- RPM-IRT - lists.icann.org

Update on Implementation of RPM Data Collection Rec: URS (Group 4)
by Antonietta Mangiacotti June 22, 2026

June 22, 2026

Dear RPM IRT, We are providing a written update on implementation of the RPM Phase 1 Recommendations. This update addresses the Overarching Data Collection Final Recommendation<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/rpm-phase…>, which consists of four separate data collection requests. The relevant portion addressed in this update is: “In relation to the URS, the Working Group recommends that ICANN Org explore developing a mechanism, in consultation with the URS Providers, to enable publication and search of all URS Determinations in a uniform format.” Accordingly, the implementation focused on improving access to URS data, enhancing transparency, and supporting future evidence-based reviews of the URS. As a first step, ICANN org developed a proposal for a uniform approach to the publication and searchability of URS determinations. This was done collaboratively with all three URS providers (FORUM<https://www.adrforum.com/>, ADNDRC<https://www.adndrc.org/>, and MFSD<https://urs.mfsd.it/>) to ensure the solution aligned with each provider’s specific needs, was cost-effective, and fulfilled the intent of the recommendation. The proposal established a standardized approach for structuring and publishing URS data, with a focus on: 1. Standardized Data Fields: ICANN org worked with providers to establish a minimum set of data fields for publishing URS determinations and to align terminology across providers, for example, ensuring consistent use of field names such as “Disputed Domain Name(s)” across all providers. Following discussions with the providers, agreement was reached to standardize the following core set of fields: Case Number, Complainant Name, Respondent Name, Disputed Domain Name(s), Status, Submission Date, Determination Date, Domicile of Complainant and Domicile of Respondent. The objective was to apply this standardization across both (a) URS determination repository/search interface pages, which provide access to and display key data points for URS cases (see: FORUM<https://www.adrforum.com/domain-dispute/search-decisions>, ADNDRC<https://www.adndrc.org/decisions/urs>, and MFSD<https://urs.mfsd.it/urs-disputes> URS determination pages), and (b) the individual URS determination documents themselves, which contain the examiner's decision for a particular case (as reflected in past URS determinations issued by FORUM<https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/2194293D.htm>, ADNDRC<https://www.adndrc.org/storage/uploads/decisions/urs/urs2025120907261564.pdf>, and MFSD<https://urs.mfsd.it/system_data/source_pdf/F2BA56A9.pdf>). ➤ Outcome/Summary of Changes: FORUM<https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/2194293D.htm> and ADNDRC<https://www.adndrc.org/decisions/urs> implemented the requested updates and aligned their field names with the standardized set above across both (a) their URS determination repository/search interface pages and (b) their URS determination document templates. MFSD<https://urs.mfsd.it/system_data/source_pdf/F2BA56A9.pdf> implemented the requested updates to its determination template but has not updated its URS determinations page<https://urs.mfsd.it/urs-disputes> to align its fields with the requested standardization. For additional information regarding the field updates implemented by each provider, please refer to the attached document, “URS Standardized Data Fields Updates”. 2. Search Functionality: Providers without search capabilities were asked to consider implementing a search functionality to enable users to reliably locate and filter determinations. ➤ Outcome/Summary of Changes: During discussions with the providers, ADNDRC<https://www.adndrc.org/decisions/urs> confirmed that its determinations are already text searchable. However, an advanced search function was not implemented due to associated development costs. MFSD<https://urs.mfsd.it/urs-disputes> noted that its existing case search functionality allows users to search by case number and domain name. However, enhancing the system to support multi-parameter searches (e.g., by party name, domicile, or date) requires external development support and budget allocations that are not currently available. FORUM<https://www.adrforum.com/domain-dispute/search-decisions> indicated that it already provides robust search functionality, allowing users to conduct full-text searches of URS determinations using various criteria, including panelist, date, and keywords. ICANN acknowledges that further enhancements to search functionality may require additional development resources and funding, and notes that implementation considerations may vary depending on each provider's technical and budgetary constraints. This item is therefore considered addressed, with no further action required. 3. Export Functionality: Providers were requested to consider enabling the export of determination data in a consistent format (e.g., Excel), supporting easier analysis, comparison, and accessibility for the public. ➤ Outcome/Summary of Changes: FORUM<https://www.adrforum.com/domain-dispute/search-decisions> implemented an export functionality that allows users to download URS determination search results in Excel format, enabling users to more easily sort, filter, and analyze determination data. FORUM has also extended this functionality and other relevant updates to the other dispute resolution procedures it administers. ADNDRC<https://www.adndrc.org/decisions/urs> and MFSD<https://urs.mfsd.it/urs-disputes> did not implement export functionality. However, both providers noted that they maintain internal Excel records of their cases and can provide case summary data in Excel format upon request. Per the discussions with providers, ADNDRC indicated that it did not consider a public export tool to be particularly useful. MFSD noted that implementing a public export tool would require additional resources and may not be proportionate to the low-cost, streamlined nature of URS proceedings. Accordingly, this item is considered addressed and no further action is required. ICANN org also continues to work on implementing the two remaining data request items associated with the Overarching Data Collection Recommendation (Group 4): Trademark Claims data reporting and on the survey of trademark owners’ and registrants’ experience with RPMs. ICANN org will provide updates on these efforts as progress is made. For additional information regarding the status and anticipated timing of the remaining recommendations, please refer to the RPM IRT wiki page<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/RPMIRT/overview?homepageI…>. We hope this update is helpful. Please do not hesitate to reach out if you have any questions. Thank you! Best, Antonietta

