The call for the Applicant Support GGP team will take place on Monday, 09 January 2023 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes.

For other places see: https://tinyurl.com/53rkzbvy

PROPOSED AGENDA

  1. Welcome & Updates to Statements of Interest
  2. Begin Discussion of Task 3 (55 min.) – see attached document and Google sheet at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13Q9QRDOBC0mdPBRDWxfMsUPtt4d-gVI9w8pBCkfugQc/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]
  • Review of Tasks (15 min.)
  • Review of Draft Discussion Framework (20 min.)
  • Discussion (20 min.)

     3.AOB (5 min.)

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

GGP Applicant Support Tasks 3-4-5 

PARTICIPATION

Attendance

Apologies: Paul McGrady

RECORDINGS

Audio Recording

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

GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar

Notes/ Action Items

ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK:


TASKS 3, 4, and 5:

  1. Tom Barrett to suggest on the list the lifecycle elements of the application process. WG members and staff to provide comments.
  2. WG members to review the Google worksheet at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13Q9QRDOBC0mdPBRDWxfMsUPtt4d-gVI9w8pBCkfugQc/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com] for format and provide comments.
  3. Staff to draft a sample survey.


 Notes:


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


  • No updates to SOIs.


2. Begin Discussion of Tasks 3-5 (55 min.) – see attached documents and Google sheet at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13Q9QRDOBC0mdPBRDWxfMsUPtt4d-gVI9w8pBCkfugQc/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]


  • Review of Tasks (15 min.)
  • Review of Draft Discussion Framework (20 min.)

Discussion (20 min.):

  • What about phases of outreach – such as business model development: Awareness and education is the first step, then we have business case development (filling out the application), application evaluation, production/operations.
  • Could keep using the worksheet to agree on the form and then use the survey to get input.  Could agree on drop down boxes for who collects the data and measurement.
  • If we look at the applicability of these metrics to the criteria for applicant support - public interest , financial sustainability (which is why I support Tom's suggestion regarding outreach and education and supporting their understanding of the business model for registries) and financial affordability for the application.
  • My recollection from SubPro is that trademarks usually register at a number of TLDs in a defensive manner, so expunging that would make for a better appraisal of a TLD success.
  • Some points from staff:
    • Not all of the metrics are signs of success or failure of the program.  May or may not tell a story – could just be data points useful to collect.
    • SubPro PDP WG recognize that you could design the perfect program with respect to awareness, funding opportunities and structure, but owning TLDs may not be important to some companies at this point in their business lifecyle.  This is why there are only a couple of data points relating to the launch of new gLTDs, the recognition that even if everything is set up perfectly you may not get many applications.
    • Staff will share on email some comments about the lifecyle suggestions.
  • Make sure we get this right.  We are not under time pressure so we can get it right.  Please engage with the form as it is and provide comments.

ACTION ITEM: Tom Barrett to suggest on the list the lifecycle elements of the application process.  WG members and staff to provide comments.

ACTION ITEM: WG members to review the worksheet for format and provide comments.

ACTION ITEM: Staff to draft a sample survey.


3. AOB (5 min.)


  • No labels