The call for the Applicant Support GGP team will take place on Monday, 15 May 2023 at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes.

For other places see:


  1. Welcome
  2. Begin Discussion of Task 6 – see Draft Working Document at: []note that when making edits choose “Suggesting” to avoid overwriting other text.
  3. AOB




Apologies: Rosalind KennyBirch (Alternate), Tom Barrett


Audio Recording

Zoom Recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript and chat)

GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar

Notes/ Action Items


  1. Staff to revise the Task 6 Working Document to capture suggested Recommendation Guidance, assumptions, and deliberations. [COMPLETED – SEE]
  2. Staff to explore the pros and cons of two options:
    1. OPTION 1: Wait until all applications are received and evaluated before determining level of support, i.e., based on the number of qualified applicants;
    2. OPTION 2: Hold a first-in, first-out continuous process while the application window is open and inform qualified applicants that their level of support will be within a range (i.e., 50-75%) – that is, determine if this approach is feasible before all applications are received/evaluated and the window is closed.
  1. For both options, consider the question of timing of when to close the application window before the round begins.
  1. WG members to add suggestions to the Working Document at note that when making edits choose the “Suggesting” mode to avoid overwriting other text.


  1. Welcome

2. Begin Discussion of Task 6 – see Draft Working Document at: []– note that when making edits choose “Suggesting” to avoid overwriting other text.


  • Rafik: Assumption – assume we don’t have specific idea about funding to be available.  Is there any guidance?  On fee reduction, can we think about prioritization?
  • Julie: Assume that ICANN org does not have plans for additional funding.
  • Mike: Looking at reductions in application fees, or ongoing fee reductions.  Not recommending that ICANN provides cash payments.  We don’t want to constrain the program, so we could look at fee reductions.  As to prioritization – do we recommend that or spread the support evenly over all applicants.
  • Rafik: so we can start with the assumption, that would be limited funding and we use that as constraint . Org was always very wary about ongoing fee reductions and waivers.
  • Gabriella: I would like to ask if we have any idea of how many applications the ASP is intended to approve? I suggest to recommend a limit of beneficiaries to have an estimated amount.
  • Mike: Re: The above comments we’ve suggested that at least 10 applicants would be a success – so what happens if we have more? Do we spread the support thinner, or prioritize?
  • Leon, ICANN org:  I think we discussed last time whether we should look at ASP applicants as a percentage of overall successful applicants, or a concrete figure as a goal. But indeed, I also recall that the figure was around 10.
  • Lawrence: Reduce the application fee, but consider what it might cost per application.
  • Maureen: +1 agree that the budget needs to be for at least 10.. but as you say the issue is how do we cater for more than 10.
  • Sarah: I think this is a better way to look at it - either 10 applications or a percentage
  • Kristy, ICANN org: There is a cost estimate table for ASP in the ODA – see page 334 at: Estimate is per unit of 5 applicants – direct costs to ICANN org.  First we would reduce funding and then talk to the Board about other measures.
  • Rubens: We should note that ODA has a definition to go against the SubPro report that makes all application support costs to be carried by application fees.  This is simply wrong and the GGP output is a good place to tell them they are wrong, that possibly other funds (such as Auction Proceeds) can be used.
  • Rafik: @kristy I am confused about the percentage part for the fee reduction. is 75-85%  applicable for 5 or 50 applications? or that decrease every 5 unit?
  • Mike: We suggested at least  10 for success – should we suggest that ICANN org budget for more than 10?  Or prioritize?
  • Rubens: Application Support costs would be taken from application fees – that goes against the SubPro recommendation.  It was decided not to specify that in the SubPro Final Report.  If we disagree we should tell them so.
  • Kristy: We said 75-85% fee reduction, to be determined during implementation. We did not prescribe the number of supported applicants—again to be defined during implementation.
  • Mike: We should come back to this issue.
  • Rafik: We can have different scenarios because we might have different ways to divide.  To provide more flexibility, but not to anticipate every case.
  • Mike: What we should focus on 1) prioritize; or 2) dilute?  Possibly: when budgeting don’t use 10 applicants as a determinants, but use a percentage. Recommend that org doesn’t budget on 10.  Secondly, it would look bad if we gave equivalent funding to applicants in developing and developed world, but prioritization puts ICANN in a bad position.  Should be equal for all applicants, unless an applicant has indicated it doesn’t need full support.
  • Kristy, ICANN org: We explored different levels of support in the ODP.  Also the ODA envisioned an 18-month application period, so we would have to wait until all have applied before determining qualification – which doesn’t give applicants much time.
  • Lawrence: Where we would like to measure success by the % of applications received, that index would only be available after the entire round is done. It is expedient that we set a number but not less than 25 where we are looking at a minimum of 10.
  • Rubens: Underdeveloped communities can exist within developed regions. Flint, city in Michigan - USA, is a textbook example.
  • Lawrence: Some regions are not well represented compared to others with cost as a huge constraint, we should seek to drastically reduce those barriers.
  • Mike: Can we give some early indication of a percentage of support for applicants?
  • Kristy: We can look into that.
  • Maureen: Like any application process, then we have to choose the best (most needy) applicants from within the possible qualified applicants.
  • Gabriela: I think we need to evaluate and rank proposals based on a matrix with weighted factors.
  • Maureen: There has to be a specific timeframe within which people have to be evaluated.
  • Lawrence: Lot of value in looking at how we can give early responses, since we are looking at an 18-month application period.  If we have very good applications coming in, we could say we can be sure you would get at least 50% for example.  Could let them know that the application has ticked the right boxes, what level of support is safe to confirm.
  • Rafik: Are we talking about a pre-evaluation before the final evaluation when all applications are in?
  • Gabriela: To approve the first applicants would be detrimental to the ones who don’t have any previous experience, and therefore, just the ones we are interesting to have for inclusion.
  • Kristy, ICANN org: It is an interesting idea – if you qualify here is the range you would get; consider the timing of closing the window prior to the application window – was 4 months, could be 2 months.  That would allow more time but could be too short.
  • Mike: Don’t think we could say 50%, but could suggest a range.  And 2 months is too short.  Hoping that if the communication program is good enough we could have a shorter time. Go back to the question: do we make a single decision at the end of the application process, or do we have a first-in, first-out process. But need guidance on whether we can provide a range of support.
  • Gabriela: Prefer to wait until all applications are in.
  • Maureen: I prefer option one.
  • Sarah: Option one.
  • Kristy: It might be helpful to take back both options to Finance and Operations to see what is feasible.
  • Sarah: I think if we do outreach as we have discussed during tasks 3-5, we shall have many applications within the specified period.
  • Maureen: There is too much uncertainty for applicants if the process is drawn out waiting for other people to decide to apply.
  • Gabriela: Or that we need at least 6 month in advance and clarity and transparency on the criteria.
  • Steve, Staff: The ODA relies on a $2 million figure, which tracks 2012, but doesn’t mean it couldn’t be higher.  The ODA envisions that if funding is exceeded we look first at getting more funding.
  • Maureen: I’d prefer to go back to option one…where Org makes a decision and then we move ahead with supporting the group that is selected as most needy... rather than drawing out the process.
  • Mike: An issue is how do we make a recommendation since this is a guidance process?  For next week, are we going to recommend a prioritization of needy applicants?
  • Gabriela: If we get more than 10, prioritization would be needed.

3. AOB

  • No labels