2023-02-27 Applicant Support GGP - Meeting #07

Notes/ Action Items

ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK:

TASKS 3, 4, and 5:

1. WG members to comment on the suggested proposal at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eJ9S7xJBpHdFnqbQragn1nJsSgQNavLX-q3i_17w7qA/edit?usp=sharing
2. Staff to circulate the criteria from the 2012 round: Here is the 2012 handbook. You can see the overall evaluation criteria on page 6: https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/financial-assistance-handbook-11jan12-en_0.pdf. The evaluation process and scoring criteria are on 9-20. [DONE]

Notes:

1. Welcome & Updates to Statements of Interest

• Received responses to the request for input on SMEs; confirmed members as SMEs except for the GAC, which has provided Olga Cavalli as an additional SME.

2. Continue Discussion of Tasks 3-5 – See the suggested proposal document at:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eJ9S7xJBpHdFnqbQragn1nJsSgQNavLX-q3i_17w7qA/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com].

Goals:

• Good to start with goals to give us some guidance.  Would be helpful to know the assumptions for the numbers.
• Numbers were pulled out of the air as a thought exercise.  Interested to hear what people think.
• Instead of saying X number of parties we could say “three times the X” of applicants in 2011.
• Suggest we don’t tie back to the 2011 program because it was a failure.
• What about setting a range of percentage based on number of all application like 5 to 10 % from all applicants of gTLD.
• On what awareness means – change the language there.
• Doesn’t talk to how many regions you want to have represented (at least 3).
• Need to have metrics attached to these goals.
• Certainly an option …. I thought it better to have an absolute number and easier to push towards an outcome [but happy to be persuaded]
• Link success to the program, but absolute numbers are hard to justify – better to have a range.
• Need to tie to indicators of success.
• Noting, operating against a percentage probably makes it harder for planning purposes (since we do not know how many total applications we will receive)?
• If success is 20 applications then 60 would be overwhelming success, but note that we’re no setting the criteria for qualifying. 
• What is the outcome if all qualify but we don’t have funding for all.  Note that this issue is Task 6.
• Qualifying applicants can be ranked in the process leading up to their evaluation. Such scores can help determine the applicants who eventually get supported
• We won’t know the number of applicants until the round is completed.
• Staff to note potential extra goals related to the life cycle: 1) include after you qualified, passed evaluation, delegated, and durable.
• It does make it difficult to develop the success of tasks when we haven't got any criteria that can help to set the metrics. Does it mean that we can suggest criteria that will assess the measures of success?

Assumptions:

• Intention is to focus on not-for-profit and under-developed and developing regions.  Anyone object?
• May need to expand to civil society and small business.
• But this doesn’t say that commercial enterprises will not qualify. Is there support for not focusing?
• Commercial enterprises are a category of applicant for support and possibly an important one who already have a commercial interest in the round.
• Developing criteria is not within our scope.  SubPro also suggested not changing the criteria in any substantive way.
• We don’t know the criteria going forward because that is subject to implementation, but criteria shouldn’t change substantively from the previous round. Could look at the criteria from the 2012 round.

ACTION ITEM: Staff to circulate the criteria from the 2012 round: Here is the 2012 handbook. You can see the overall evaluation criteria on page 6: https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/financial-assistance-handbook-11jan12-en_0.pdf. The evaluation process and scoring criteria are on 9-20. [DONE]

• The JAS Working Group discussed the issue of focus, and agreed on underserved regions and not-for-profit.  This is not a new topic.
• The idea is to provide staff with some guidance.  The area of focus.
• there is also a landing page for Applicant Support in 2012, which includes information about pro bono services. The handbook I shared is not everything.

Proposed Modalities:

• Focus to drive people to an online tool.
• Could there be public materials that we can point to?
• Encourage staff to look at non-traditional channels.
• A portal for resources is critical.
• Missing reference to language support.
• We can make guidance recommendations and let the implementation details be worked out by ICANN org.
• ICANN org can provide feedback when the guidance recommendations are stable.

3. AOB: ICANN76 Working Session, Monday, 13 March at 13:15-14:30 local time. See: https://icann76.sched.com/event/1J2L3/gnso-guidance-process-working-group-for-applicant-support.