1 0

Update on Implementation of URS Rec #8 (Group 5)
by Antonietta Mangiacotti March 3, 2026

March 3, 2026

Dear RPM IRT, We are writing to provide an update on the work related to the implementation of Group 5 recommendations. This group includes one recommendation, URS Final Recommendation<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/rpm-phase…> #8: “The Working Group recommends that the ICANN org establishes a compliance mechanism or mechanisms to ensure that URS Providers, Registries, and Registrars operate in accordance with the URS rules and requirements and fulfill their role and obligations in the URS process. The Working Group recommends that such compliance mechanism(s) should include an avenue for any party in the URS process to file complaints and seek resolution of noncompliance issues. As implementation guidance, the Working Group recommends that the IRT consider: * Investigating different options for potential compliance mechanism(s), such as ICANN Compliance, other relevant department(s) in ICANN org, a URS commissioner at ICANN org, a URS standing committee, etc. * Developing metrics for measuring performance of URS Providers, Registries, and Registrars in the URS process.” Below is a summary of the work that was undertaken to implement a compliance process for handling complaints concerning potential non-compliance by URS Providers, registries, or registrars with their procedural obligations under the URS Rules and Procedure. URS Complaint Process and Metrics Overview As part of implementing this recommendation, ICANN org drafted a document<https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/registry-operators/urs-complaint-process…> titled “URS Complaint Process and Metrics Overview.” This document has been published on the URS homepage<https://www.icann.org/en/contracted-parties/registry-operators/services/rig…> at ICANN.org and outlines the processes for addressing complaints related to non-compliance by URS Providers, registries, or registrars. This document is intended to clarify the distinct processes ICANN uses to assess and respond to URS-related complaints and to enhance transparency regarding how reported issues are reviewed and addressed. It is also intended to serve as an informational resource for any party involved in the URS process who is seeking guidance, assistance, or additional information on the URS complaint process at ICANN. URS Complaint Process for URS PROVIDER Non-Compliance ICANN org has established a new complaint process enabling parties involved in the URS process to submit complaints concerning non-compliance by URS Providers with their procedural obligations. Complaints regarding URS Providers may now be submitted via the URS homepage<https://www.icann.org/en/contracted-parties/registry-operators/services/rig…> on ICANN.org by selecting the new “Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) Provider Complaint” link, or they may continue to be submitted directly via the Global Support Center<https://www.icann.org/en/help#global-support-centers> page. Both webpages have also been updated to include a dedicated section for submitting such complaints, which are routed through a newly established internal process. In addition, performance metrics for URS Providers – such as the number of complaints received and the nature of the complaints – will be published on the URS homepage as data becomes available. Further details are provided in the URS Complaint Process and Metrics Overview document<https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/registry-operators/urs-complaint-process…>. URS Complaint Process for REGISTRAR or REGISTRY OPERATOR Non-Compliance Complaints submitted through this mechanism are handled through ICANN’s Contractual Compliance processes. ICANN Contractual Compliance already maintains a dedicated form<https://icann-nsp.my.site.com/compliance/s/urs> for complaints regarding registry operator non-compliance with the URS procedure. The Generic Registrar Complaint Form<https://icann-nsp.my.site.com/compliance/s/generic-registrar> should continue to be used for registrar-related complaints and includes a category for URS-related concerns. Both forms are routed to the appropriate ICANN Contractual Compliance team for review and resolution. More details about ICANN's Contractual Compliance approach and processes may be found here<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approach-processes-2012-02-25-en>. However, to enhance clarity and accessibility, the “Dispute Resolution Policies & Procedures” section of the ICANN Compliance complaint submission page<https://www.icann.org/compliance/complaint> has been updated to include a link to the Generic Registrar Complaint Form beneath the Registry URS Complaint Form link. The “About URS Compliance” page<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/urs-2013-10-31-en> has also been updated to reference registrar-related complaints and to link to the Generic Registrar Complaint Form. These updates are intended to reduce confusion regarding enforcement and to make clear that concerns or complaints relating to URS obligations, including those involving registrars, will be reviewed and addressed through the appropriate compliance channels. ICANN Compliance also continues to publish URS-related metrics for registries and registrars on the ICANN Compliance page<https://compliance-reports.icann.org/compliance/dashboard/report-list.html>. These metrics include the number of complaints received, the number of complaints closed prior to a first inquiry or notice, and the number of complaints closed by closure code (i.e., the reason for closure). Additional details regarding these processes and associated metrics are available in the URS Complaint Process and Metrics document<https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/registry-operators/urs-complaint-process…>. Please also note that we plan to provide an update next month on the status and/or completed items in Group 4 related to the Overarching Data Collection recommendation<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/download/attachments/108757543/R…>. We hope this update is helpful. Please do not hesitate to reach out if you have any questions regarding the information above. Thank you! Best, Antonietta

