Evan, I am guided by the inputs the At-Large/ALAC have submitted up to the ALAC statement in response to the SubPro PDP WG's Initial Report of Sep 2018.

From what I can observe within At-Large and beyond, there is no support to abolish the Applicant Support Program altogether. What is evident, however, is the dissatisfaction of how the Program was handled in the 2012 round, as admitted by the SubPro PDP WG Co-Chair in his email which was attached to mine.

So At-Large may choose, if it wishes, to let other groups in the community drive the Program forward with or without At-Large/ALAC's further intervention. I haven't heard anyone else say At-Large chooses not to be involved hereon. Regards, Justine ----- On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 00:40, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:

I was one of the two co-chairs of the original Applicant Support program WG in 2010 and believed strongly in it, Strong enough that we created a joint ALAC-NCSG-GAC group that convinced the Board to introduce the concept over the objection of the domain industry.

But things have changed, dramatically, since then. Based on that experience I challenge the ongoing relevance of Applicant Support as an end-user issue worthy of attention from At-Large.

We have the following lessons learned from the past experience and the aftermath of the last round:

- The intended beneficiaries of the AS program are *only* TLD registry applicants -- not registrars or registrants, and certainly not end-users;

- Given the existence of ccTLDs for every country and continental TLDs for Africa, Asia and Europe, the market need to create additional new registries to serve developing economies has not been demonstrated;

- We now have a number of gTLDs targeting registrants for whom cost of domains is a barrier. Creating these low-cost-model registries did not require Applicant Support;

- The last WG agonized over making regulations tough enough to prevent exploitation by applicants that didn't need subsidy, while still making it accessible to those that did. We utterly failed at this to the extent that NOT ONE registration for applicant support was delegated and less than five even made an attempt. Coming up with a new magic formula is simply not worth the massive effort to both develop and defend from the inevitable attack. (I vividly remember an early meeting we had on this at ATLAS 1 in Mexico, during which one registry applicant observer in the back of the room calmly said, "no matter what you come up with we'll find a way to game it." In hindsight he was absolutely correct, the only regulations that could prevent gaming were so tough that NOBODY could meet them. This situation has not changed since the last round; in the new discussion document the anti-gaming component remains contentious and unresolved (and IMO unresolvable);

- Applicant Support was intended to reduce the cost of the initial ICANN fees but not the ongoing maintenance costs or ICANN per-domain fees. Even the new proposals that suggest extra support for application writing etc do not include ongoing support beyond application. Given the emergence of unstable TLDs from the last round, any applicant viable for the long term will need to demonstrate financial stability based on the total cost of running a domain, of which the fee reduction of Applicant Support is a fairly small proportion. There are serious and valid concerns about the stability of any TLD applicant who would not be able to apply without the Applicant Support fee reduction;

- The registrant projections for new-TLD registrations have proven to be wildly overblown, and the sustainability promises of new applicants need to be evaluated with that in mind.

Some of these realities were learned during the Applicant Support WG's tenure, others were revealed later as the application round unfolded. Regardless of source, we now have observable realities that did not exist before the last round and would be ill-advised to ignore them.

I find the conclusion fairly clear. There is no market-based justification for the Applicant Support program, indeed it threatens stability by introducing registries on financially shaky ground. As a result. any ongoing support for Applicant Support -- by ALAC or anyone else -- is solely for emotional reasons such as community pride. These may be strong incentives but at least let's go in with open eyes.

- Evan

On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 23:56, Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Dear all,

Reference is made to an earlier email with subject "Draft Issues List for Subsequent Procedures".

I have attempted to generate a *snapshot of where the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG is at in its deliberations on the Applicant Support Program as at 26 Jul 2019 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/111390697/01.%20SubPro%20Applicant%20Support%20as%20at%2026.07.2019%20for%20CPWG.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1564311734000&api=v2>*, post its last WG call on 25 Jul 15:00 UTC. Please note that that this snapshot is not intended to reflect a complete picture as deliberations on the same topic will continue on the next SubPro PDP WG Call of 29 Jul 20:00 UTC.

At-Large members on the SubPro PDP WG are encouraged to attend the SubPro PDP WG call of 29 Jul 20:00 UTC, to help support the ALAC/At-Large inputs on the Applicant Support Program and/or help flesh out more concrete recommendations for the Program, seeing that this is one of the topics for which At-Large has helped to drive in respect of the new gTLD application round of 2012 and has continued to provide substantial input.

After the said SubPro PDP WG call, I will attempt to present an updated snapshot at the next CPWG call.

