Brief update from GGP working group

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi Mouloud,

Thanks for the questions and also thanks to Frank, Amin and Olevie for
their messages

1- yes the session should be public and open. Information here: Tuesday, 13
June at 1530-1700 EDT (local time), 1930-2200 UTC. To add to your schedule
and find remote participation info
https://icann77.sched.com/event/1NMtv/gnso-guidance-process-for-applicant-support-working-group?iframe=yes&w=&sidebar=yes&bg=no
[icann77.sched.com]
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann77.sched.com/event/1NMtv/gnso-guidance-process-for-applicant-support-working-group?iframe=yes&w=&sidebar=yes&bg=no__;!!PtGJab4!6l5Maz8iy6KaOiEWhXEXzKHAW2lenfbLDtwbQ-LImCzwD_awNpJLM1X5AjtPFv7AYx8-cJ8_s12mwQk7_vBGZWJxxEq51N0uTg$>
.
2- Good catch :) yes it is "NOT tasked to change or come up with new policy
recommendations".

Best,

Rafik



On Tue, Jun 6, 2023, 19:02 mouloud khelif <mouloud.khelif at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/d14821cf/attachment.htm>