2 3

Re: Update on Implementation of URS Recommendation #12 (Group 3)
by Antonietta Mangiacotti Oct. 8, 2025

Oct. 8, 2025

Hi Roger, Thank you for your message. We are currently checking internally regarding your question on Registrar access to Registry URS Contacts in NSp. We’ll get back to you as soon as we have more clarity. Best, Antonietta From: rcarney--- via RPM-IRT <rpm-irt(a)icann.org> Reply-To: "rcarney(a)godaddy.com" <rcarney(a)godaddy.com> Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 at 12:50 PM To: "rpm-irt(a)icann.org" <rpm-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [RPM-IRT] Re: Update on Implementation of URS Recommendation #12 (Group 3) Good Afternoon, Thanks Antonietta for the continued updates as we make progress. I will admit that I do not access NSp unless I am told to, so I wanted to get clarity on Registrar access to Registry URS Contacts. Specifically, do/should Registrars have access to Registry URS Contacts in NSp? I don't think this is technically required by Rec 12/URS Procedures paragraph 4, but it is the only link that this not mentioned below between the three parties (Provider/Registry/Registrar). Thanks Roger ________________________________ From: Antonietta Mangiacotti via RPM-IRT <rpm-irt(a)icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 1:25 PM To: rpm-irt(a)icann.org <rpm-irt(a)icann.org> Cc: Eduardo Duarte <eduardo.duarte(a)icann.org> Subject: [RPM-IRT] Update on Implementation of URS Recommendation #12 (Group 3) Dear RPM IRT, We are writing to provide an update on the work related to the implementation of Group 3 recommendations. This group includes one recommendation, URS Final Recommendation #12: “The Working Group recommends that the ICANN org, Registries, ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart This Message Is From an External Sender This message came from outside your organization. ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd Dear RPM IRT, We are writing to provide an update on the work related to the implementation of Group 3 recommendations. This group includes one recommendation, URS Final Recommendation<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/…> #12: “The Working Group recommends that the ICANN org, Registries, Registrars, and URS Providers take appropriate steps to ensure that each other’s contact details are up to date in order to effectively fulfill the notice requirements set forth in the URS Procedure paragraph 4.” Below is a summary of the work that was undertaken to ensure all relevant parties have access to accurate and current contact information in order to ensure the efficacy of the URS process. 1. URS Providers → Registrars (New Process) On 30 September 2025, ICANN org launched a new process to allow URS Providers to download, on a daily basis, the Registrar URS Primary and Secondary contact information by downloading a Comma-Separated Values (CSV) file containing the relevant details. The new file will be updated every six hours with the latest contact information available to ensure that URS Providers have up-to-date information. This process is facilitated through the Naming Services portal<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/en/contracted-parties/accr…> (NSp), where new URS contact roles—specifically, URS Primary and Secondary Contacts—were introduced. These fields were pre-populated using the registrar’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution (UDRP) Primary and Secondary contact data. ICANN org communicated the creation of these new roles to the Registrars on 27 May 2025<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/contracted-pa…>. Registrars were also reminded that per the URS High-Level Technical Requirements<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/t…>, Accredited Registrars are required to maintain the URS contact information up to date for the purpose of receiving URS communications. Registrars who wish to review or make any changes to their URS Primary or Secondary contact information in the NSp, can submit a Contact Update Request in the portal. In addition, please note that the URS High-Level Technical Requirements<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/t…> already included the steps for this process (see page 7). Since the process has now been created, there is no need to update the existing requirements. 1. Registries → Registrars (New Process) Registry Operators will also be able to access the Registrar URS Primary and Secondary contact information saved in NSp. The communication sent to registrars regarding the Registrar URS Contact Information—now available to URS Providers and gTLD Registry Operators—will be posted here<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/en/contracted-parties/comm…>. 2. URS Providers → Registries (Existing Process) URS Registry Operator contact information is already available in NSp, and URS Providers currently have the ability to download these details. In addition, the functionality mentioned above to submit contact update requests for URS roles already exists for Registry Operators; therefore, a new process for URS Providers to obtain up to date URS Registry Operator contact information is not being developed. However, the URS High-Level Technical Requirements<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/t…> will need to further be revised to reflect the existing process, and will be shared with the IRT for review. In addition, please note that the process for URS Providers to access Registrars’ URS contact information (see item #1) was modeled after this existing process used for URS Registry Operator contacts. Please note that ICANN communicates with contracted parties and URS Providers regarding URS-related matters through established channels, including direct correspondence via account managers. Additionally, both ICANN and contracted parties can access the URS Providers' contact information through the URS page on the ICANN website, which provides links to the various URS Provider websites: https://www.icann.org/urs-en<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/urs-en__;!!Hj18uoVe_Lnx!s7…>. Please let us know if you have any questions related to the information above. Thank you! Best, Antonietta

