Several initial comments: 1. The UDRP routinely takes 60 days or longer from start to finish. 1. Why is 60 days too long to keep an important (and available) domain name from the public? On what basis are you determining that each of these domain names so important and why is the public harmed by waiting a little longer for any one domain name out of billions of domain names? Do you have any studies or research showing such harm? 1. If returning appropriate domain names to the pool of domain names in New gTLDs is a) policy and b) good for Registries, Registrars, Registrants, and ultimately the end users who will use their websites, emails, listservs+, then why are registrars now permitted to interrupt this process by taking over domain names as they expire and monetizing them or selling them at auction instead of following the expiration as set forth in the Expired Domain Deletion Policy? If returning appropriate domain names to the pool of domain names is required by policy and is so important for Registries, Registrars, Registrants, and ultimately the end users (which I agree that it is) then I would suggest that you focus your efforts on this currently existing issue so that it aligns with what you say should be required in the next round of new gTLDs Best regards, Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP [cid:image001.png@01DC69A5.B3578550] 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: Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2025 4:57 PM To: subpro-irt@icann.org; Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Question - TMCH *EXTERNAL TO GT* [cid:image004.png@01DC69A5.B3578550] All, I see three problems with the revisions to 2.3.7 re: Sunrise Registration -- and additions and deletions in (B) make it inconsistent with the language written by the STI, and the review and recommendations of the RPM PDP WG – Phase 1: 1) 60 days is a too long time to allow for a TMCH DRP -- far longer than UDRP and URS response times involving much more difficult responses. I'm sure the TMCH can determine whether a challenged Trademark Record is invalid in a much shorter time – most TM records are online -- and 60 days is too long to keep an important (and available) domain name from the public. [2.3.7 (B)] 2) After the conclusion of a challenge by the TM Holder or TM agent, it appears that everything can linger for 60 days. By the wording, even if the TMCH DRP is concluded or the Sunrise Registration is deemed invalid, whichever path is taken, this section sounds like everyone can wait around a long time and eventually delete the Sunrise Registration. But this is the Internet, and we work quickly. The invalid Sunrise Registration must, of course, be deleted immediately after the challenge is concluded because we’re headed into General Availability and the domain name must be available to the public for registration. [2.3.7 (B)] 3) Which leads us to the surprising deletion at the end of the section: “and return the domain name to the pool of available names available for registration. A Registry Operator may, through the Registry-Registrar Agreement its agreement with registrars, instead require the registrar to perform this implementation step.” This sentence is the whole purpose the section – to return the domain name to the available pool and allow it to be registered by someone who needs and can use it. Sunrise gives TMCH registrants a first right to register in the Sunrise Period, but not a wholesale removal of the domain name from registration. Of course, domain names, if invalidly registered during the Sunrise Period must be returned to the pool of available names – that’s a key element of the fairness and balance of the TMCH and Sunrise Registration processes; they are limited for a reason. Returning appropriate domain names to the pool of domain names in New gTLDs is a) policy and b) good for Registries, Registrars, Registrants, and ultimately the end users who will use their websites, emails, listservs+. This final sentence is absolutely key to achieving the goals and intents of the RPM PDP WG; to change it is to change policy. (However, if I have misunderstood or misread this deletion, please clarify for me and for all.) `v Best, Kathy On 12/9/2025 1:19 PM, Lars Hoffmann via SubPro-IRT wrote: Adding the IRT mailing list. Thank you, Kathy. Here is the link to the document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rDcaY1nPkfwcHpuhI74OY13rp5g99iI2/edit<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1rDcaY1nPkfwcHpuhI74OY13rp5g99iI2/edit__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!DYuunvFwjcX2EEu-fS7KAsS8xGAI1naSkM1pF6yni1aEvDR2XnG_SMemRF29v24AwKES_5h0e_LoEk123q2vMVw$> Best wishes. Lars From: Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com><mailto:Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> Date: Tuesday, 9 December 2025 at 10:09 To: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org><mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Question - TMCH Hi Lars, I think