[NCSG-PC] Budget requests to policy team

Thu Feb 12 14:06:39 EET 2026

Hi all,

Just made my comments on the doc. Sorry for doing it so close to the
deadline, time is short these days (:

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 qui., 5 de fev. de 2026 às 05:16, Benjamin Akinmoyeje <benakin at gmail.com>
escreveu:

> 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/20260212/a7937ee6/attachment-0001.htm>