Thank you, Justine Chew -----

Dear all, Here is an updated snapshot of where the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG is at in its deliberations on the Applicant Support Program as at 31 Jul 2019 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/111390697/02.%20SubPro%20Applicant%20Support%20as%20at%2031.07.2019%20for%20CPWG.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1564536035350&api=v2>. I understand that this is on the agenda for the CPWG call later today at 21:00 UTC. Justine ----- On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 05:55, Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote:

Evan,

I am guided by the inputs the At-Large/ALAC have submitted up to the ALAC statement in response to the SubPro PDP WG's Initial Report of Sep 2018.

From what I can observe within At-Large and beyond, there is no support to abolish the Applicant Support Program altogether. What is evident, however, is the dissatisfaction of how the Program was handled in the 2012 round, as admitted by the SubPro PDP WG Co-Chair in his email which was attached to mine.

So At-Large may choose, if it wishes, to let other groups in the community drive the Program forward with or without At-Large/ALAC's further intervention. I haven't heard anyone else say At-Large chooses not to be involved hereon.

Regards, Justine -----

On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 00:40, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:

...

I was one of the two co-chairs of the original Applicant Support program WG in 2010 and believed strongly in it, Strong enough that we created a joint ALAC-NCSG-GAC group that convinced the Board to introduce the concept over the objection of the domain industry.

But things have changed, dramatically, since then. Based on that experience I challenge the ongoing relevance of Applicant Support as an end-user issue worthy of attention from At-Large.

We have the following lessons learned from the past experience and the aftermath of the last round:

- The intended beneficiaries of the AS program are *only* TLD registry applicants -- not registrars or registrants, and certainly not end-users;

- Given the existence of ccTLDs for every country and continental TLDs for Africa, Asia and Europe, the market need to create additional new registries to serve developing economies has not been demonstrated;

- We now have a number of gTLDs targeting registrants for whom cost of domains is a barrier. Creating these low-cost-model registries did not require Applicant Support;

- The last WG agonized over making regulations tough enough to prevent exploitation by applicants that didn't need subsidy, while still making it accessible to those that did. We utterly failed at this to the extent that NOT ONE registration for applicant support was delegated and less than five even made an attempt. Coming up with a new magic formula is simply not worth the massive effort to both develop and defend from the inevitable attack. (I vividly remember an early meeting we had on this at ATLAS 1 in Mexico, during which one registry applicant observer in the back of the room calmly said, "no matter what you come up with we'll find a way to game it." In hindsight he was absolutely correct, the only regulations that could prevent gaming were so tough that NOBODY could meet them. This situation has not changed since the last round; in the new discussion document the anti-gaming component remains contentious and unresolved (and IMO unresolvable);

- Applicant Support was intended to reduce the cost of the initial ICANN fees but not the ongoing maintenance costs or ICANN per-domain fees. Even the new proposals that suggest extra support for application writing etc do not include ongoing support beyond application. Given the emergence of unstable TLDs from the last round, any applicant viable for the long term will need to demonstrate financial stability based on the total cost of running a domain, of which the fee reduction of Applicant Support is a fairly small proportion. There are serious and valid concerns about the stability of any TLD applicant who would not be able to apply without the Applicant Support fee reduction;

- The registrant projections for new-TLD registrations have proven to be wildly overblown, and the sustainability promises of new applicants need to be evaluated with that in mind.

Some of these realities were learned during the Applicant Support WG's tenure, others were revealed later as the application round unfolded. Regardless of source, we now have observable realities that did not exist before the last round and would be ill-advised to ignore them.

I find the conclusion fairly clear. There is no market-based justification for the Applicant Support program, indeed it threatens stability by introducing registries on financially shaky ground. As a result. any ongoing support for Applicant Support -- by ALAC or anyone else -- is solely for emotional reasons such as community pride. These may be strong incentives but at least let's go in with open eyes.

- Evan

On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 23:56, Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Dear all,

Reference is made to an earlier email with subject "Draft Issues List for Subsequent Procedures".

I have attempted to generate a *snapshot of where the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG is at in its deliberations on the Applicant Support Program as at 26 Jul 2019 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/111390697/01.%20SubPro%20Applicant%20Support%20as%20at%2026.07.2019%20for%20CPWG.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1564311734000&api=v2>*, post its last WG call on 25 Jul 15:00 UTC. Please note that that this snapshot is not intended to reflect a complete picture as deliberations on the same topic will continue on the next SubPro PDP WG Call of 29 Jul 20:00 UTC.

At-Large members on the SubPro PDP WG are encouraged to attend the SubPro PDP WG call of 29 Jul 20:00 UTC, to help support the ALAC/At-Large inputs on the Applicant Support Program and/or help flesh out more concrete recommendations for the Program, seeing that this is one of the topics for which At-Large has helped to drive in respect of the new gTLD application round of 2012 and has continued to provide substantial input.

