[NCSG-PC] Budget requests to policy team

Fri Dec 5 14:43:59 EET 2025

Also fed Gemini some inputs and asked it to create a more detailed plan of
a more in-depth research (with timelines, descriptions of each aspect of
the budget, larger justifications on why the study is necessary), in case
any of you find this useful:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OL76uQel_L2Bayu2dIGJTEeLc6jnGJHxCQUsZrjFEXE/edit?tab=t.0

When choosing what to send to ICANN, I would, however, stick with the
synthetic version I wrote, since it is more palatable (:

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 09:38, Pedro de Perdigão Lana <
pedrodeperdigaolana at gmail.com> escreveu:

> 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/20251205/29e00a70/attachment-0001.htm>