GAC comments on ASP Handbook revision
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
Hi Kristy and Sam, I am going to provide some very brief comments of my own. Will try to respond to Roz's email and Justine's email separately since that may make more sense in trying to reconcile the comments. First, I very much appreciate the work that has been done in response to the IRT ASP track meetings and your own consideration of needed changes for better organization etc. Thank you! COMMENTS In Section 1.2 - at the end of the first paragraph, I think we have to add "...and wish to apply for and operate a generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") in the Domain Name System ("DNS") ." (When we quote the Sub Pro Final Report in the next paragraph, "gTLD" and "DNS" are both in shortened acronym form. In relation to Roz's comment about providing info on eligible entities sooner in the document, I don't think we need to reorganize the document but would support the addition of the following sentence at the end of the first paragraph of 1.2. "Types of entities eligible for ASP assistance (subject to meeting various criteria for qualification) are described in Section 4 below." 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.
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
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 anneicanngnso@gmail.com 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.
I agree on this point. Qualified candidates can come from any country or region. Key is they meet the criteria in order to be successful. Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202-285-3699 From: Subpro-irt-asp <subpro-irt-asp-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Anne ICANN Sent: Friday, May 31, 2024 3:08 PM To: HACKSHAW tracy <HackshawT@upu.int> Cc: SubPro-IRT-asp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Subpro-irt-asp] GAC comments on ASP Handbook revision 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 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 9:18 AM HACKSHAW tracy <HackshawT@upu.int<mailto: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<mailto:subpro-irt-asp-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kennybirch, Rosalind (DSIT) via Subpro-irt-asp <subpro-irt-asp@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-asp@icann.org>> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2024 12:36:34 PM To: Kristy Buckley <kristy.buckley@icann.org<mailto:kristy.buckley@icann.org>>; Samantha Mancia <samantha.mancia@icann.org<mailto:samantha.mancia@icann.org>>; SubPro-IRT-asp@icann.org<mailto:SubPro-IRT-asp@icann.org> <SubPro-IRT-asp@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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.
Many thanks, all, for your thoughtful and timely input, as usual. Recognizing that many of us are traveling to and preparing for the ICANN80 meeting, we may not have a chance to fully address every additional comment provided before publishing version two of the draft Handbook. I've asked Leon to compile these comments so we can respond and track which ones have been addressed as we move forward. As you know, there are still remaining dependencies in the draft ASP Handbook, many of which may be resolved following ICANN80, following Board consideration. If there are still outstanding comments by the time we publish version two, we will be sure to revisit those and update version three of the draft ASP Handbook as needed. We are working to get a version up on the ASP website as soon as possible, to coincide with the start of the communications, outreach, and engagement period for ASP. We anticipate that version three will soon follow to address some of those remaining dependencies. Thanks again for taking the time--as individuals and in consultation with your constituent groups--to review and provide input to strengthen the Handbook and the approach to this program. I hope to see many of you in Kigali as well. Kind regards, Kristy, on behalf of the ASP Project Team ________________________________ From: Subpro-irt-asp <subpro-irt-asp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2024 12:46:15 PM To: Anne ICANN; HACKSHAW tracy Cc: SubPro-IRT-asp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Subpro-irt-asp] GAC comments on ASP Handbook revision I agree on this point. Qualified candidates can come from any country or region. Key is they meet the criteria in order to be successful. Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202-285-3699 From: Subpro-irt-asp <subpro-irt-asp-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Anne ICANN Sent: Friday, May 31, 2024 3:08 PM To: HACKSHAW tracy <HackshawT@upu.int> Cc: SubPro-IRT-asp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Subpro-irt-asp] GAC comments on ASP Handbook revision 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 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 9:18 AM HACKSHAW tracy <HackshawT@upu.int<mailto: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<mailto:subpro-irt-asp-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kennybirch, Rosalind (DSIT) via Subpro-irt-asp <subpro-irt-asp@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-asp@icann.org>> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2024 12:36:34 PM To: Kristy Buckley <kristy.buckley@icann.org<mailto:kristy.buckley@icann.org>>; Samantha Mancia <samantha.mancia@icann.org<mailto:samantha.mancia@icann.org>>; SubPro-IRT-asp@icann.org<mailto:SubPro-IRT-asp@icann.org> <SubPro-IRT-asp@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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.
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.
participants (5)
-
Anne ICANN -
HACKSHAW tracy -
Jim Prendergast -
Kennybirch, Rosalind (DSIT) -
Kristy Buckley