Dear IRT members, Following the close of the public comment<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/proposed-updates-to-the-t...> period on the Proposed Updates to the Trademark Clearinghouse Rights Protection Mechanism Requirements (“TMCH Requirements”) on 27 January, ICANN org has reviewed and carefully considered the feedback received and has revised Sections 2.3.6 and 2.3.7 of the TMCH Requirements accordingly. Attached you will find both an excerpted clean and redline of Sections 2.3.6 and 2.3.7 of the updated TMCH Requirements marked against the December 2025 public comment version, which we plan to review during the call scheduled for 10 February 2026 at 19:00 UTC. For those with access to the Google Drive, you should also have access to the redline version here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1j-RnQUh6bzc7nzTUvadyBEqNhUfIsCxk/edit Below is a summary of the rationale for the changes made to Sections 2.3.6 and 2.3.7, which we will also discuss during Tuesday’s call. TMCH Requirements, Section 2.3.6 This section was revised to revert back to the existing language of Section 2.3.6. We have removed the new references to the TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedure <https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/> (DRP) from Section 2.3.6 in order to clearly distinguish between the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Procedure (SDRP), which is the focus of Section 2.3.6, and the TMCH DRP, as these procedures serve different purposes and public comments noted that as drafted, it expanded the scope of the TMCH DRP in a manner we had not intended. That is, as drafted, it could be read to mean the TMCH DRP covered all disputes regarding Sunrise Registrations. However, some disputes arise when a Sunrise Registration does not exactly match the Trademark Record on which the Sunrise-Eligible Rights Holder based the registration. These disputes do not always concern the validity of the Trademark Record or the SMD and instead should fall within the scope of the SDRP. Note that the changes shown in Section 2.3.6 effectively restore the language to what it was before the December public comment version. In other words, the net effect of the redline changes you will see in Section 2.3.6 means there is no actual change to how Section 2.3.6 reads today. But because the redline you see is marked against the December public comment version, it shows the incremental changes from that version. TMCH Requirements, Section 2.3.7 Further to the changes to 2.3.6 above, we have moved references to the TMCH DRP to Section 2.3.7 for clarity in scope and purpose of the TMCH DRP that is aligned with the recommendation. As you’ll recall, Sunrise Final Recommendation<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/rpm-phase-...> #8 states that the TMCH DRP should be the primary mechanism for challenging the validity of the Trademark Record on which a registrant based its Sunrise registration, and that Registry Operators should describe the nature and purpose of the TMCH DRP in their SDRPs and provide a link to the relevant TMCH resource (emphasis added). To better align with this recommendation and to mirror the structure of Section 2.3.6 for readability and consistency in drafting, new text has been added at the beginning of Section 2.3.7 requiring Registry Operators to reference the TMCH DRP in their SDRPs and to agree that the TMCH DRP will be the primary mechanism for such challenges. In addition, public comments raised concerns about the inclusion of a fixed 60-day suspension period. In response, ICANN org has revised Section 2.3.7 to remove the 60-day timeframe and instead defer to the TMCH DRP for the time period the Trademark Holder or Trademark Agent has to challenge the finding. This approach aligns with Sunrise Final Recommendation #8, which requires suspension to allow a challenge under the TMCH DRP but does not prescribe a specific duration. These revisions are intended to better align Section 2.3.7 with Sunrise Final Recommendation #8 and the operation of the TMCH DRP. We look forward to discussing these updates with you during Tuesday’s call. Please let us know of any questions. Thank you! Best, Antonietta