and as a note, these are just examples

to encourage proposals

of concrete policy goals

I think the middle goal is a challenge - we can only lead people to the program - we cant set policy that increases the number of successful assistance recipients.

note that the text is green here because it was moved up from lower in the document

correct, that is new

YEs

Good evening, all, CW

we have not yet gone over the comment from ICANN org

@New Idea - Apple Pie

Wasn't me raising concers about gaming

nope

Trang raised some concerns.

There’s the ICANN Org concern/new idea

Hello All, sorry for being bit late

A reasonable amount of time was discussed a while back and everyone seemed to approve of the idea

Did we decide how long a reasonable period of time is?

@Christa, which idea is this?

I don't think we got to the exact amount of time, 'reasonable' was used.

@Justine - change from moving from AS to the standard application process

@Christa, thanks!

Agree, Christa.

So, ICANN's Org point over gaming is noted but the potential incidence of gaming should be handled diffierently and not be the main cause of dampening the number of potential applicants for ASP.

Correct, ICANN org’s comment is not an objection against allowing applicants to pay the remaining fees to continue in the program, but rather was meant to raise a potential issue for the PDP WG to discuss.

Question: Does the WG believe the potential for gaming is to be accepted, or should alternative mitigations be explored?

nobody can change strings

Agree with Donna

@Donna - I don't recall discussing that question

OK. Keep the same string.

human beings are extremely inventive when income might arise … so there always be gaming, the question is the scale and damage

Yes, agree, no change in string. The change in selection of string only arises if there was conention but I don't think we have thoroughly discussed that situation.

Extremely low volume

Indeed well noted @Maxim

I believe there's another form of gaming in moving to the mainstream application process if there is an ability to change the string.

In terms of mitigations, for instance, there could some form of a quick look mechanism, akin to that in objections.

There are of course other considerations. An App Supp application might be associated with Geo-approval, which might not be transferrable.

I raised this last week, but just to reiterate that the timing of the evaluation of applicant support vs timing of the application process is important here.

Agreed Alexander. So we abolish all refunds for withdrawing an application ?

joining late

Welcome Paul

I must say that I rather expected that most AS applications would be IDN or GEO.

I'm not too sure if we'll be able to anticipate all potential ASP gaming scenarios which will lead to over-complicating the applicant process.

@christopher, I think that's a flawed assumption.

@Christa, sorry I missed your comment, could you put it in chat please?

IDN is a language , does not have anything to do with money

I expect NGOs to be the most likely AS applicants.

Agree with Katrin, let's try to keep it simple.

If I am not mistaken, the tangible benefit from 2012 version of Applicant Support was limited to a reduced fee amount. It had no bearing on the type of application or string type.

GEOs have support of governments, they usually do not support organizations , which can not ensure the process to be solid without additional support

so I think there might be a need of support for communities (which might be IDNs)

@Maxim - exactly, no government woudl hand out a support letter to an entity which would depend on ASP grants

And I only raise that in the context of switching from Applicant Support to…something else. That something else would presumably be a full application fee amount.

Applicants claiming support would be notified BEFORE the "big reveal" that they don't qualify for support - and would have to commit to pay the full amount - and the applicants for THAT string (if there are several) will only be revealed after ALL applicants have paid their full fees. Then the "gamer" has no information "gain" - and gaming makes no sense anymore.

I think I agree with you Alexander

They are able to move their application to a mainstream process rather than the

string

Sorry, the application with the requested string.

@Alexander, makes sense.

Gaming example: you apply for .shanghai (not claiming it was NOT targeting the city - so you don't need a city support letter); you ask for fee support:

In case you are the only applicant - GREAT: pay the applicant fee and sell the application to a media company in Shanghai. Free gTLD-testing.

I think some of this depends on the support being provided through the program, but I agree with the principle that wilful gaming should be discouraged.

@Alexander - Ouch. <we do not want a secondary market in non-completed applications!!

IDNs are usually locally focused (not all of them)

I think applicants should be able to apply regardless from their location - there could be small linguistic communities, cities or regions on any continent which might benefit from the ASP.

another 12 years?

Good point Maxim

The previous system was installed with the help of the same community

I'm not sure I see the logic on how suggesting AS applicants to wait is supportive...

Agreed Katrin. This is getting far too over complicated . Define this . Define that

yes Cheryl this is fundamental

Does Flint, Michigan count as an underserved region?

I thought 'underserved' or 'underdeveloped' regions were defined by the UN or some other benchmark.

I can't remember exactly what was said but there was discussion on the regions that the UN designated as underserved and how applicable/up to do the list is/what it is updated

Of course it will be brilliant

I think that the STRING should "serve" the "Global South" or other "struggling regions". So a language gTLD or a geo gTLD of that target group shoud be supported! NOT if they apply for a ".web"-type of gTLD.

Aw thanks - I should drop in more often :) (and it’s all due to coordination with Steve and the GNSO team that I’m on!)

developing countries I guess is the most common definitions

@Mary, noted, is ICANN Org looking at possible sources for defining "underserved/underdeveloped communities/regions"?

We will hopefully get to the section in a moment, but you will see the following text from the ICANN Board in referring the CCT-RT’s recommendation 29 to this group: “Note the recommendation and pass the recommendation through to the noted community groups for their consideration. Given the interdependency between this recommendation and recommendation 30, as both recommendations rely upon the same undefined term “Global South”, the 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.”

@Justine, yes indeed, in order to come up with the appropriate definitions in the ICANN context.

@Mary, thanks. Would it possible to share those analysis?

@CLO - yes, that’s one of the programs that’ll be affected, as well as CROP, capacity development requests, etc. etc. And as @Steve noted, it’s in the CCT-RT recs too.

Noted

The Applicant Support Program evaluation criteria that I just spoke about are in the New gTLD Financial Assistance Handbook at https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support/financial-assistance-handbook-11jan12-en.pdf. Specifically, the lists that I referenced are tied to criteria #4 under Public Interest on page 14 of the document.

whatever is South hemisphere or not developing countries IMO covers most of the countries/regions we iagree needed to improve nall issues related to this round , for this program or other ones inside ICANN

@Cheryl, nope, all good.

still not sure how you define "underserved". These terms have to be defined if incorporated into the report.

@Jim, that’s why we are looking to see if this group will be coming up with definitions - and then we can take the opportunity to discuss (outside SubPro)whether the same definitions make sense across ICANN programs.

bye all

Could we please have an action item to ask ICANN Org to share their thinking on "underserved/under-developed communities/regions" 'in moving away from Global South'?

We most certainly will - it’s work in early stages right now.

@Mary, thank you.

Thursday, 01 August 2019 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes

thanks to all , bu will be never tired fo you Cheryl

Thanks all.

Thanks, Cheryl!