we are on a deadline today for TMCH changes/review. Is that right? Could you kindly point me to the right email or date to review it? I've been on a long bit of travel for a workshop and speaking. Best and tx, Kathy On 12/9/2025 11:53 AM, Lars Hoffmann via SubPro-IRT wrote: Dear IRT members, For Thursday’s call (11 December, 10:00 UTC), we have the following agenda items 1. Welcome and SOI 2. Surplus/Deficit Discussion (see attached paper) 3. AGB Updates 4. AOB Attached you find a paper outlining ICANN’s approach to the surplus/deficit issue. Feel free to review before the call and share any thoughts, questions etc. on-list. Please note, as mentioned today’s call, the Name Collision procedures will now be covered on a yet-to-be-scheduled call on Tuesday 16 December 2025. Thank you all and best wishes, Lars _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!DYuunvFwjcX2EEu-fS7KAsS8xGAI1naSkM1pF6yni1aEvDR2XnG_SMemRF29v24AwKES_5h0e_LoEk122UWFPpc$>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!DYuunvFwjcX2EEu-fS7KAsS8xGAI1naSkM1pF6yni1aEvDR2XnG_SMemRF29v24AwKES_5h0e_LoEk128KCkjbk$>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!DYuunvFwjcX2EEu-fS7KAsS8xGAI1naSkM1pF6yni1aEvDR2XnG_SMemRF29v24AwKES_5h0e_LoEk122UWFPpc$>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!DYuunvFwjcX2EEu-fS7KAsS8xGAI1naSkM1pF6yni1aEvDR2XnG_SMemRF29v24AwKES_5h0e_LoEk128KCkjbk$>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.

Kathy, Your email is extremely long and I frankly don’t have time to fully respond. As an initial matter though if Keeping as many domain names in the pool of available names is a priority for you then I can’t understand for the life of me why you would focus on what will prospectively happen in the next round for a few domain names and ignore what is going on in the real world right now with millions of domain names. That said, you are also ignoring that there are three types of Disputes allowed under the TMCH Dispute Resolution Process: 1. Disputes brought by Trademark Holders or Trademark Agents alleging that the Clearinghouse incorrectly rejected a Trademark Record<https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/glossary/#:~:text=the%20Trademark%20Clea...>; 2. Disputes brought by Third Parties alleging that the Clearinghouse incorrectly accepted a Trademark Record<https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/glossary/#:~:text=the%20Trademark%20Clea...>; and 3. Disputes brought by Third Parties alleging that a Trademark Record<https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/glossary/#:~:text=the%20Trademark%20Clea...> is no longer valid based on new information. Furthermore, under the TMCH Dispute Rules (https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/), The Dispute must be filed with the Clearinghouse within a period of sixty (60) calendar days after the Trademark Record<https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/glossary/#:~:text=the%20Trademark%20Clea...> has been deemed <invalid>. This is the reason for the 60 day window. And if the dispute is filed on day 60, then it may take up to 15 days after that for the determination. Accordingly, it seems that the language should actually be: Registry Operator will immediately suspend a Sunrise Registration following notice from the Trademark Clearinghouse that the Trademark Record on which the Sunrise-Eligible Rights Holder based its Sunrise Registration was deemed invalid in accordance with the TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedure as set forth at https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/ (as updated from time to time, the “TMCH DRP”) (for purposes of this Section 2.3.7, “suspend” means the EPP status of such Sunrise Registration is set to “serverHold until the Trademark Clearinghouse provides further notice that such Trademark Record (A) has been updated to <verified> in accordance with the TMCH DRP, in which case the Registry Operator shall restore such Sunrise Registration; or (B) remains invalid following either sixty (60) calendar days (or such other period as set forth in the TMCH DRP) after such Sunrise Registration was deemed invalid or the conclusion of a challenge by the Trademark Holder or Trademark Agent (as defined in the TMCH DRP), whichever is later, in which case the Registry Operator shall delete such Sunrise Registration. Best regards, Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP [cid:image001.png@01DC6A89.DC1DB330] 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: Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2025 8:34 PM To: Trachtenberg, Marc H. (Shld-ASP-IP-Tech) <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>; subpro-irt@icann.org; Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Question - TMCH [cid:image004.png@01DC6A89.DC1DB330] Marc, Thanks for your comments and let me take them in reverse order: You wrote: <<3. If returning appropriate domain names to the pool of domain names in New gTLDs is a) policy and b) good for Registries, Registrars, Registrants, and ultimately the end users who will use their websites, emails, listservs+, then why are registrars now permitted to interrupt this process by taking over domain names as they expire and monetizing them or selling them at auction instead of following the expiration as set forth in the Expired Domain Deletion Policy? If returning appropriate domain names to the pool of domain names is required by policy and is so important for Registries, Registrars, Registrants, and ultimately the end users (which I agree that it is) then I would suggest that you focus your efforts on this currently existing issue so that it aligns with what you say should be required in the next round of new gTLDs.