1 0

Update on Implementation of RPM Phase 1 Recommendations
by Antonietta Mangiacotti Oct. 8, 2025

Oct. 8, 2025

Dear RPM IRT, We wanted to provide a written update on the progress of implementing the RPM Phase 1 Recommendations<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/rpm-phase…>. Additionally, we’d like to clarify that although an RPM IRT session was initially scheduled for ICANN84, we’ve concluded that, given the current stage of our work, it would be more productive to connect individually while in Dublin. Accordingly, we will not be holding a formal session, but we will be on site and are happy to meet informally if you’d like to discuss any of the items below in more detail. As you may be aware, we have completed implementation of the recommendations in Groups 2 and 3, which focused on developing educational materials to support RPM users and updating URS contact data. However, work on some of the remaining recommendation groups is still ongoing, as outlined below. Group 1 – Updates to RPM Procedural Documents * TM-PDDRP: As noted in our message on 2 May 2025<https://lists.icann.org/hyperkitty/list/rpm-irt@icann.org/thread/5VLXHHIMEJ…>, the revised TM-PDDRP is now available here<https://www.icann.org/pddrp-en>. * URS: While the URS Rules<https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/1dC3BIYxnIb2zZks1AOnrUNEkQJCzi8EKaCA…> and Procedure<https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/1qY-NdwBTULoRaXoE6MQEOj_-61sBbpH_Y_t…> are ready for publication, the URS High Level Requirements<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mDCOzxDCeGJSCK76a_lW7WMiiBAGUHAbXznYBtF…> still require the following updates: 1) OpenPGP Requirements: Updating the OpenPGP requirements in the URS High Level Requirements to align with the IETF’s recently adopted OpenPGP standard in RFC 9580. ICANN org’s technical services team is currently working with URS Providers to assess the complexity of implementing these changes. 2) URS Registry Contact Process: Reflecting the current process that allows URS Providers to download up-to-date URS Registry Operator contact information. Although already in practice, this had not been incorporated into the URS High Level Requirements. Once the revisions above are incorporated into the IRT version<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mDCOzxDCeGJSCK76a_lW7WMiiBAGUHAbXznYBtF…> of the URS High Level Requirements, we will share the updated URS High Level Requirements with you for review. After that, we will move forward with publishing the URS Rules, Procedure, and High Level Requirements. Publishing all three documents — the URS Rules, Procedure, and URS High Level Requirements — together will ensure consistency and clarity across the full set of requirements. ➤ Estimated Timing: We anticipate sharing the redlines for your review and publishing the URS Rules, Procedure, and High Level Requirements by Q1 2026. * TMCH Requirements: Because the Next Round team is working on additional updates to the TMCH Requirements (e.g., terminology updates for consistency with the Base Registry Agreement, Launch Program adjustments, and other efficiency/operational enhancements<https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/2aK3B9qdweAsp4l7uvt4qoEujym6-9Jj6hD7udkS4oEq…>), publication of the revised TMCH Requirements will be postponed to Q1 2026 to ensure they are available prior to the opening of the next round. Bundling these changes together will ensure a more comprehensive and streamlined update. Please note: The agreed-upon changes<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qCYlcGzrMoVLlyRIIhZJIsS0DrAZCUpKOSVDLUl…> with the RPM IRT—specifically, those resulting from Trademark Claims Final Recommendations 2, 5, and 6—will remain unchanged. ➤ Estimated Timing: We anticipate publishing the revised TMCH Requirements Q1 2026. Group 2 – Development of RPM Educational Materials ✅ Complete (See our note from 25 April 2025<https://lists.icann.org/hyperkitty/list/rpm-irt@icann.org/thread/36Y2L2O553…>) Group 3 – Development of URS Contact Data Process ✅ Complete (See our note from 7 October 2025<https://lists.icann.org/hyperkitty/list/rpm-irt@icann.org/thread/P3GV2ETNPF…>) Group 4 – Collection of RPM Data * TMCH Data: As noted in our 21 May 2025<https://lists.icann.org/hyperkitty/list/rpm-irt@icann.org/thread/A7MHBNLYZI…> update, we collaborated with the TMCH Validation Provider (Deloitte) to include the number of abused labels in the TMCH Monthly Reports<https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/registries-regi…> published on ICANN.org. ➤ Estimated Timing: This data point will first appear in the July 2025 report, which will be published here<https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/registries-regi…> in November 2025 due to contractual requirements that delay publication until three months after the end of the reporting month. * Trademark Claims Data Reporting: ICANN org is actively working to define the key data points to be included in the Trademark Claims data reports, determine an appropriate reporting frequency, and identify the tool or platform to be used for publishing the data. ICANN org will also work with ICANN-accredited registrars to begin publishing periodic reports—at least annually—on the number of Trademark Claims Notices sent to prospective registrants. ➤ Estimated Timing: We anticipate sharing a proposal for this work with the RPM IRT by Q1 2026. * Publication and Search of URS Determinations: ICANN org collaborated with URS Providers to develop a proposal to standardize the publication and search of URS determinations that aligns with the operational capabilities of the URS Providers. The proposal includes an agreed upon common set of data fields used by all providers and using consistent terminology (e.g., “Disputed Domain Name(s)”). ➤ Estimated Timing: Providers are requested to implement these changes by 30 January 2026. * Survey of Trademark Owners’ and Registrants’ Experience with RPMs: On 22 August 2024, ICANN org issued a request for proposal (RFP<https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-request-for-proposal-d…>) to select provider(s) to survey domain name registrants, Internet end-users, and trademark holders. The surveys have since been conducted, and the resulting reports are currently pending publication. ➤ Estimated Timing: These reports are scheduled for publication Q4 2025. Group 5 – New Compliance Mechanism(s) * ICANN org is currently drafting a proposed process for handling complaints related to non-compliance by URS Providers, Registrars, or Registries with their procedural obligations under the URS Rules and Procedure. This includes identifying appropriate metrics for assessing compliance and consulting with relevant internal departments. ICANN org is also engaging with URS Providers to understand what complaint-handling mechanisms they already have in place, which will help inform the development of an effective and coordinated approach. ➤ Estimated Timing: The new process is expected to be shared with the RPM IRT and published in Q1 2026. Given the estimated timelines above, we expect to conclude work on most of the listed items by Q1 2026. For additional information, please also refer to the RPM Phase 1 Estimated Timeline<https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/12YPqNvEnnLR4UaqZWCSm89we6k1EjOqvOjW…> and the Implementation Plan<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/RPMIRT/pages/108757543/Im…>. Please feel free to reach out with any questions or to schedule time with us. Thank you! Best, Antonietta

