Thanks Tracy.  I don't think the existing policy work, including the GGP, provides any basis for discouraging an applicant from a particular country  who otherwise qualifies based on criteria specified in the handbook.   One ready example I would give would be the indigenous tribes located in various countries which may have completely separate (and struggling) economies.  However, I do agree the "localized data" enumeration of examples should be subject to further discussion.

Thank you,
Anne

Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024


On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 9:18 AM HACKSHAW tracy <HackshawT@upu.int> wrote:
Hello colleagues,

Further to the input provided by Roz, which I fully support, I would like to ensure that the Handbook clearly delineates and eliminates the often cited "The Bronx" scenario. 

I would therefore recommend inclusion of a documented caveat that:

(i) strongly discourages applicants from countries that already have a vibrant DNS Industry from applying for the ASP (thereby clearly avoiding the need for the already limited available resources to be expended within the Outreach and Engagement/Communications Plan in these areas. In this regard, we recall the "targeted" approach as explained by the Comms team in their recent presentation).

(ii) Ensures that the currently included wide range of localized data does not inadvertently facilitate the allocation of resources to consider applicants from countries that already have a vibrant DNS industry at the expense of those applicants from countries that do not. 

Thanks, 

Tracy

From: Subpro-irt-asp <subpro-irt-asp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kennybirch, Rosalind (DSIT) via Subpro-irt-asp <subpro-irt-asp@icann.org>
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2024 12:36:34 PM
To: Kristy Buckley <kristy.buckley@icann.org>; Samantha Mancia <samantha.mancia@icann.org>; SubPro-IRT-asp@icann.org <SubPro-IRT-asp@icann.org>
Subject: [Subpro-irt-asp] GAC comments on ASP Handbook revision
 
  ATTENTION   Ce courriel provient de l’extérieur de l’organisation. Ne cliquez pas sur les liens et n’ouvrez pas les pièces jointes à moins de bien connaître l’expéditeur et de savoir que le contenu est sûr.
CAUTION   This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open any attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

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.