Dear Working Group members,

Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 1 August 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/x/YqujBg.

Please note in the action items below that the leadership team welcomes additional input on several topics discussed on today’s call and covered in the public comment summary document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11mtncTwPLPx6vpbunACToRZy1vWyls-MxVAb3wqEYsk/edit#. Specifically, the leadership team would like your input on whether any of the concerns or new ideas presented in the comments warrant further discussion from the group on the following topics related to Applicant Support:

How should Applicant Support applications be prioritized if there are more qualified applicants than resources available? (see page 19 for summary of public comments)
Is there agreement that aside from comments from the Indian government, there is not support for continued financial support for applicants beyond application fees? (see page 20 for summary of the comment from Government of India)
How should the Applicant Support Program be funded? (see page 22 for summary of public comments)
What metrics could be used to measure the success of the Applicant Support Program? (see page 23 for summary of public comments)
Is any additional discussion needed on the new ideas and concerns raised regarding the Applicant Support Program, string contention resolution and auctions? (see page 23 for summary of public comments)
Should there be a dedicated application round for applicants from developing countries? (see page 23 for summary of public comments)

You can find the full text of the public comments on this topic here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133WbhWYB4M4kT6DqSfiCR2-ij7jxNkLj5EWZL-NA95M/edit#gid=1627799531

Kind regards,

Emily

Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest

None

Review of summary document: (continued)

Applicant Support, page 19, beginning of with a continuation of the sub-section on Eligibility (https://docs.google.com/document/d/11mtncTwPLPx6vpbunACToRZy1vWyls-MxVAb3wqEYsk/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com])
On the last call, the focus of the conversation was the proposal that an applicant support candidate could transfer to a standard application if the applicant support application was unsuccessful. Some support was expressed for this idea and some concerns about potential “gaming” were also considered.
Some clarification has been provided by Justine on ALAC comments on this issue (see document for text added by Justine).
Populations/Regions served: Reminder that ICANN Org is reviewing some of the terminology that has been used in the context of discussions about applicant support, but is also used elsewhere – such as “underserved” and “underrepresented.” The ICANN Org review is not focused on policy development, specifically, but in different areas of ICANN’s work. It may be appropriate to coordinate workstreams. ICANN Org analysis is moving away from “Global South” terminology.
Review of comments on methods for selecting ASP recipients if there are more applicants than funds/resources.
Note that regarding the nomenclature of “Global South” there was a suggestion to look at the UNDP Human Development Index as a resource.
One member expressed support for a bucketed approach for funding, for example with respect to IDNs.

ACTION ITEM: Seek additional input on mailing list regarding how to prioritize applicant support applications if there are more qualified applicants than resources.

Review of CCT-RT recommendations on this topic passed through by the Board.
Reminder of text from the Board resolution related to CCT-RT recommendations: “Board notes that the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG could take on, should they choose to do so, defining the term “Global South” in coordination with ICANN org, its engagement teams, and geographic regions definitions to create a workable definition, or agreeing on another term to describe underserved or underrepresented regions or stakeholders in coordination with ICANN org.”
Review of comments regarding the scope of support, for example, financial support for the application only, other forms of financial support, or non-financial support such as mentorship and consulting resources.
One member noted concern about additional costs during the application process aside from the application fee, such as contention resolution in the case of a contention set.
It was noted that there are still discussions underway regarding auctions of last resort.
Another member noted that there are ongoing costs in addition to the application fee that applicants need to plan for.
A member raised that operational viability could be somewhat established through the financial aspect of the ASP criteria.
One member noted and some other members agreed that aside from the Indian Government, it appears that there is no other support for ongoing financial support for applicants beyond the application fees.
Staff noted that the high level agreements capture some support for financial assistance beyond the fee itself.
A member noted that these include costs related to the application, such as professional services, but this is different from registry-level fees.

ACTION ITEM: Confirm on the mailing list that beyond comments from the Indian government, there is not support for continued financial support for applicants beyond application fees.

Clarification from staff on the Indian Government’s comment regarding the fee for middle applicants – the comment appears to propose a reduced fee for middle applicants that is higher than the standard fee and lower than the fee for applicant support recipients.
Some concern raised about complexity of such a fee structure.
Review of comments regarding the possible review of the applicant’s business plan as part of the application evaluation process.
Review of comments on outreach and learning strategy for the applicant support program.
Suggestion from one member that it should be added to the high-level agreements the comments support more education and awareness-raising with a focus on the appropriate timing. This is more of an implementation element than a policy recommendation.
Review of comments on program funding.

ACTION ITEM: Solicit input on the mailing list on the topic of program funding. Also seek mailing list input on metrics to measure success; additional considerations raised regarding ASP, string contention resolution, and auctions; and the proposal to provide a dedicated round for applicants from developing countries.

Next meeting scheduled for Tuesday 6 August at 3:00 UTC.

Emily Barabas | Policy Manager

ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

Email: emily.barabas@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976