1 0

Update on Implementation of URS Recommendation #12 (Group 3)
by Antonietta Mangiacotti Oct. 7, 2025

Oct. 7, 2025

Dear RPM IRT, We are writing to provide an update on the work related to the implementation of Group 3 recommendations. This group includes one recommendation, URS Final Recommendation<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/rpm-phase…> #12: “The Working Group recommends that the ICANN org, Registries, Registrars, and URS Providers take appropriate steps to ensure that each other’s contact details are up to date in order to effectively fulfill the notice requirements set forth in the URS Procedure paragraph 4.” Below is a summary of the work that was undertaken to ensure all relevant parties have access to accurate and current contact information in order to ensure the efficacy of the URS process. 1. URS Providers → Registrars (New Process) On 30 September 2025, ICANN org launched a new process to allow URS Providers to download, on a daily basis, the Registrar URS Primary and Secondary contact information by downloading a Comma-Separated Values (CSV) file containing the relevant details. The new file will be updated every six hours with the latest contact information available to ensure that URS Providers have up-to-date information. This process is facilitated through the Naming Services portal<https://www.icann.org/en/contracted-parties/accredited-registrars/resources…> (NSp), where new URS contact roles—specifically, URS Primary and Secondary Contacts—were introduced. These fields were pre-populated using the registrar’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution (UDRP) Primary and Secondary contact data. ICANN org communicated the creation of these new roles to the Registrars on 27 May 2025<https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/contracted-parties-communications/nsp-ch…>. Registrars were also reminded that per the URS High-Level Technical Requirements<https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/tech-requirements-21feb24-en…>, Accredited Registrars are required to maintain the URS contact information up to date for the purpose of receiving URS communications. Registrars who wish to review or make any changes to their URS Primary or Secondary contact information in the NSp, can submit a Contact Update Request in the portal. In addition, please note that the URS High-Level Technical Requirements<https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/tech-requirements-21feb24-en…> already included the steps for this process (see page 7). Since the process has now been created, there is no need to update the existing requirements. 1. Registries → Registrars (New Process) Registry Operators will also be able to access the Registrar URS Primary and Secondary contact information saved in NSp. The communication sent to registrars regarding the Registrar URS Contact Information—now available to URS Providers and gTLD Registry Operators—will be posted here<https://www.icann.org/en/contracted-parties/communications>. 2. URS Providers → Registries (Existing Process) URS Registry Operator contact information is already available in NSp, and URS Providers currently have the ability to download these details. In addition, the functionality mentioned above to submit contact update requests for URS roles already exists for Registry Operators; therefore, a new process for URS Providers to obtain up to date URS Registry Operator contact information is not being developed. However, the URS High-Level Technical Requirements<https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/tech-requirements-21feb24-en…> will need to further be revised to reflect the existing process, and will be shared with the IRT for review. In addition, please note that the process for URS Providers to access Registrars’ URS contact information (see item #1) was modeled after this existing process used for URS Registry Operator contacts. Please note that ICANN communicates with contracted parties and URS Providers regarding URS-related matters through established channels, including direct correspondence via account managers. Additionally, both ICANN and contracted parties can access the URS Providers' contact information through the URS page on the ICANN website, which provides links to the various URS Provider websites: https://www.icann.org/urs-en. Please let us know if you have any questions related to the information above. Thank you! Best, Antonietta