>> 3) Marc, I can't speak to current practices of taking domain names as they expire, but I can speak to the balance of TM owner and Registrant rights in the Sunrise and General Availability periods of New gTLDs. Keeping as many domain names in the pool of available names was an integral part of the Sunrise registration and the new Sunrise Recommendation #8,which allows for challenging invalid registrations -- so domain name improperly registered can be return to the pool of available names to be accessed by other registrants (including other TM owners). In the rules created by STI and reviewed by the RPM PDP WG – Phase 1 (I was part of both groups), the Sunrise Period carves out a special registration period of names otherwise available to the public. As we know: “A "Sunrise Period" is a period of at least 30 days during which trademark holders have an advanced opportunity to register domain names corresponding to their marks before names are generally available to the public.” [underline added] https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/faqs<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/faqs__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!FHlRlAdWNYJqGGd75DX4BW57Sd3DzBRbCVtgt63fg8hoUew9MIH8l5DpTd-SAfHrGG6SCqE4xh01M_wES6yplg$> In the STI and RPM PDP WG, we thought very carefully about both of these groups, TM owners and registrants, and their respective rights, and worked hard to balanced them. In RPM PDP WG – Phase 1, we went further to fix the problem of when a Sunrise registration used an invalid Trademark Clearinghouse registration. We wrote the Sunrise Recommendation #8: “2.4.3 Sunrise Recommendation to Modify Existing Operational Practice, Sunrise Final Recommendation #8, Agreed Policy Principles: The Working Group agrees that the TMCH dispute resolution procedure should be the primary mechanism for challenging the validity of the Trademark Record on which a registrant based its Sunrise registration… The Working Group therefore recommends that, once informed by the TMCH Validation Provider that a Sunrise registration was based on an invalid Trademark Record (pursuant to a TMCH dispute resolution procedure), the Registry Operator must immediately suspend the domain name registration for a period of time to allow the registrant to challenge such finding using the TMCH dispute resolution procedure.” The reason to challenge the TMCH Trademark Record is clear – someone wants the domain name and feels they have a better right to it. Challenges include: a) another trademark owner, including one who lost a Sunrise Auction, and then researched and found the winner’s Trademark Record to be invalid and b) a registrant who wants to register the domain name in a New gTLD and found it already registered during Sunrise by someone with an invalid Trademark Record. In these and other scenarios, the balance of trademark owners and registrants was considered quite carefully, and no other parties were included. The rules are designed to ensure that both groups, Registrants and TM Owners, have access to the domain names of a new gTLD. - To Marc’s statement, and I think we may agree, if there is a Start Date Sunrise period and the TMCH dispute resolution procedure could be handled quickly enough, then another TM owner in the TMCH could come forward to seek the domain name registration (since it is first-come, first-served for registration); - If there was a Sunrise Auction, then if things move quickly enough, the other TM owner could now register; - When the domain name registration is returned to the pool of available names, then it is available for Landrush, and - If not yet registered, then the domain name is available to the public during General Availability where good publicity will hopefully be bringing many new registrants to registrars seeking these domain names in these exciting new gTLDs. That's the equation, the balance, the rules and the policies. From there, the rest flows: To Mark's points 1 and 2, why rush to complete the TMCH dispute resolution as quickly as possible? First, because resolution seems pretty straightforward: The TM is either valid or it is not and thus the domain name could be returned to the available pool quickly. Second, as discussed above, there many be other TM owners who want