After the said SubPro PDP WG call, I will attempt to present an updated snapshot at the next CPWG call.

Thank you, Justine Chew -----

Indeed. Resolving this term once and for all is worthwhile for many reasons. I think we settled on “Underserved Regions” but having an index on which to rely is even better. From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Date: Wednesday, July 31, 2019 at 2:41 AM To: Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Subsequent Procedures Update: Applicant Support Program, updated snapshot as at 31 Jul 2019 Hi Justine, I've said my piece on this previously and won't repeat. Awkward wording in the presentation such as "wilful gaming" (to contrast, I assume, with "accidental gaming" :-P ) offers a glimpse of what I have described this effort is up against. I maintain the effort is wasted resources, futile, and irrelevant to end users. One possible input for those who will soldier on: There is a question in slide 4 on "what is the Global South"? Generally the term is a clumsy, NGO-derived euphemism for "poor countries" since nobody wants to say it that way. It's not even accurate since many qualifying countries would be on or north of the Equator (ie, Yemen, Haiti). One objective measure available uses the UNDP Human Development Index<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index>, One could set the bar for the "global south" at countries in the "low development" list (#152 to 189) or, more generously, "low or medium development" (#113 to #189). Cheers, - Evan On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 22:10, Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear all, Here is an updated snapshot of where the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG is at in its deliberations on the Applicant Support Program as at 31 Jul 2019<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/111390697/02.%20SubPro%20Applicant%20Support%20as%20at%2031.07.2019%20for%20CPWG.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1564536035350&api=v2>. I understand that this is on the agenda for the CPWG call later today at 21:00 UTC. Justine ----- On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 05:55, Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com>> wrote: Evan, I am guided by the inputs the At-Large/ALAC have submitted up to the ALAC statement in response to the SubPro PDP WG's Initial Report of Sep 2018. From what I can observe within At-Large and beyond, there is no support to abolish the Applicant Support Program altogether. What is evident, however, is the dissatisfaction of how the Program was handled in the 2012 round, as admitted by the SubPro PDP WG Co-Chair in his email which was attached to mine. So At-Large may choose, if it wishes, to let other groups in the community drive the Program forward with or without At-Large/ALAC's further intervention. I haven't heard anyone else say At-Large chooses not to be involved hereon. Regards, Justine ----- On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 00:40, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org<mailto:evan@telly.org>> wrote: I was one of the two co-chairs of the original Applicant Support program WG in 2010 and believed strongly in it, Strong enough that we created a joint ALAC-NCSG-GAC group that convinced the Board to introduce the concept over the objection of the domain industry. But things have changed, dramatically, since then. Based on that experience I challenge the ongoing relevance of Applicant Support as an end-user issue worthy of attention from At-Large. We have the following lessons learned from the past experience and the aftermath of the last round: * The intended beneficiaries of the AS program are *only* TLD registry applicants -- not registrars or registrants, and certainly not end-users; * Given the existence of ccTLDs for every country and continental TLDs for Africa, Asia and Europe, the market need to create additional new registries to serve developing economies has not been demonstrated; * We now have a number of gTLDs targeting registrants for whom cost of domains is a barrier. Creating these low-cost-model registries did not require Applicant Support; * The last WG agonized over making regulations tough enough to prevent exploitation by applicants that didn't need subsidy, while still making it accessible to those that did. We utterly failed at this to the extent that NOT ONE registration for applicant support was delegated and less than five even made an attempt. Coming up with a new magic formula is simply not worth the massive effort to both develop and defend from the inevitable attack. (I vividly remember an early meeting we had on this at ATLAS 1 in Mexico, during which one registry applicant observer in the back of the room calmly said, "no matter what you come up with we'll find a way to game it." In hindsight he was absolutely correct, the only regulations that could prevent gaming were so tough that NOBODY could meet them. This situation has not changed since the last round; in the new discussion document the anti-gaming component remains contentious and unresolved (and IMO unresolvable); * Applicant Support was intended to reduce the cost of the initial ICANN fees but not the ongoing maintenance costs or ICANN per-domain fees. Even the new proposals that suggest extra support for application writing etc do not include ongoing support beyond application. Given the emergence of unstable TLDs from the last round, any applicant viable for the long term will need to demonstrate financial stability based on the total cost of running a domain, of which the fee reduction of Applicant Support is a fairly small proportion. There are serious and valid concerns about the stability of any TLD applicant who would not be able to apply without the Applicant Support fee reduction; * The registrant projections for new-TLD registrations have proven to be wildly overblown, and the sustainability promises of new applicants need to be evaluated with that in mind. Some of these realities were learned during the Applicant Support WG's tenure, others were revealed later as the application round unfolded. Regardless of source, we now have observable realities that did not exist before the last round and would be ill-advised to ignore them. I find the conclusion fairly clear. There is no market-based justification for the Applicant Support program, indeed it threatens stability by introducing registries on financially shaky ground. As a result. any ongoing support for Applicant Support -- by ALAC or anyone else -- is solely for emotional reasons such as community pride. These may be strong incentives but at least let's go in with open eyes. - Evan On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 23:56, Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear all, Reference is made to an earlier email with subject "Draft Issues List for Subsequent Procedures". I have attempted to generate a snapshot of where the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG is at in its deliberations on the Applicant Support Program as at 26 Jul 2019<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/111390697/01.%20SubPro%20Applicant%20Support%20as%20at%2026.07.2019%20for%20CPWG.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1564311734000&api=v2>, post its last WG call on 25 Jul 15:00 UTC. Please note that that this snapshot is not intended to reflect a complete picture as deliberations on the same topic will continue on the next SubPro PDP WG Call of 29 Jul 20:00 UTC. At-Large members on the SubPro PDP WG are encouraged to attend the SubPro PDP WG call of 29 Jul 20:00 UTC, to help support the ALAC/At-Large inputs on the Applicant Support Program and/or help flesh out more concrete recommendations for the Program, seeing that this is one of the topics for which At-Large has helped to drive in respect of the new gTLD application round of 2012 and has continued to provide substantial input. After the said SubPro PDP WG call, I will attempt to present an updated snapshot at the next CPWG call. Thank you, Justine Chew ----- _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto: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. -- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch or @el56

