[NCSG-PC] Budget requests to policy team

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi,

I would send the list to Russ but as we are close to the public comment on
ICANN budget and operating plan, it will  be part of our input there. But
getting policy staff supports is still needed.

Best,

Rafik


On Fri, Dec 5, 2025, 21:44 Pedro de Perdigão Lana <
pedrodeperdigaolana at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20251208/5db61a07/attachment.htm>