Dear IRT, In advance of our meeting at ICANN86, 9 June 2026 at 09:45-11:15 UTC, please see the Google Drive links below to the latest updated drafts of the UDRP and UDRP Rules, and the policy guidance document. Clean and redlined versions have been provided – the redline is against the current published documents. This should make it clearer to see all relevant changes. Both sets are in the external IRT drive but are also attached as Word Docs for those without access. The updated URS drafts will be circulated shortly, in a separate email. -------------------------------------- UDRP Staff have worked extremely hard and spent as much time as possible on getting this round of updates just right. The latest versions incorporate additions considering all input received on the previous rafts since ICANN84 in October 2025, as well as comments received during ICANN85 in March. They also reflect the compromise position on pre-determination access to the arbitral process (available, but only with IGO consent) which the IRT agreed during our last meeting on 26 May – please review 20 (a) (iii) of the UDRP Rules at a minimum to ensure alignment on this point. UDRP – CLEAN (significant additions highlighted in yellow): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WFOVQLEZzE7tnEuECBg5DeyY6IP8hyxbtZkc4dDi... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1WFOVQLEZzE7tn...> UDRP – REDLINE: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ot7Q4yZ2DoAPMSfhZ7Nouk7Kl_bT5kpLqrumUXCM... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Ot7Q4yZ2DoAPM...> UDRP RULES – CLEAN (significant additions highlighted in yellow): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1430U-rp8G2spG1Q4ksmneo31MdcF29Wn4WBNmaQs... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1430U-rp8G2spG...> UDRP RULES – REDLINE: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wdAL-EawAmmHTVpYqlldDM5PdS1gxB2U67_CXxzl... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1wdAL-EawAmmHT...> As discussed at our last meeting, the goal of our ICANN86 session is securing IRT agreement to proceed to public comment on these drafts. Accordingly, we ask that you review for critical issues/deal breakers – using a ‘can’t live with’ lens – that in your view would prevent this from being accomplished. Given the significant amount of time spent on refining this language, staff are confident that most, if not all, IRT concerns raised previously have been addressed. Further changes following the public comment period are possible, and will be considered by the IRT as necessary, following a review of comments received. -------------------------------------- POLICY GUIDANCE POLICY GUIDANCE – CLEAN: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ykbaGQacIBK-0khQUUriA-qVY5GhCmDxG6Ki9htD... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1ykbaGQacIBK-0...> POLICY GUIDANCE – REDLINE: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BA-hsZgphHXsuLoaes9psubD-lA3w2HjoVruPeyN... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1BA-hsZgphHXsu...> The policy guidance has been redlined against the previous version distributed in December 25. As noted in the document, it has been updated following IRT feedback to focus exclusively on an IGO audience (omitting mention of INGOs). A section on the new EPDP Arbitral process, and arbitration in general, has been added, to acknowledge reflect IRT discussions on this topic and clarify these issues raised for the community. It has also been revised to adopt a more factual, objective tone and incorporate feedback and qualifications from IGO and WIPO colleagues. The IRT, with the support of staff, agreed at ICANN84 that in the interests of openness and transparency the policy guidance should be issued for public comment as part of the implementation process. However, I wish to remind you that the content of the policy guidance is non-binding, a fact that we will emphasize to the community as part of the upcoming proceeding. Therefore, while we ask that you review the document for critical issues/deal breakers, in the event of disagreement in the IRT, staff would prefer to issue the document for comment in any event, with the aim of using community input to guide further revisions ----------------------------------- We appreciate that these drafts have issued later than anticipated. However, we still encourage you to review if possible and leave comments or suggestions in the documents, or on the mailing list if this is easier. We will discuss all comments on Tuesday, but it would be helpful for staff and make for a smoother meeting overall if critical issues are identified in advance. As ever, please reach out on list with any questions, Peter