Good outcome for DotKids Foundation, appreciating the hoops they had to jump through to get to this very point. Thus coming back to our inputs to the Applicant Support Program (leaving aside Community Priority Evaluation), 1. Do we think applicants who meet the criteria for Applicant Support should be given priority in the event they end up in a contention set? 2. If no priority is granted, do we think applicants who meet the criteria for Applicant Support should be given additional support beyond just the application fee reduction, cost of application preparation/submission, in-kind support, to include financial (or non-financial) support during their evaluation process? What else (if any)? 3. How do we minimize the risk of gaming if such concessions were to be considered? Justine ----- ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2019 at 20:20 Subject: [CPWG] Applicant under ASP gets TLD To: cpwg@icann.org <cpwg@icann.org> http://domainincite.com/24590-amazon-and-google-have-been-beaten-by-a-non-pr... _______________________________________________ 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. ----- On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 18:10, Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Evan,

Thank you for your input on "Global South". That term was lifted from the CCTRT Final Report but we have gone on to use the term "underserved regions / communities" in the ALAC statements. Your suggestion on one objective measure for this target group is something that can be brought back to the SubPro WG.

Kind regards, Justine -----

On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 17:42, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:

...

Indeed. Resolving this term once and for all is worthwhile for many reasons. I think we settled on “Underserved Regions” but having an index on which to rely is even better.

*From: *GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> *Date: *Wednesday, July 31, 2019 at 2:41 AM *To: *Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> *Cc: *CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Subsequent Procedures Update: Applicant Support Program, updated snapshot as at 31 Jul 2019

Hi Justine,

I've said my piece on this previously and won't repeat. Awkward wording in the presentation such as "wilful gaming" (to contrast, I assume, with "accidental gaming" :-P ) offers a glimpse of what I have described this effort is up against. I maintain the effort is wasted resources, futile, and irrelevant to end users.

One possible input for those who will soldier on: There is a question in slide 4 on "what is the Global South"?

Generally the term is a clumsy, NGO-derived euphemism for "poor countries" since nobody wants to say it that way. It's not even accurate since many qualifying countries would be on or north of the Equator (ie, Yemen, Haiti).

One objective measure available uses the UNDP Human Development Index <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index>, One could set the bar for the "global south" at countries in the "low development" list (#152 to 189) or, more generously, "low or medium development" (#113 to #189).

Cheers,

- Evan

On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 22:10, Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear all,

Here is an *updated snapshot of where the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG is at in its deliberations on the Applicant Support Program as at 31 Jul 2019* <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/111390697/02.%20SubPro%20Applicant%20Support%20as%20at%2031.07.2019%20for%20CPWG.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1564536035350&api=v2>. I understand that this is on the agenda for the CPWG call later today at 21:00 UTC.