2 1

Update: Implementation of Data Collection Rec (Group 4)
by Antonietta Mangiacotti May 21, 2025

May 21, 2025

Dear RPM IRT, We are writing to provide an update on the work related to the implementation of Group 4 recommendations. This group includes one recommendation, the Overarching Data Collection Final Recommendation: “In relation to the TMCH, the Working Group recommends that, for future new gTLD rounds, ICANN Org collect the following data on at least an annual basis (to the extent it does not do so already) and make the data available to future RPM review teams: * Number of marks submitted for validation in each category of marks accepted by the TMCH; * Number of successfully validated marks in each category of marks accepted by the TMCH; * Number of labels generated for all successfully validated marks; * Number of abused labels; * Number of marks deactivated in and removed from the TMCH; * Breakdown of the scripts/languages represented in a validated and active trademark in the TMCH; and * Number of cases decided under the TMCH dispute resolution procedure. In relation to the Trademark Claims service, the Working Group recommends that, for future new gTLD rounds, ICANN-accredited registrars must provide ICANN Org with periodic reports of the number of Claims Notices that were sent out to prospective registrants not less than every 12 months. In relation to the URS, the Working Group recommends that ICANN Org explore developing a mechanism, in consultation with the URS Providers, to enable publication and search of all URS Determinations in a uniform format. The Working Group further recommends that, in implementing Board-adopted recommendations from the 2018 Final Report of the Competition, Consumer Choice & Consumer Trust Review Team, ICANN org also collect data concerning trademark owners’ and registrants’ experience with the RPMs that can be provided to future GNSO RPM policy review teams (including result of studies that ICANN org may conduct pursuant to Recommendations #26, if approved by the ICANN Board, and #28).” Below is a summary of the implementation work underway. TMCH Data In relation to the TMCH, ICANN org notes that it already collects all of the data points recommended by the Working Group and publishes on a monthly basis on the New gTLD Microsite<https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/registries-regi…> six out of the seven TMCH data points (i.e., the number of abused labels is not publicly available). Accordingly, ICANN org will coordinate with the TMCH Validation Provider (Deloitte) to include the number of abused labels in the TMCH Monthly Reports published on ICANN.org, and will provide an update once this data point has been incorporated. Trademark Claims Notice Data ICANN org will work with ICANN-accredited registrars to develop periodic reports, at least annually, on the number of Trademark Claims Notices sent to prospective registrants. ICANN org will aim to establish a practical and consistent reporting process that minimizes burden on registrars while ensuring that relevant data is collected to support future RPM review teams. ICANN org will reach out to the RPM IRT, as needed, to help define reporting parameters and gather input on key data elements. Development of Uniform Publication Mechanism for URS Determinations ICANN org has contacted URS Providers to ask for their assistance with implementing this aspect of the recommendation. ICANN org is currently working to schedule a meeting with the URS Providers to discuss the most effective way forward. Possible approaches may involve URS Providers working together to create a format that meets their needs or ICANN org proposing a mechanism that would enable publication and search of all URS Determinations in a uniform format. ICANN org will share a further update with the RPM IRT once additional progress has been made. Data concerning Trademark owners’ and Registrants’ Experience with the RPMs ICANN org is currently working to implement this portion of the recommendation through the 2025 Domain Name Consumer Surveys. On 22 August 2024, ICANN org issued a request for proposal (RFP<https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-request-for-proposal-d…>) to identify provider(s) to survey domain name registrants, Internet end-users, and trademark holders. The surveys are anticipated to be administered in Q3 2025 and will focus on perspectives about the introduction of new gTLDs into the domain name system (DNS) resulting from the New gTLD Program. The results will be published once the survey is completed. Please don’t hesitate to reach out with any questions regarding the work in progress mentioned above. Thank you! Best, Antonietta

