---
# System prepended metadata

title: 'PDaSP NSF Proposal #2 - NOTES'

---


---
robots: noindex, nofollow
---

# PDaSP NSF Proposal #2 - NOTES

NSF 24-585: Privacy-Preserving Data Sharing in Practice (PDaSP)

Award: https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/privacy-preserving-data-sharing-practice-pdasp/nsf24-585/solicitation

Format: https://new.nsf.gov/policies/pappg/24-1

## STATUS

We were not accepted into the program on May 13th 2025. 

I think the hardest item for us is repeated mentions of us fitting into the "broader community" "PPDSA ecosystem" by the program officer and reviewers. We may want to inquire with the NSF officer for more
details on if they have any specific parties we should contact.

Another problem is that there are multiple complaints in the "weaknesses" section about lack of technical details, yet we were limited in what technical details we could include the proposal along.

"The proposal does not discuss on how its tree-based encoding and hashing methods improve upon or differ from existing encryption and hashing techniques."

"It is difficult to evaluate its integration into existing systems since no technical details are provided."

"The proposal does not specify the technical details of the toolkit. Given the general description, the scientific contributions of this research are limited for a three-year project. The underlying cryptographic building blocks, Merkle tree, signatures, PKI, etc., are well studied already and the expected functions mostly necessitate engineering work and could be readily implemented. "

"The proposal does not discuss on how its tree-based encoding and hashing methods improve upon or differ from existing encryption and hashing techniques. "

"The proposal does not adequately justify that the proposed Gordian Envelope Toolkit and testbeds are novel."

A question we could ask the review is the problem of how to convey the technical details when we have many, many docs, use case, etc. but are very limited in space in the proposal, and ask how do others deal with
this?

I spoke with Anil John (former SBIR) who said part of the problem with these type of proposals is that they outsource the review to academics.

# Gordian Envelope Toolkit

## Cover Sheet

**PDaSP Reqs:**
> Title: Proposal titles should begin with "PDaSP: Track X:" then the title (where X is 1, 2, or 3)

## Project Summary [1 page]

**Main Reqs:**
> Each proposal must contain a summary of the proposed project not more than one page in length. The Project Summary consists of an overview, a statement on the intellectual merit of the proposed activity, and a statement on the broader impacts of the proposed activity.
>
> The overview includes a description of the activity that would result if the proposal were funded and a statement of objectives and methods to be employed. The statement on intellectual merit should describe the potential of the proposed activity to advance knowledge. The statement on broader impacts should describe the potential of the proposed activity to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes.
>
> The Project Summary should be informative to other persons working in the same or related fields, and, insofar as possible, understandable to a broad audience within the scientific domain. It should not be an abstract of the proposal.

## Project Description (10-15 pages)

**Main Reqs:**
> The Project Description should provide a clear statement of the work to be undertaken and must include the objectives for the period of the proposed work and expected significance; the relationship of this work to the present state of knowledge in the field, as well as to work in progress by the PI under other support.
>
> The Project Description should outline the general plan of work, including the broad design of activities to be undertaken, and, where appropriate, provide a clear description of experimental methods and procedures. Proposers should address what they want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits could accrue if the project is successful. The project activities may be based on previously established and/or innovative methods and approaches, but in either case must be well justified. These issues apply to both the technical aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may make broader contributions.
>
> The Project Description also must contain, as a separate section within the narrative, a section labeled "Broader Impacts", and "Broader Impacts" must appear as a heading on its own line. This section should provide a discussion of the broader impacts of the proposed activities. Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to the project. NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to the achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the U.S.; use of science and technology to inform public policy; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education. These examples of societally relevant outcomes should not be considered either comprehensive or prescriptive. Proposers may include appropriate outcomes not covered by these examples.
>
> Plans for data management and sharing of the products of research, including preservation, documentation, and sharing of data, samples, physical collections, curriculum materials and other related research and education products should be described in the Special Information and Supplementary Documentation section of the proposal (see Chapter II.D.2.i for additional instructions for preparation of this section).

## Required Sections



Single Copy Documents (if applicable):

Proposers may wish to include proprietary or privileged information as part of their proposals in the Additional Single Copy Documents section of the proposal. This information is for "NSF Use Only" and will not be shared with reviewers or partner representatives. Per the PAPPG, NSF defines such information as "patentable ideas, trade secrets, privileged or confidential commercial or financial information, disclosure of which may harm the proposer."

>
> Letters of Collaboration:
>
> Letters of collaboration should follow the recommended format specified in the PAPPG. Proposers must not include letters of collaboration from any of the participating organizations listed in this solicitation. Any proposal that deviates from these guidelines will be returned without review.


**PDaSP Requirements:**

> In addition to the content specified in the PAPPG, including the requirement for a separate section labeled "Broader Impacts", the Project Description should contain specific additional sections with the following titles required, as indicated, and described in the above Sections I and II:
>
> Project Justification: Include a section on Project Justification articulating:
How the proposed work aligns with the focus on the use-inspired and translational research, and not basic research; and
How the proposed work addresses the Solicitation Specific criteria
Overall Project Management and Collaboration: describe why the project team is appropriate to realize the project's goals and how the team will assure effective collaboration in the co-design and implementation process. A compelling rationale must be presented for a multi-expertise and multi-organization structure of the project team.

