[NCSG-PC] Budget requests to policy team

Thu Feb 5 08:21:01 EET 2026

Hi,

There is a group of volunteers working on that. Remmy has a draft and I
asked him to share with others and NCSG list asap for review.

Best,

Rafik

Le jeu. 5 févr. 2026 à 15:17, Benjamin Akinmoyeje <benakin at gmail.com> a
écrit :

> 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/e5516cb1/attachment-0001.htm>