[NCSG-PC] Budget requests to policy team

Thu Feb 5 08:13:52 EET 2026

Dear Rafik & Farz,
Please have the NCSG pc start working on this public comment
https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/icann-fy2731-operating-financial-plan-icanniana-fy27-op-plans-budgets-16-12-2025

If so, can you point me to the draft document, please?

Kind regards,
Benjamin

On Thu, Feb 5, 2026 at 2:55 AM Rafik Dammak via NCSG-PC <
ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:

> Hi Pedro, Farzaneh,
>
> We are working in urgency on the ICANN budget comment for submission on
> 12th Feb, can you please prepare the list of budget requests and relevant
> details.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> Le ven. 5 déc. 2025 à 21:44, Pedro de Perdigão Lana <
> pedrodeperdigaolana at gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>> 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
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20260205/253e2337/attachment-0001.htm>