min.):

• GGP members to review Tasks 3, 4, and 5 – see attached document

ACTION ITEMS/ HOMEWORK: 

1. WG members to review the attached document with the text of Task 3, 4, and 5 from the GGP Initiation Request.
2. Staff to develop a framing document to assist the WG in its analysis of tasks 3, 4, and 5.

7. AOB (1 min.)

• None