Lars, There is simply too much going on in this IRT and way too many calls for everyone to attend everything and catch everything. Accordingly, if we catch something later, like when discussed again on an IRT call, we should be able to adjust it if it will make for a better next round. Best regards, Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP Aspen Chicago 411 E. Main Street 360 North Green Street Suite 207 | Aspen, CO 81611 Suite 1300 | Chicago, IL 60607 T +1 970.300.5313 T +1 312.456.1020 M +1 773.677.3305 M +1 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> | View GT Biography <https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h> [Greenberg Traurig Logo] [Greenberg Traurig Logo] ________________________________ From: Lars Hoffmann via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2025 1:17:06 AM To: Next Round Policy Implementation via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Terms and Conditions *EXTERNAL TO GT* Dear SubPro IRT members, There were two issues with regard to the T&Cs that came up during last week’s (12 Sept) IRT call that we touched on yesterday, so I just wanted to close that loop. Issue 1: Discloser Requirements During last week’s call, we discussed the public comment on the Terms and Conditions. Marc and Mike stated that the enhanced disclosure requirements in Q108 went too far. As I noted on last night’s call, we expanded these requirements based on community input during the fourth public comment. The wording that went out for public comment from May to July<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/policy-develo...> (see p.248) is the same as we have it now (current language<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://docs.google.com/document/d/17w1jJcPfSR0-...>; note the numbering changed from 109 to 108). The requirements were broadened based on community feedback in the fourth comment period in response to concerns about a change of control of an application taking place unnoticed. As there was no input on these questions in the latest public comment, we will keep this as is. For completion please also see the language in the Terms and Conditions that has been updated to reflect the requirement to inform ICANN if any changes occur that may impact the evaluation outcome of an application. This was shared on a slide last week, but we now have the redline<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-H-j-QOFt7HH...> – this change also required a small addition to the Change Request Section- see here<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HWZHBlj91hPl...>. Issue 2: ICANN’s ability to sanction applicants that are found to have not complied with the disclosure requirements The IRT was aligned – I do not recall any dissent – that ICANN should have the ability to terminate a Registry Agreement should a (then) registry operator be found to have broken the disclosure requirements during their past application evaluation process. We will continue to look at this issue including how/where to include it, including what is already covered under the RA. Many thanks and best wishes, Lars ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate the information.