[NCSG-PC] NCSG 2026 Policy priorities for funding
Kathy Kleiman
Kathy at KathyKleiman.com
Sat Oct 18 00:31:37 EEST 2025
Hi Tomslin, Pedro and All,
I want to strongly support Pedro on this important email. When we
started the RPM PDP WG - Phase 1 (2016), we had the advantage of a
objective and neutral study by data scientists of the Analysis Group on
the Trademark Clearinghouse (see link below). Having this study
completely changed the discussion of the PDP Working Group from "I like
the TMCH" or "I don't like the TMCH" to a combined group inquiry into
whether this neutral data showed us that the Trademark Clearinghouse was
or was not operating according to the policy we adopted as the GNSO,
Board and ICANN Community" A much more productive discussion!
With almost 100,000 cases UDRP just for gTLDs, now is the time for us to
dive into the data! /Truly, how can we conduct a data-driven review for
the GNSO Council in this PDP WG without it? /Let me agree with what
Pedro wrote below: *<<Possibly hiring an external party to go deep into
evaluating the data already available (decisions, mostly) and conducting
a few interviews with relevant actors to the UDRP ecosystem would be the
ideal choice of resources.>> *Perhaps we don't need all 25 years, but
certainly a study of the last 10 to 15 years, would be very, very
helpful to ensure that this UDRP -- so long delayed -- is conducted with
independent and neutral data.
To help such an independent study:
- All UDRP decisions for gTLDs are public -- and easily accessible.
- Conducting interviews with relevant actors would be key, as Pedro
writes, and I would add, interviewing registrants, particularly those
who tried to reach out to WIPO for help and were unable still to file a
official response. Did they understand what they needed to do? What
would have made it easier for them to respond fully and tell their story
to the Panelists?
- The researchers could examine Defaults - why are there so many
defaults? Are Registrants receiving notice in languages they understand
and is the timeline sufficient for them to prepare a response? One
thing we might explore: Given that we are told not to click on links
from parties we don't know, have Registrants who defaulted ever heard of
WIPO? Would it help for the notice to come from a party they know and
trust?
- They could check the Panelists -- are Panelists unbiased and also are
they giving the UDRP case the full and quick review we were promised?
/In 1999, we (ICANN) asked all registrants for gTLDs to waive "personal
jurisdiction" -- the protections that protect our freedom and our
property (like domain names) from being removed without a trial in our
local court, in a language we know, with a set of legal customs we know. /
/When we knew these protections would be stripped away, Noncommercials
in 1999 fought very, very hard for the current rule*: Default (not
showing up and filing in the UDRP proceeding) _would not equal loss_.
*/Because we knew that given the global nature of the Internet (and for
the reasons above), many Registrants would not be able to respond. /But
do the UDRP tribunals, like WIPO, act fully and fairly for both sides of
a gTLD dispute? /
Some fair, neutral and objective data would help us understand and
conduct a full and fair review for registrants.
***
Every SG and AC will have their own questions - and the Analysis Group
for the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) Study for Phase 1 asked everyone
for input and questions before starting their valuable work!
****
*Finally, as Pedro also writes: we have to avoid taking the WIPO-ICA
report "as the sole basis for the beginning of the work." *You will hear
that WIPO and ICA have already done the work for us -- WIPO, the BC and
the IPC. They haven't! First, all are lawyers, and second ICA has
members in both the BC and IPC.
/But we represent registrants around the world who have not have heard
of WIPO or the UDRP and cannot find Internet lawyers in their regions or
communities, or afford their expensive services -- yet for noncommercial
registrants, their domain names are critical for the sharing of their
speech, activities and services with their communities and around the
world. /
*We have the opportunity: *The Council Prioritization Working Document
says, under RPM Description: At some point prior to reinitiating this
work, a Charter drafting team will need to be convened. However, that
step does not preclude additional data gathering and analysis happening
prior."
*"However, that step does not preclude additional data gathering and
analysis happening prior."*
Perfect! Could our NCSG Councilors ask for this "additional data
gathering and analysis" before we start RPM PDP WG - Phase 2? Just as
in Phase 1, independent and objective data will allow us to engage in
data-driven analysis and review!
Best and tx,
Kathy
p.s. Here's the report described above -- commissioned before we started
Phase 1 and presented to us when we started our work*: *Independent
Review of Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) Services, **Draft Report,
https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/draft-services-review-25jul16-en.pdf
On 10/13/2025 7:33 AM, Pedro de Perdigão Lana wrote:
> Hi Tomslin, all,
>
> For the UDRP, it would be to produce data to subsidize the UDRP
> review, especially the charter, to avoid taking the UDRP-ICA report as
> the sole basis for the beginning of the work. Something similar to
> what was done with the other RPMs, to identify shortcomings and topics
> that are working well. Possibly hiring an external party to go deep
> into evaluating the data already available (decisions, mostly) and
> conducting a few interviews with relevant actors to the UDRP ecosystem
> would be the ideal choice of resources. It could also be fruitful to
> partner up with UDRP operators so they can message the users of the
> system to ask for feedback, if that is possible, considering data
> privacy regulations.
>
> We also don't have a report from the ICANN community about domain
> suspensions/takedowns, do we? Something along the lines of what has
> been the increase during the last few years, what are the origins,
> what are the countries that have laws or other norms that foresee this
> capacity, etc. This would also be interesting to have.
>
> 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 seg., 13 de out. de 2025 às 08:18, Tomslin Samme-Nlar
> <mesumbeslin at gmail.com> escreveu:
>
> Hi PC,
>
> If you remember, last month the FC asked us what our priorities
> for 2026 are. When we met, we came up with the following list:
>
> * Review of Reviews
> * DNS Abuse & HRIA
> * Next Round of gTLDs
> * HRIAs
> * Objection processes/GAC requests
> * Urgent Requests/ RDRS
> * Domain suspensions/takedowns
> * Grants Program - review
> * Outreaches
> * UDRP
>
> The follow-up questions from the FC that we also have to answer
> are, out of the above list,
>
> * 1. What specific programs or initiatives do we recommend
> funding or initiating to support the group's objectives with
> regard to policy issues?
> * 2. What are the expected outcomes for each program or initiative?
> * 3. What is the kind of resources requested for those initiatives
>
>
> Can I ask that all PC members (not only councillors) give these
> questions a thought and suggest some ideas on this list which we
> will collect, refine and present to the whole NCSG before passing
> it unto the FC?
>
> We have a slot in Dublin to discuss the inputs collected, so
> please please send through your inputs on this list before we
> meet, to allow us have a good and fruitful discussion with outcomes.
>
> I am looking forward to your inputs.
>
> Remain blessed,
> Tomslin
>
> On Mon, 15 Sept 2025, 17:05 Tomslin Samme-Nlar,
> <mesumbeslin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rafik,
>
> Thanks for sharing. We will try to discuss each of the
> questions during our PC meeting later today. I am sure since
> it will be early morning for some, they will be seeing the
> questions for the first time during the meeting. So, we might
> have to continue the discussion on email after the initial
> discussion on the call today.
>
> Remain blessed,
> Tomslin
>
> On Mon, 15 Sept 2025, 16:56 Rafik Dammak,
> <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> NCSG Finance Committee want to share those questions for
> PC consideration to understand about policy priorities and
> what we want in term of resources so using that requests
> into ICANN budget for FY26
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ipzCDVDg5un_QU8LblMWuDpwWRGhAnFDTwwDVP4CQQs/edit?tab=t.0
>
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20251017/4376a90d/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list