[NCSG-PC] Budget requests to policy team

Thu Feb 5 10:16:18 EET 2026

Thank you, Rafik. I will look out for that.

Benjamin

On Thu, Feb 5, 2026 at 8:21 AM Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 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/20260205/7e640936/attachment-0001.htm>