Public Comment is a vital part of our multistakeholder model. It provides a mechanism for stakeholders to have their opinions and recommendations formally and publicly documented. It is an opportunity for the ICANN community to effect change and improve policies and operations.
Submissions for this Proceeding
GNSO Guidance Process Applicant Support Guidance Recommendation Initial Report
View this Proceeding
My Submissions
Search Public Comment Submissions For This Proceeding
To search for keywords within Public Comment submissions documents or pages, type in the keyword and press Enter after each selection.
Submission Summary:
The ALAC/At-Large is, in general, able to support the intent of the proposed recommendations on Applicant Support Guidance as currently worded by the GGP or with some altered wording.
However as the detailed polling results show, for recommendation 4, the support for ‘Support Recommendation intent with wording change’ when added to the ‘Support the Recommendation as written’ indicates support for the intent at a level of...
Submission Summary:
The NCUC thanks the GGP for their great work to improve applicant support for the New gTLD Next Round. The NCUC strongly aligns with the position of NCSG views.
We reiterate that a conscious effort to ensure that outreach efforts get to stakeholders in underdeveloped areas, like Africa, and noncommercial and not-for-profit organizations would be necessary for a successful new round of the gTLDs .
Submission Summary:
The second round of new gTLD expansion is an immense opportunity for every organization and every one should be allowed to benefit from it – including businesses.
The decision to grant support is based on a robust methodology and by specifically excluding one type of organizations from targeted communications is a significant flaw in this program.
Therefore, our recommendation is to reword the Implementation Guidance as follows:
Submission Summary:
While RySG supports all GGP recommendations as written, we believe the report does not give all implementation guidance that ICANN Org will need to structure the Applicant Support Program in a more effective way compared to the 2012 program. Charter questions/tasks were all answered, but whether additional tasks or a vehicle other than a GGP could have delivered a suitable outcome, will be up to the GNSO Council to assess in its continuous man...
Submission Summary:
ICANN org appreciates the work of the GGP for ASP. Based upon org’s engagement in this process, comments on the draft guidance recommendations are relatively minor in nature. The main point of feedback we are proposing is that the GGP clarify and confirm whether its guidance recommendations are interdependent (per the GNSO Guidance Process Manual). Otherwise, several of the guidance recommendations could be interpreted...
Submission Summary:
Com Laude appreciates the thought and effort done by the GGP so far. We have offered additional metrics for success to be considered by the GGP, so that the efficacy of the support provided to applicants can be evaluated in the future.
Submission Summary:
The new gTLD appliant support will include the financial support to applicant who needed, it will serve the purpose to made some effort for the applicant from developing countries.
When the metrics of measures of success is an important process in this new future, it needs to be sure that there will be a outreach and support from the ICANN regional office to assist the applicant during the process. This step will be necessary,...
Submission Summary:
TheApplicant Support Program (ASP) aims to increase the diversity and inclusion of new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) by providing financial and technical assistance to eligible applicants from underserved regions and communities. To enhance the impact and sustainability of the ASP, I propose the following actions:
- Conduct deeper collaborative and interregional studies and advocacy to understand the need...