The call for the Applicant Support GGP team will take place on Monday, 10 April 2023 at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes.
For other places see: https://tinyurl.com/2zyyk2sn
- Tasks 3-5 Goal Descriptions & Examples – Guidance for the Working Document -- NOTE: WG members are encouraged to review the attached slides along with the working document at:https://docs.google.com/document/d/15CHHQlXfGONxJe0F66OeO2lEdLJMTtuQUMvHXvUlYEs/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com] (15 mins.)
- Continued Discussion of Goals and Metrics Relating to Tasks 3, 4, 5 – Based on the Guidance (see above) (45 min)
Apologies: Rosalind Kennybirch
Zoom Recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript and chat)
GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar
Notes/ Action Items
ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK: Staff to revise section #1, Outreach/Awareness, in the working document per the discussion with a goal to streamline it.
- Welcome and Introductions
- Rafik Dammik had requested on the list that the second meeting rotation time be changed from 2000 to 2100 UTC. Mike noted that there were objections from WG members to that request. Staff responded to the list that the meeting times were difficult for many WG members due to disparate time zones represented by the group, so the rotation would stay at 1500 and 2000 UTC for now, but could be revisited in future. Rafik said that he did not receive that response. Staff agreed to look into this issue.
2. Tasks 3-5 Goal Descriptions & Examples – Guidance for the Working Document -- See the attached slides and the document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15CHHQlXfGONxJe0F66OeO2lEdLJMTtuQUMvHXvUlYEs/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com](15 mins.)
- See attached slides.
- Question: These suggestions seem to be coming in at a late stage, when a lot of the work has been done. Answer: Staff notes that these are intended to provide guidance and a framework for the WG’s discussions – they are not intended to revise the work already done by the WG as comments to the working document.
3. Discussion of Guidance Recommendations Relating to Tasks 3, 4, 5 on Metrics – Review of Comments
Life-Cycle Element #1 Outreach/Awareness
GOAL: That potential applicants from under-developed, under-represented and developing regions should be a priority target of events, communication channels, and publications.
- Re: “taking into account the specificity of each regional, national context, circumstances and technological development”: Not necessary to be specific to each region/national context – don’t need to be so prescriptive to ICANN org.
- If we define general terms (undeveloped/underdeveloped/developing we don’t need to say that one has to take into account each region.
- Think we can resolve/integrate the comments and move on – agreement also to define terms and select one.
- What about Paul’ suggestion of including “region-specific events, communication channels, and publications?” Maybe don’t want to be overly prescriptive.
- Concerning the document shared by GDS: all it was intended to do is to help us frame things for how we want to consider things -- that was in the context of how we’ve captured some of the things we've in our document, how they're being presented. One concern is that some of the indicator success are really more about indicators of activity. Saying that you do a certain number of events doesn't reflect whether or not it was done well, or whether or not it was effective in achieving your goal. And the other thing that they had a concern about was actually delving into the approach which is really about how you go about trying to accomplish your goal. We should be looking at the goal in the indicator of success and the data metrics to measure success to make sure they are formulated well and are measurable.
- These goals in the first box [life cycle element #1, outreach/awareness] seems like an explanatory introduction to the others. So we don’t need to be as specific.
- Need to recognize that we have been given metrics from the SubPro Final Report to analyze and prioritize, but in analyzing them we don’t have to agree that they are the right metrics. Also, the metrics for outreach and awareness are pushing us towards effort-, rather than outcome-based metrics.
- We are not a [PDP] working group, but we can put in implementation advice. We can capture some ideas in a non-binding way.
GOAL: That potential applicants from the not-for-profit sector, social enterprises and/or community organizations should be a priority target of events, communication channels, and publications, over those with a more commercial or technical focus.
- The subjugation of commercial or technical focus is a good one, and we should proceed with that. I don't agree that we need to add the caveat about groups with a more commercial focus should also remain a key focus. What we may want to do is change the data and matrix from targeted to not for profit, socially enterprising community and just remove that.
- When we're talking about indicators of success, we could say that commercial and technical focus applicants will get recognition.
GOAL: That more parties who potentially qualify for applicant support are aware of the gTLD program, engage with the gTLD program, and are well informed of the potential to obtain applicant support.
GOAL: Create awareness of the next round of gTLD applications and the availability of applicant support both online and at in-person events, using both staff and community resources.
- Are these goals in order of priority? They aren’t at the moment, but they could be as part of the task of prioritizing the metrics.
- Re: “[At least 0.5% of the applicants of the next round are supported applications.]At least 100  discrete registration for support [define to include access to resources] are received.” – do we mean 0 point 5? Because that would be a much higher number – if you had 1900 applications that would be 950. We mean 0.5%, which is more like 9 or 10 applications.
- It seems like a low number but it’s difficult because we don’t know the number of applications – maybe we just pick a number that is independent of the number of applications instead of a percentage?
- Or we could use a percentage such as 5% of the successful applications that go through in the next round.
- But, since we are looking at awareness goals, a percentage of successful applications may not be the right indicator of success – that might be a better fit in #4.
- We should change that to a metric relating to people seeking support/information – such as a minimum of 50-100 (200 not sure what’s a reasonable number) of parties seeking support.
GOAL: Ensure that there are self-service resources available to interested parties.
- How do we identify that people are using the portal? How do we measure that people are using the pro bono services?
- So there needs to be some way in which we can gather some data. That needs to be incorporated.