Brief update from GGP working group

[mouloud khelif]

Thank you Rafik for the update.

1- Could you share the date/time of the GGP meeting (if it is open to the
public) ?

2- also, I just wanted to clarify something in your email:
"*As reminder, the GGP has limited scope and it is tasked to change or come
with new policy recommendations regarding applicant support but more with
implementation guidance and respond to the set of tasks above*"
Is it, or is it NOT "*tasked to change or come with new policy"*?

Kind regards

Mouloud Khelif
ICANN77 Fellow

On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 3:59 AM Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> It has been a while since the last update from the GGP working group
> on applicant support.
> The working group will have a session at the ICANN meeting next week to
> review the last task which is regarding how to allocate financial support
> in case of inadequate funding. The group reached the conclusion after
> weighing some options that ICANN should allocate equally across all
> applicants because it is more efficient, simple, and as determining
> additional funds or source is out of scope for the working group. It was
> also agreed thet ICANN org should communicate applicants the results in a
> timely manner to not impact them.
>
> When that is done, the working group will work on preparing the initial
> report in coming weeks to be ready for public comments following the
> plan/timeline we set at the beginning.  I will share that with the NCSG
> list as we should respond to the public comment.
>
> For the previous tasks, they were already completed and the group proposed
> metrics and indicators of success per each element of the gTLD application
> lifecycle.
>
> As reminder, the GGP has limited scope and it is tasked to change or come
> with new policy recommendations regarding applicant support but more with
> implementation guidance and respond to the set of tasks above
>
> for reference, sharing here the tasks requested to the GGP working group :
>
>
>> *Task 3 – Analyze the set of suggested metrics in Implementation Guidance
>> 17.9*
>> *and propose which ones should be prioritized. The set of prioritized
>> metrics is*
>> *NOT limited to what is identified in 17.9*
>> *Task 4 – Identify any other appropriate metrics and measures of success
>> to help*
>> *in identifying the necessary program elements and measuring program
>> success*
>> *after the fact. In identifying the suggested set of metrics, propose how
>> data can be*
>> *collected, how metrics can be measured, who can collect the data, as
>> well as what*
>> *represents success.*
>> *Task 5 – Consider, and to the extent feasible, suggest how the
>> “outreach,*
>> *education, business case development, and application evaluation”
>> elements of*
>> *the Applicant Support Program may be impacted by the identified metrics
>> and*
>> *measures of success. For example, based on the success metrics for
>> Awareness*
>> *and Education, this may impact the approach for performing outreach and*
>> *education. To the extent feasible, suggest an approach to outreach,
>> education,*
>> *business case development, and application evaluation assistance.*Task
>> 6 Recommend a methodology for allocating financial support where there is
>> inadequate funding for all qualified applicants.
>> Implementation Guidance 17.10: The dedicated Implementation Review Team
>> should consider how to allocate financial support in the case that
>> available funding cannot provide fee reductions to all applicants that meet
>> the scoring requirement threshold.
>
>
> Let me know if you have any questions or clarification and I will be glad
> to respond to and give more details.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20230606/68a1788a/attachment.htm>