1 0

Now Available: Revised TM-PDDRP
by Antonietta Mangiacotti May 2, 2025

May 2, 2025

Dear RPM IRT, The updated PDDRP Rules, which were revised based on the TM-PDDRP Recommendation from the RPM PDP Phase 1 Final Report<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/rpm-phase…>, is now available in both clean and redline versions. You can access it here: https://www.icann.org/pddrp-en Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you! Best, Antonietta & Karen

1 0

Now Available: URS/TMCH Educational Materials
by Antonietta Mangiacotti April 25, 2025

April 25, 2025

Dear RPM IRT, As part of the work related to Group 2, ICANN org has published the educational materials to support users of the RPMs, specifically the "URS Checklist: Meeting the 'Clear and Convincing' Evidence in a Proceeding" (URS Final Recommendation 9) and the "FAQs for Complainants and Respondents Regarding URS Proceedings" (URS Final Recommendation 10). These are now available at https://www.icann.org/urs-en As for the document created in connection with TMCH Final Recommendation 3, titled "Information for Domain Name and Potential Registrants Concerning the TMCH," this information is now available on the TMCH website at https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/trademark-claims-service/claims-notice/. Lastly, in accordance with URS Final Recommendation<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/rpm-phase…> #15, ICANN org has also updated the title of its web page at https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs from 'URS Technical Requirements 1.0' to 'URS Registrars and Registries Requirements 1.0'. Also note that we’ll be sending out a few more updates —please keep an eye out for further communication. Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you! Best, Antonietta & Karen

1 0

Proposed Implementation Timeline for Updated RPM Procedural Documents
by Antonietta Mangiacotti Feb. 25, 2025

Feb. 25, 2025

Dear RPM IRT, As mentioned, ICANN staff has been working on preparing the materials required for publication of the updated RPM procedural documents. We are currently aiming to publish the announcement, educational materials, and revised procedural documents on 28 February subject to ICANN’s internal publication schedule availability. These changes will impact contracted parties as well as RPM service providers. Current practice is to allow a window of at least six months for contracted parties to update their operations to ensure compliance with new policies. With this approach, the implementation timeline for contracted parties to implement the relevant changes specified in the RPM procedural documents would be 6 months, meaning these changes should be in place by 31 August. If helpful, the key changes that contracted parties are required to implement to become compliant with the updated procedures are outlined below. Registrars will be required to comply with the following changes to the revised URS Procedure <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qY-NdwBTULoRaXoE6MQEOj_-61sBbpH_Y_tV6MC…> and TMCH Requirements<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qCYlcGzrMoVLlyRIIhZJIsS0DrAZCUpKOSVDLUl…>: * URS Procedure, Paragraph 4.2 was updated with new text to clarify that after the Administrative Review is completed, the URS Provider must request the language of the registration agreement from the Registrar. The Registrar is required to provide this information to the URS Provider within one (1) business day. If the Registrar's business day includes weekends, holidays, or other office closures, the response time must not exceed three (3) calendar days. * TMCH Requirements, Section 3.4.2 has been updated to specify that Registrars that have accepted the Terms of Service must follow the Functional Specifications for implementing the Claims Services as outlined in RFC9361 and its update. If the update is not yet an RFC, the latest draft must be followed. Once the update is published as an RFC, it must be implemented. * TMCH Requirements, Section 3.4.3 has been added to state that Registrars must provide the Registry Operator with the datetime when a potential domain registrant confirmed their intent to proceed with registration after receiving the Claims Notice. This datetime must occur within 168 hours before the domain's Effective Allocation, except in the following cases: * TMCH Requirements, Section 3.4.3.1 (New Section) For asynchronous domain registrations based on applications (e.g., auctions), the registrar may provide an acceptance datetime from up to 168 hours before the creation of the intermediate domain object (e.g., domain name application). * TMCH Requirements, Section 3.4.3.2 (New Section) For asynchronous registrations not based on applications (e.g., pre-registration), the registrar may provide an acceptance datetime older than 168 hours, but only if the registrar has confirmed that the Claims Notice Information has remained unchanged within 168 hours of the domain's Effective Allocation. * The Trademark Claims Notice<https://drive.google.com/drive/u/1/folders/1lAcu-0utM6MDU4QXYikR0UfmeUMP8qdo> Template for Registrars (to be shared in materials circulated to Registrars preparing for New gTLD launches) in Exhibit A of the TMCH Requirements has also been updated to reflect more specific information about the trademark(s) for which it is being issued, and to more effectively communicate the meaning and implications of the Claims Notice (e.g., outlining possible legal consequences or describing what actions potential registrants may be able to take, following receipt of a notice). Registries will be required to comply with the following changes to the revised TMCH Requirements<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qCYlcGzrMoVLlyRIIhZJIsS0DrAZCUpKOSVDLUl…>: * TMCH Requirements, Section 3.4.1 has been updated to specify that the Registry Operator must implement the Claims Service according to the Functional Specifications outlined in RFC9361 and its update (either as an RFC or the latest draft if not yet finalized). Once the updated specification is officially published as an RFC, it must be implemented. * TMCH Requirements, Section 3.4.4 has been added to specify that when generating a Claims Notice, the expiration date must be set 12 months into the future by the TMDB. Registry Operators must verify that the acceptance datetime is within the 12-month window defined by ICANN policy, ensuring it is no more than 12 months old, as the Claims Notice must be unexpired. Please let us know if you have any feedback on this timeline. We will also be contacting URS and TM-PDDRP Providers, as well as the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) and Registrars Stakeholder Group (RrSG), to provide advance notice before publication. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to reach out. Thank you! Best, Antonietta & Karen