the domain name during Sunrise or other registrants who want it during Landrush or early General Availability -- all happening very quickly at the launch of a New gTLD. It's best to give everyone fair and rapid access to a domain name once it is available. That benefits all. Best, Kathy Useful definitions End Date Sunrise In this type of Sunrise, the Registry can announce the Sunrise as late as the day the Sunrise starts, but must run the Sunrise for 60 days or more. Trademark owners will have the duration of the Sunrise period to submit a claim for a domain. At the end of the period, all the claims are registered by the Registry and auctions are conducted if there is more than one claim for the same domain. This type of Sunrise has significant benefits for rights holders. Start Date Sunrise In this type of Sunrise, the Registry must give 30-days notice before commencing the Sunrise. Once the Sunrise starts, it must run for only 30 days or more. Claims by trademark owners are processed on a first-come-first-served basis, so there is no need for auctions and domains are registered as claims are made during the Sunrise period. This type of Sunrise has so far been very rare among New gTLD strings, and has benefits for Registries while causing concerns for rights holders.[4]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icannwiki.org/Sunrise_Period*cite_note-4_...> Sunrise Auction When two trademark owners both have legitimate claim to a given domain, these domains then go to auction.[5]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icannwiki.org/Sunrise_Period*cite_note-5_...> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On 12/10/2025 8:26 AM, trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> wrote: Several initial comments: 1. The UDRP routinely takes 60 days or longer from start to finish. 1. Why is 60 days too long to keep an important (and available) domain name from the public? On what basis are you determining that each of these domain names so important and why is the public harmed by waiting a little longer for any one domain name out of billions of domain names? Do you have any studies or research showing such harm? 2. If returning appropriate domain names to the pool of domain names in New gTLDs is a) policy and b) good for Registries, Registrars, Registrants, and ultimately the end users who will use their websites, emails, listservs+, then why are registrars now permitted to interrupt this process by taking over domain names as they expire and monetizing them or selling them at auction instead of following the expiration as set forth in the Expired Domain Deletion Policy? If returning appropriate domain names to the pool of domain names is required by policy and is so important for Registries, Registrars, Registrants, and ultimately the end users (which I agree that it is) then I would suggest that you focus your efforts on this currently existing issue so that it aligns with what you say should be required in the next round of new gTLDs Best regards, Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP [cid:image001.png@01DC6A89.DC1DB330] 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: Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org><mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2025 4:57 PM To: subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>; Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org><mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Question - TMCH *EXTERNAL TO GT* [cid:image004.png@01DC6A89.DC1DB330] All, I see three problems with the revisions to 2.3.7 re: Sunrise Registration -- and additions and deletions in (B) make it inconsistent with the language written by the STI, and the review and recommendations of the RPM PDP WG – Phase 1: 1) 60 days is a too long time to allow for a TMCH DRP -- far longer than UDRP and URS response times involving much more difficult responses. I'm sure the TMCH can determine whether a challenged Trademark Record is invalid in a much shorter time – most TM records are online -- and 60 days is too long to keep an important (and available) domain name from the public. [2.3.7 (B)] 2) After the conclusion of a challenge by the TM Holder or TM agent, it appears that everything can linger for 60 days. By the wording, even if the TMCH DRP is concluded or the Sunrise Registration is deemed invalid, whichever path is taken, this section sounds like everyone can wait around a long time and eventually delete the Sunrise Registration. But this is the Internet, and we work quickly. The invalid Sunrise Registration must, of course, be deleted immediately after the challenge is concluded because we’re headed into General Availability and the domain name must be available to the public for registration. [2.3.7 (B)] 3) Which leads us to the surprising deletion at the end of the section: “and return the domain name to the pool of available names available for registration. A Registry Operator may, through the Registry-Registrar Agreement its