GGP Update + request for feedback
Dear CPWG, Thank you for the feedback to our GGP presentation at the just concluded CPWG meeting. There were some pending issues on the chat; for example, I need to check with our WG about under-represented communities in developed regions. We had an extensive discussion about this - some members felt that we should not open it up too much that it presents loopholes, while others felt that some communities in developing regions deserve support. Several scenarios were presented - would the program support small businesses in under-served regions? How about public entities (e.g., if a ccTLD that is operated by a public entity applies for support)? So it is an evolving discussion, and we are happy to check with the WG and come back to you (Greg, Justine and the CPWG) about this. For now, the agreement was to use the UN definition <https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/#fn2> for under-developed, and then use the GAC <https://gac.icann.org/working-group/gac-working-group-on-underserved-regions...> and SubPro <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/final-repo...> definition for under-served. Roberto promised to follow up, so we are happy to discuss this. This is the GAC definition: *An under-served region is defined as one that:* - *Does not have a well developed DNS and/or associated industry or economy; and/or * - *Has low awareness within its government of ICANN, ICANN’s role and functions and policy processes and the way that these policies affect it.* We have also noted John's suggestion about adjusting the review period to 3 years instead of 2 to investigate if applicants are still in business as registry operators. This is a welcome suggestion. Finally, kindly take a look at the attached document with revised lifecycle elements, implementation guidance and success metrics, then share any feedback with (preferably before our next GGP meeting on Monday, 08 May). The document is also available on the Wiki <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=240617770#PDPs--624...> . Regards, Sarah
Dear Sarah, Thanks for sharing the presentation and the GGP updates. Mutegeki Cliff Agaba Digital Adoption Consultant Vice President Internet Society Uganda, Member AFRALO, ICANN UASG and IGF - WGWSP +256 701 800 679 +256 776 800 679 www.mutegekicliff.com [image: facebook icon] <http://www.facebook.com/mutegekicliffagaba> [image: linkedin icon] <https://www.linkedin.com/in/mutegekicliff/> [image: instagram icon] <http://www.instagram.com/mutegekicliff> On Wed, 3 May 2023 at 17:57, Sarah T. Kiden via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear CPWG,
Thank you for the feedback to our GGP presentation at the just concluded CPWG meeting.
There were some pending issues on the chat; for example, I need to check with our WG about under-represented communities in developed regions. We had an extensive discussion about this - some members felt that we should not open it up too much that it presents loopholes, while others felt that some communities in developing regions deserve support. Several scenarios were presented - would the program support small businesses in under-served regions? How about public entities (e.g., if a ccTLD that is operated by a public entity applies for support)? So it is an evolving discussion, and we are happy to check with the WG and come back to you (Greg, Justine and the CPWG) about this.
For now, the agreement was to use the UN definition <https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/#fn2> for under-developed, and then use the GAC <https://gac.icann.org/working-group/gac-working-group-on-underserved-regions...> and SubPro <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/final-repo...> definition for under-served. Roberto promised to follow up, so we are happy to discuss this. This is the GAC definition:
*An under-served region is defined as one that:*
- *Does not have a well developed DNS and/or associated industry or economy; and/or * - *Has low awareness within its government of ICANN, ICANN’s role and functions and policy processes and the way that these policies affect it.*
We have also noted John's suggestion about adjusting the review period to 3 years instead of 2 to investigate if applicants are still in business as registry operators. This is a welcome suggestion.
Finally, kindly take a look at the attached document with revised lifecycle elements, implementation guidance and success metrics, then share any feedback with (preferably before our next GGP meeting on Monday, 08 May). The document is also available on the Wiki <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=240617770#PDPs--624...> .
Regards,
Sarah _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi Sarah Thank you for the presentation and the updates Best On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 7:35 PM Mutegeki Cliff via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Sarah, Thanks for sharing the presentation and the GGP updates.
Mutegeki Cliff Agaba Digital Adoption Consultant Vice President Internet Society Uganda, Member AFRALO, ICANN UASG and IGF - WGWSP +256 701 800 679 +256 776 800 679
www.mutegekicliff.com [image: facebook icon] <http://www.facebook.com/mutegekicliffagaba> [image: linkedin icon] <https://www.linkedin.com/in/mutegekicliff/> [image: instagram icon] <http://www.instagram.com/mutegekicliff>
On Wed, 3 May 2023 at 17:57, Sarah T. Kiden via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear CPWG,
Thank you for the feedback to our GGP presentation at the just concluded CPWG meeting.
There were some pending issues on the chat; for example, I need to check with our WG about under-represented communities in developed regions. We had an extensive discussion about this - some members felt that we should not open it up too much that it presents loopholes, while others felt that some communities in developing regions deserve support. Several scenarios were presented - would the program support small businesses in under-served regions? How about public entities (e.g., if a ccTLD that is operated by a public entity applies for support)? So it is an evolving discussion, and we are happy to check with the WG and come back to you (Greg, Justine and the CPWG) about this.
For now, the agreement was to use the UN definition <https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/#fn2> for under-developed, and then use the GAC <https://gac.icann.org/working-group/gac-working-group-on-underserved-regions...> and SubPro <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/final-repo...> definition for under-served. Roberto promised to follow up, so we are happy to discuss this. This is the GAC definition:
*An under-served region is defined as one that:*
- *Does not have a well developed DNS and/or associated industry or economy; and/or * - *Has low awareness within its government of ICANN, ICANN’s role and functions and policy processes and the way that these policies affect it.*
We have also noted John's suggestion about adjusting the review period to 3 years instead of 2 to investigate if applicants are still in business as registry operators. This is a welcome suggestion.
