Hi Roz, Kristy and Sam, I made brief comments separately but wanted to address the points below with a few thoughts. First bullet point - this looks fine to me. Second bullet point - please see my specific comment to just add language up top referring to the eligible entity section in 4 below. People can just jump to that section in the document. I don't think the entire document needs to be reorganized this stage. Third bullet point - although I understand the reason for this comment, I don't think that in reality the information developed is directly transferable to the actual new gTLD application. The reasons are: (1) Required financial information is likely much more rigorous at the new gTLD application phase and (2) it's possible that verifiable entity and degree of control and background checks may have to be rerun in order to be current at the time of application, especially if the application comes in near the end of the next window. But I know Kristy and Sam will have the answer here. Fourth bullet point - I tend to agree that the laundry list Roz refers to is not helpful. Is this the list the third party provider would be using to measure need based on "localized data"? Or can we work with the third party provider to specify criteria which fit the purposes of this ASP? Agree on adding the primer history document as an exhibit or appendix as suggested by Roz. Thanks for all your hard work! Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 3:37 AM Kennybirch, Rosalind (DSIT) via Subpro-irt-asp <subpro-irt-asp@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Kristy, Sam,
Thanks so much for giving us until today to consult on the ASP Handbook with our constituencies. All – it has been a pleasure to work with you throughout this process – we are almost there!
I have attached a few comments based on consulting with GAC members. These include small changes for clarity and high-level points (eg that ICANN should look to make more funding available if there are many successful applicants). However, there are also a few suggestions for direct changes to the handbook. I wanted to highlight the key recommended changes from the GAC below:
- A need to identify which groups the program is aimed at up top, in the objectives (section 1.3) and the overview (section 2, first two paragraphs) sections respectively, including that the program has a global focus. - This theme, of clearly highlighting who this program is aimed at, also resonates in some of the comments the GAC has suggested later down in the document. GAC members who are looking to encourage groups in their countries to apply fed back that it would make much more sense to see information on eligible entities first, before reading through public responsibility, etc. sections – to be able to check whether they are eligible in the first place. This would also be a more efficient use of their time (eg saving themselves time reading through all of that detail in the first instance, only to find they aren’t an eligible entity of the program). - On the current section 2.3, GAC members wondered if it could be clarified, and emphasized, that the expectation is that much of the work through both processes (the ASP application process and the new gTLD application process) will be transferable/replicable? It may deter an entity from applying if they get the impression that they will need to do double the work. - Finally, and this is a query from me – I thought we had agreed to remove the laundry list of example localized data, such as under five mortality (health), etc.? My understanding was that we had agreed to take out the list for the ‘micro or small sized business from a less developed economy’ section as the examples of localized data were causing confusion and made almost any group eligible to apply, when the focus of this category is supposed to be on lesser developed economies, from a global perspective? I recall that we also said that if an example of localized data was to be left in, it should focus on Internet connectivity itself (eg the Internet penetration example).
I also really appreciated ICANN’s publication of the primer document on the ASP, which I read with interest this week. There could be great merit in adding that primer (attached) as an annex, or at least an accompanying document to go with the handbook.
Best wishes,
Roz
_______________________________________________ Subpro-irt-asp mailing list Subpro-irt-asp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt-asp
_______________________________________________ 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.