## References Cited

Envelope draft
existing websites docs [developer/envelope]
Blockchain Commons Mission

## Budget and Budget Justification

## Intellectual Merit

## Senior/Key Personnel Documents

## Special Information and Supplementary Documentation

## Notes on Proposal

Terms:

* privacy-enhancing technologies (PETs) 
* To unleash a future in which the power of data is leveraged for the benefit of all, it is important to develop practical and easily deployable privacy-preserving data sharing and analytics (PPDSA) technologies.
* innovative, use-inspired and translational research to mature and scale existing models, methodologies, or constructs in order to accelerate the development and deployment of practical privacy-preserving data sharing solutions.
* it seeks to advance the priority defined in the strategy to "Accelerate Transition to Practice," which includes efforts to "promote applied and translational research and systems development," develop "tool repositories, measurement methods, benchmarking, and testbeds," and "improve usability and inclusiveness of PPDSA solutions."
*  It also tasks NSF with "developing and helping to ensure the availability of testing environments, such as testbeds, to support the development of safe, secure, and trustworthy AI technologies, as well as to support the design, development, and deployment of associated PETs."
* broad adoption of such technologies has been slow due to challenges related to inadequate understanding of privacy risks and harms, limited access to technical expertise, trust and transparency among participants with regard to data collection and use, uncertainty about legal compliance, financial costs, and technical maturity or deployment readiness of solutions.
* This solicitation seeks to foster innovative use-inspired and translational research to mature and scale existing models, methodologies, or constructs at the intersection of privacy goals and socio-economic or policy challenges. Of particular interest is innovation and translation of technologies that empowers data subjects, owners/curators, and other stakeholders to control how privacy-sensitive data is shared and used in order to maximize the utility of data while minimizing potential harms.


Talk about:

* AIs

* Track 3: Usable tools, and testbeds for trustworthy sharing of private or otherwise confidential data.
> This track emphasizes and recognizes the urgent need to develop tools and testbeds to support and accelerate adoption of PPDSA technologies. There exists a high barrier to adoption for PPDSA technologies, including more mature approaches, due to a lack of effective and easy-to-use tools that help data owners and other stakeholders in the data ecosystem who need to make privacy protection decisions. Effective and easy-to-use tools that support privacy auditing, help assess privacy disclosure risks, improve trust and transparency, facilitate decision-making, and assist in managing privacy parameters, are critical components needed to help us extract value from of data.

> Innovative proposals that focus on developing practical tools that enhance capabilities of users (e.g., research community, citizen scientists, data subjects, and data administrators) to foster and democratize PPDSA solutions are encouraged. Proposals should include an application area or use-case that will serve as the demonstration for the effectiveness of the proposed tools and make the tool publicly available.

> This track also emphasizes testbeds that support assessment, comparative analysis, vulnerability or threat analysis, privacy risk assessments, and privacy-utility trade-off analysis. Curated datasets relevant to different use-cases can be essential parts of testbeds. The track also welcomes work related to creating sandboxes to enable experiments on PPDSA technologies and to help address policy challenges in controlled environments.


## Revision Notes

NSF Comments

Rule of Thumb:
Principal Engineer, half a year, half a million dollars

PARAGRAPH, NOT DO:

* Post-quantum cryptography (but architecture is designed to be flexible, already proven with SSH work)
* Differential privacy (but design such that can be added lately)

[look for buzzwords in cryptography]

SYNERGY:

* Report on implications on multiparty threshold signatures & their use for privacy in Envelope
   * Demonstrate extesnsibility
   * As standards become standards


## Financial Notes


(i) Salaries and Wages (Lines A and B on the Proposal Budget)
(a) Senior/Key Personnel Salaries & Wages Policy

[2 mo/year max]

[The names of the PI(s), faculty, and other senior/key personnel and the estimated number of full-time-equivalent person-months for which NSF funding is requested, and the total amount of salaries requested per year, must be listed. 

[i thought there was a maximum, but maybe that was SBIR only?

Christopher Allen
$200k / 2 months = $33,333 [2 years?]

(ii) Fringe Benefits (Line C on the Proposal Budget)

[insurance, 401k, etc, so no]

(iii) Equipment (Line D on the Proposal Budget)


(iv) Travel (Line E on the Proposal Budget)

[To qualify for support, however, attendance at meetings or conferences must be necessary to accomplish proposal objectives or disseminate research results.

IETF 123
July 19-25, 2025. Madrid, Spain - Melia Castilla.
IETF 124
November 1-7, 2025. Montreal, Canada - Fairmont Queen Elizabeth Montreal.
IETF 125
March 14-20, 2026. (To be booked - Asia)
IETF 126
July 18-24, 2026. Vienna, Austria - Hilton Vienna Park
IETF 127
November 14-20, 2026. San Francisco, USA - Hilton Union Square

[some or all?]
[other meetings?]

W3C/IETF
Should be easy because …
- will have to say 2 out of 3 are outside of NA
- because our audience is international standards



(v) Participant Support (Line F on the Proposal Budget)

[no, except maybe travel stipends. 
[This budget category refers to direct costs for items such as stipends or subsistence allowances, travel allowances, and registration fees paid to or on behalf of participants or trainees (but not employees) in connection with NSF-sponsored conferences or training projects.


(vi) Other Direct Costs (Lines G1 through G6 on the Proposal Budget)

(c) Consultant Services (also referred to as Professional Service Costs) (Line G3 on the Proposal Budget)[20]
Engineer = $100/hr * 40 hr * 48 weeks = $192k / year [1.5 years?] = $125/hr
Tech Writer = $100/hr * 40 hr * 12 weeks = $48k / year [2 years?]

Graphic Designer?
$5,000 / site for $25,000

Advertising/Marketing/PR?

Sys Admin = 
$75/hr * 40 hr * 4 weeks = $12k/year = $36k total (all three years)

(d) Computer Services (Line G4 on the Proposal Budget)
Testbed Server: 3 years, LInode 8GB = $48 * 36 = 1728
Deployment Server: 3 years = 1728

[would any of this require more than 8 GB of memory, 160 GB of storage for any reason?
[because that’s what I’m currently speccing.


[this would put us at about $527k + conferences, which seems like a good range, but need to make sure that time frames seem right]