Finally, kindly take a look at the attached document with revised lifecycle elements, implementation guidance and success metrics, then share any feedback with (preferably before our next GGP meeting on Monday, 08 May). The document is also available on the Wiki <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=240617770#PDPs--624...> .
Regards,
Sarah _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- *Nyapendi Esther* *Assistant Technical Support,* *Women of Uganda Network (WOUGNET).* *Plot 67 Bukasa Namuwongo Road.* *Website: www.wougnet.org <http://www.wougnet.org/>* *Tel:+256-785-196-802* *Email:nyapendie@gmail.com <nyapendi.e@gmail.com>*
Dear Sarah, Thank you for your concise report on the update and feedback from this week's meeting. Keep up the good work! Kind regards, ... *Lavish Mawuena Mensah**Member, ISOC Global* *|* *ISOC Ghana * *Fellow, GhanaSIG 2020 | VSIG 2021 **| ICANN75 * *+23324218919 **|* *lavishmensah.ig@gmail.com <lavishmensah.ig@gmail.com>* *Glad to connect with you;* *LinkedIn Profile* <https://www.linkedin.com/in/lavishmawuenamensah> *|* *WhatsApp* <https://wa.me/233242189919> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/lavishmawuenamensah> *Internet Advocacy Channel* <https://www.facebook.com/Internetadvocacychannel> On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 2:57 PM Sarah T. Kiden via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear CPWG,
Thank you for the feedback to our GGP presentation at the just concluded CPWG meeting.
There were some pending issues on the chat; for example, I need to check with our WG about under-represented communities in developed regions. We had an extensive discussion about this - some members felt that we should not open it up too much that it presents loopholes, while others felt that some communities in developing regions deserve support. Several scenarios were presented - would the program support small businesses in under-served regions? How about public entities (e.g., if a ccTLD that is operated by a public entity applies for support)? So it is an evolving discussion, and we are happy to check with the WG and come back to you (Greg, Justine and the CPWG) about this.
For now, the agreement was to use the UN definition <https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/#fn2> for under-developed, and then use the GAC <https://gac.icann.org/working-group/gac-working-group-on-underserved-regions...> and SubPro <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/final-repo...> definition for under-served. Roberto promised to follow up, so we are happy to discuss this. This is the GAC definition:
*An under-served region is defined as one that:*
- *Does not have a well developed DNS and/or associated industry or economy; and/or * - *Has low awareness within its government of ICANN, ICANN’s role and functions and policy processes and the way that these policies affect it.*
We have also noted John's suggestion about adjusting the review period to 3 years instead of 2 to investigate if applicants are still in business as registry operators. This is a welcome suggestion.
Finally, kindly take a look at the attached document with revised lifecycle elements, implementation guidance and success metrics, then share any feedback with (preferably before our next GGP meeting on Monday, 08 May). The document is also available on the Wiki <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=240617770#PDPs--624...> .
Regards,
Sarah _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Dear Sarah - and all Listening to the call today reminded me that last week I mentioned in the chat that I would have followed up with some comments - which I did not, sorry. Basically, what I wanted to say is that we need to make sure that we define the rules based on the result we want to achieve. During last week’s call I was under the impression that one possibility was to rely on UN definitions of “developing countries”. This would be IMHO misleading, because if what we want to achieve is support to underserved groups (and this is in no way equivalent to developing countries) we must define what characterises these groups. It can well be communities within a highly developed country, language (or ethnic) minorities, and more. But what is important is IMHO what is the potential use of the domain, whether this could help improving the disadvantaged situation. It is, obviously, a dangerous approach, considering that ICANN has been traditionally inclined to use some “external”, possibly widely accepted standards, to govern decisions, avoiding case-by-case judgement - also to avoid potential lawsuits. But the question is whether we can find some objective criteria that describe what we consider applicants that deserve attention because their application is useful to their community and worth be given higher priority. I think that the document presented now by Maureen has most of what I believe is important, but commit to a more careful reading in the next 24h. Cheers, Roberto
On 03.05.2023, at 16:57, Sarah T. Kiden via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear CPWG,
Thank you for the feedback to our GGP presentation at the just concluded CPWG meeting.
There were some pending issues on the chat; for example, I need to check with our WG about under-represented communities in developed regions. We had an extensive discussion about this - some members felt that we should not open it up too much that it presents loopholes, while others felt that some communities in developing regions deserve support. Several scenarios were presented - would the program support small businesses in under-served regions? How about public entities (e.g., if a ccTLD that is operated by a public entity applies for support)? So it is an evolving discussion, and we are happy to check with the WG and come back to you (Greg, Justine and the CPWG) about this.
For now, the agreement was to use the UN definition <https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/#fn2> for under-developed, and then use the GAC <https://gac.icann.org/working-group/gac-working-group-on-underserved-regions...> and SubPro <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/final-repo...> definition for under-served. Roberto promised to follow up, so we are happy to discuss this. This is the GAC definition:
An under-served region is defined as one that: Does not have a well developed DNS and/or associated industry or economy; and/or Has low awareness within its government of ICANN, ICANN’s role and functions and policy processes and the way that these policies affect it. We have also noted John's suggestion about adjusting the review period to 3 years instead of 2 to investigate if applicants are still in business as registry operators. This is a welcome suggestion.
Finally, kindly take a look at the attached document with revised lifecycle elements, implementation guidance and success metrics, then share any feedback with (preferably before our next GGP meeting on Monday, 08 May). The document is also available on the Wiki <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=240617770#PDPs--624...>.
Regards,
Sarah <GGP-presentation-CPWG-03May2023-updated.pdf>_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (5)
-
Esther Nyapendi -
Lavish Mawuena Mensah -
Mutegeki Cliff -
Roberto Gaetano -
Sarah T. Kiden