[NCSG-PC] Budget requests to policy team

[Pedro de Perdigão Lana]

Hi Rafik and all,

Since I didn't have a basis for values, I tried to look around and ended up
with this proposal:

NCSG requests funding for an independent empirical study of the UDRP to
assess its effectiveness, fairness, accessibility, and areas for
improvement, and to provide neutral data to support any future GNSO Phase 2
review. Recent major analyses of the UDRP have been led and heavily
influenced by stakeholders directly involved in UDRP operations and
outcomes; therefore, while deeply valuable, they cannot be treated as
independent (and sole) evidence for multistakeholder policy-making
processes. The community currently faces a significant "data deficit":
policy reviews rely heavily on voluntary data from providers (e.g., WIPO,
Forum), which can obscure critical issues, relevant to a review, like
respondent default rates and potential panelist bias. Comprehensive case
data is also locked behind expensive paywalls (e.g., Darts-ip), creating an
inequality among researchers who want to have a thorough understanding of
the current scenario. An ICANN-commissioned study by a neutral academic or
research institution would: (i) Provide objective quantitative data on
outcomes, provider practices, timelines, defaults, costs, and respondent
experience; (ii) Identify fairness and due-process issues; (iii) Offer
evidence-based options for UDRP reform, rather than relying on
interested-party perspectives.

About the methodology, we suggest the study should employ a multi-modal
approach. Our suggestion of lines of action would be (i) quantitative,
meaning a Natural Language Processing (NLP) analysis of over 80,000
decisions to identify statistical patterns and anomalies; (ii) qualitative,
which could be done through manual legal audit of 500–1,000 specific cases
to evaluate the application of the "three-prong test" and due process;
(iii) surveys, i.e, targeted research with users of the system,
particularly respondents and complainants.

About the budget, $198,000 seems to cover the essential costs for an
effective but streamlined (i.e., avoiding long periods or in-depth
collection and analysis) study. Checking other similar projects, and
thinking of a shorter time-intensive period (6 months, instead of the usual
12 or 18 months for those kind of studies), as to allow for the development
of the PDP in due time, we suggest this rough breakdown: (i) Personnel
($145,000): Funding for, at least, the roles of investigators and data
scientists, based on market rated; (ii) Data & Infrastructure ($25,000):
Commercial database licensing (such as Darts-ip), equipment, software and
computing costs; (iii) Travel & Engagement ($10,000), for researchers to
participate in at least one ICANN Public Meeting to validate findings; (iv)
Admin & Contingency ($18,000), including an overhead cap and risk buffer.

Cordially,

*Pedro de Perdigão Lana*
Lawyer <https://www.nic.br/>, GEDAI/UFPR <https://www.gedai.com.br/>
Researcher
PhD Candidate (UFPR), LLM in Business Law (UCoimbra)
Coordination/Board/EC @ ISOC Brazil <https://www.isoc.org.br/>, NCUC
<https://www.ncuc.org/> & NCSG
<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Home>(ICANN) and CC
Brazil <https://br.creativecommons.net/>.
This message is restricted to the sender and recipient(s). If received by
mistake, please reply informing it.


Em sex., 5 de dez. de 2025 às 03:28, Rafik Dammak via NCSG-PC <
ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> escreveu:

> Hi Farzaneh,
>
> we can add that.
> based on the google doc, we have this list and we add your suggestion
>
>    - UDRP independent research
>    - Study on AI and Domain abuse
>    - Support for registrants (information/education)
>    - Education on accuracy for registrants with SSAC
>    - Middle East DNS study.
>
> I assume we should ask for HRIA to be budgeted too while the GNSO policy
> team should have factored that already. One question about HRIA is which
> resources to be used , internal or external. It is the same question for
> any PDP if it requires SME/experts and so to ask clearly for independent
> outside experts or legal counselling.
> can you all please, in particular who suggested above add some
> description, ballpark estimation and outcome if possible. Few lines would
> be enough. We are already late,
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
> Le ven. 5 déc. 2025 à 01:51, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> a
> écrit :
>
>> Thanks Rafik.
>>
>> I wanted to ask NCSG to suggest an Middle East DNS study be done. It was
>> cancelled a couple of years ago and I think that region really needs one.
>>
>>
>> Farzaneh
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 2:07 AM Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> hi all,
>>>
>>> As shared during the Dublin meeting and based on interaction with the
>>> finance team and Russ from the policy team, we should prepare budget
>>> requests to share with the ICANN policy team with a short explanation for
>>> each. We hope that they can factor that in the proposals they made. Last
>>> opportunity would be the public comments for FY27 budget and operating plan.
>>>
>>> We had previously a list of priority topics as asked by finance
>>> committee
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ipzCDVDg5un_QU8LblMWuDpwWRGhAnFDTwwDVP4CQQs/edit?tab=t.0
>>> , we can use it as a starting point. We should get things done asap.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20251205/fdff9f88/attachment.htm>