1 0

Re: Review Requested: Updated Claims Notice
by Antonietta Mangiacotti Feb. 10, 2025

Feb. 10, 2025

Dear RPM IRT, Thank you for reviewing the revised Trademark Claims notice and providing additional feedback by the requested due date. Since some new language has been proposed to the notice, please review the updates and let us know if you have any thoughts or concerns regarding the new changes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1L1ZMuU_yAHDIszMpQDhdxATxEsXK8B9GOeoYUH7… Please review and share your feedback, if any, either on the list or directly in the Google Doc by COB Friday, 7 February. Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions. Thank you! Best, Antonietta From: Antonietta Mangiacotti via RPM-IRT <rpm-irt(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Antonietta Mangiacotti <antonietta.mangiacotti(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 at 9:34 AM To: "rpm-irt(a)icann.org" <rpm-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [RPM-IRT] FW: [RPM IRT] Meeting #15 & Review Requested: Updated Claims Notice Dear RPM IRT, Per the email below, please review the updated Trademark Claims Notice and kindly provide your comments, if any, by COB Thursday, 30 January. After this date, the draft will be considered final: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1L1ZMuU_yAHDIszMpQDhdxATxEsXK8B9GOeoYUH7… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1L1ZMuU_yAHDI…> The redline version reflecting our discussions is available here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Uy481hQk3Q-5gkabWig5JVswLxjngdI8Hy1cxMt… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Uy481hQk3Q-5…> The current Trademark Claims Notice can be found here: https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/rpm-requirements-14may14-en.… [newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/r…> Please let us know of any questions. Thank you! Best, Antonietta From: Antonietta Mangiacotti via RPM-IRT <rpm-irt(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Antonietta Mangiacotti <antonietta.mangiacotti(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, January 23, 2025 at 12:43 PM To: "rpm-irt(a)icann.org" <rpm-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [RPM-IRT] [RPM IRT] Meeting #15 & Review Requested: Updated Claims Notice Dear RPM IRT, We have updated the Trademark Claims Notice following our discussion during Meeting #14<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=413335567> on Tuesday, 21 January. You can access the clean version here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1L1ZMuU_yAHDIszMpQDhdxATxEsXK8B9GOeoYUH7… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1L1ZMuU_yAHDI…> Please review the clean version linked above and let us know if you have any additional feedback or if we’ve missed anything. Kindly provide your comments, if any, by Thursday, 30 January. After this date, the draft will be considered final. * For your reference, the redline version reflecting our discussions is available here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Uy481hQk3Q-5gkabWig5JVswLxjngdI8Hy1cxMt… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Uy481hQk3Q-5…> * Additionally, the original Trademark Claims Notice can be found here: https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/rpm-requirements-14may14-en.… [newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/r…> As a reminder, Meeting #15 will take place on Tuesday, 28 January @1800 UTC. The agenda<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=494501890> is below: 1. Continue discussion on next steps on RPM Recommendation URS-1 [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1T9r4uTI4W9QB…> regarding the scope of amendments to a complaint (URS Rules [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/1dC3BIYxn…> Section 3(b)(iii)) 2. AOB Please let us know of any questions. Thank you! Best, Antonietta

1 2