Justine -----

On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 05:55, Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote:

Evan,

I am guided by the inputs the At-Large/ALAC have submitted up to the ALAC statement in response to the SubPro PDP WG's Initial Report of Sep 2018.

From what I can observe within At-Large and beyond, there is no support to abolish the Applicant Support Program altogether. What is evident, however, is the dissatisfaction of how the Program was handled in the 2012 round, as admitted by the SubPro PDP WG Co-Chair in his email which was attached to mine.

So At-Large may choose, if it wishes, to let other groups in the community drive the Program forward with or without At-Large/ALAC's further intervention. I haven't heard anyone else say At-Large chooses not to be involved hereon.

Regards, Justine -----

On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 00:40, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:

I was one of the two co-chairs of the original Applicant Support program WG in 2010 and believed strongly in it, Strong enough that we created a joint ALAC-NCSG-GAC group that convinced the Board to introduce the concept over the objection of the domain industry.

But things have changed, dramatically, since then. Based on that experience I challenge the ongoing relevance of Applicant Support as an end-user issue worthy of attention from At-Large.

We have the following lessons learned from the past experience and the aftermath of the last round:

- The intended beneficiaries of the AS program are *only* TLD registry applicants -- not registrars or registrants, and certainly not end-users; - Given the existence of ccTLDs for every country and continental TLDs for Africa, Asia and Europe, the market need to create additional new registries to serve developing economies has not been demonstrated; - We now have a number of gTLDs targeting registrants for whom cost of domains is a barrier. Creating these low-cost-model registries did not require Applicant Support; - The last WG agonized over making regulations tough enough to prevent exploitation by applicants that didn't need subsidy, while still making it accessible to those that did. We utterly failed at this to the extent that NOT ONE registration for applicant support was delegated and less than five even made an attempt. Coming up with a new magic formula is simply not worth the massive effort to both develop and defend from the inevitable attack. (I vividly remember an early meeting we had on this at ATLAS 1 in Mexico, during which one registry applicant observer in the back of the room calmly said, "no matter what you come up with we'll find a way to game it." In hindsight he was absolutely correct, the only regulations that could prevent gaming were so tough that NOBODY could meet them. This situation has not changed since the last round; in the new discussion document the anti-gaming component remains contentious and unresolved (and IMO unresolvable); - Applicant Support was intended to reduce the cost of the initial ICANN fees but not the ongoing maintenance costs or ICANN per-domain fees. Even the new proposals that suggest extra support for application writing etc do not include ongoing support beyond application. Given the emergence of unstable TLDs from the last round, any applicant viable for the long term will need to demonstrate financial stability based on the total cost of running a domain, of which the fee reduction of Applicant Support is a fairly small proportion. There are serious and valid concerns about the stability of any TLD applicant who would not be able to apply without the Applicant Support fee reduction; - The registrant projections for new-TLD registrations have proven to be wildly overblown, and the sustainability promises of new applicants need to be evaluated with that in mind.

Some of these realities were learned during the Applicant Support WG's tenure, others were revealed later as the application round unfolded. Regardless of source, we now have observable realities that did not exist before the last round and would be ill-advised to ignore them.

I find the conclusion fairly clear. There is no market-based justification for the Applicant Support program, indeed it threatens stability by introducing registries on financially shaky ground. As a result. any ongoing support for Applicant Support -- by ALAC or anyone else -- is solely for emotional reasons such as community pride. These may be strong incentives but at least let's go in with open eyes.

- Evan

On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 23:56, Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear all,

Reference is made to an earlier email with subject "Draft Issues List for Subsequent Procedures".

I have attempted to generate a *snapshot of where the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG is at in its deliberations on the Applicant Support Program as at 26 Jul 2019 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/111390697/01.%20SubPro%20Applicant%20Support%20as%20at%2026.07.2019%20for%20CPWG.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1564311734000&api=v2>*, post its last WG call on 25 Jul 15:00 UTC. Please note that that this snapshot is not intended to reflect a complete picture as deliberations on the same topic will continue on the next SubPro PDP WG Call of 29 Jul 20:00 UTC.

At-Large members on the SubPro PDP WG are encouraged to attend the SubPro PDP WG call of 29 Jul 20:00 UTC, to help support the ALAC/At-Large inputs on the Applicant Support Program and/or help flesh out more concrete recommendations for the Program, seeing that this is one of the topics for which At-Large has helped to drive in respect of the new gTLD application round of 2012 and has continued to provide substantial input.

After the said SubPro PDP WG call, I will attempt to present an updated snapshot at the next CPWG call.

Thank you, Justine Chew -----

_______________________________________________ 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.

--

Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada

@evanleibovitch or @el56