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?homepageId...>. We hope this update is helpful. Please do not hesitate to reach out if you have any questions. Thank you! Best, Antonietta