agreement with registrars, instead require the registrar to perform this implementation step.” This sentence is the whole purpose the section – to return the domain name to the available pool and allow it to be registered by someone who needs and can use it. Sunrise gives TMCH registrants a first right to register in the Sunrise Period, but not a wholesale removal of the domain name from registration. Of course, domain names, if invalidly registered during the Sunrise Period must be returned to the pool of available names – that’s a key element of the fairness and balance of the TMCH and Sunrise Registration processes; they are limited for a reason. Returning appropriate domain names to the pool of domain names in New gTLDs is a) policy and b) good for Registries, Registrars, Registrants, and ultimately the end users who will use their websites, emails, listservs+. This final sentence is absolutely key to achieving the goals and intents of the RPM PDP WG; to change it is to change policy. (However, if I have misunderstood or misread this deletion, please clarify for me and for all.) Best, Kathy On 12/9/2025 1:19 PM, Lars Hoffmann via SubPro-IRT wrote: Adding the IRT mailing list. Thank you, Kathy. Here is the link to the document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rDcaY1nPkfwcHpuhI74OY13rp5g99iI2/edit<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1rDcaY1nPkfwcHpuhI74OY13rp5g99iI2/edit__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!DYuunvFwjcX2EEu-fS7KAsS8xGAI1naSkM1pF6yni1aEvDR2XnG_SMemRF29v24AwKES_5h0e_LoEk123q2vMVw$> Best wishes. Lars From: Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com><mailto:Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> Date: Tuesday, 9 December 2025 at 10:09 To: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org><mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Question - TMCH Hi Lars, I think we are on a deadline today for TMCH changes/review. Is that right? Could you kindly point me to the right email or date to review it? I've been on a long bit of travel for a workshop and speaking. Best and tx, Kathy On 12/9/2025 11:53 AM, Lars Hoffmann via SubPro-IRT wrote: Dear IRT members, For Thursday’s call (11 December, 10:00 UTC), we have the following agenda items 1. Welcome and SOI 2. Surplus/Deficit Discussion (see attached paper) 3. AGB Updates 4. AOB Attached you find a paper outlining ICANN’s approach to the surplus/deficit issue. Feel free to review before the call and share any thoughts, questions etc. on-list. Please note, as mentioned today’s call, the Name Collision procedures will now be covered on a yet-to-be-scheduled call on Tuesday 16 December 2025. Thank you all and best wishes, Lars _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!DYuunvFwjcX2EEu-fS7KAsS8xGAI1naSkM1pF6yni1aEvDR2XnG_SMemRF29v24AwKES_5h0e_LoEk122UWFPpc$>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!DYuunvFwjcX2EEu-fS7KAsS8xGAI1naSkM1pF6yni1aEvDR2XnG_SMemRF29v24AwKES_5h0e_LoEk128KCkjbk$>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!DYuunvFwjcX2EEu-fS7KAsS8xGAI1naSkM1pF6yni1aEvDR2XnG_SMemRF29v24AwKES_5h0e_LoEk122UWFPpc$>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!DYuunvFwjcX2EEu-fS7KAsS8xGAI1naSkM1pF6yni1aEvDR2XnG_SMemRF29v24AwKES_5h0e_LoEk128KCkjbk$>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. ________________________________ 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<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>, and do not use or disseminate the information.

It has to be the later of the two, not the earlier. If it was the earlier then that means at day 60 the sunrise registration is deleted even though the registrant may have filled a dispute that day. 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: Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2025 11:20:13 AM To: Trachtenberg, Marc H. (Shld-ASP-IP-Tech) <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>; subpro-irt@icann.org <subpro-irt@icann.org>; lars.hoffmann@icann.org <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Question - TMCH *EXTERNAL TO GT* Registry Operator will immediately suspend a Sunrise Registration following notice from the Trademark Clearinghouse that the Trademark Record on which the Sunrise-Eligible Rights Holder based its Sunrise Registration was deemed invalid in accordance with the TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedure as set forth at https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Fz-kUS6P9AxW0t9jKOkY6iIuue4vmzswDCr4CYAgxxKWnYGw7mpPS1T14dcFsMhkPmZyK2kC3OwflZOuurUyJw$> (as updated from time to time, the “TMCH DRP”) (for purposes of this Section 2.3.7, “suspend” means the EPP status of such Sunrise Registration is set to “serverHold until the Trademark Clearinghouse provides further notice that such Trademark Record (A) has been updated to <verified> in accordance with the TMCH DRP, in which case the Registry Operator shall restore such Sunrise Registration; or (B) remains invalid following either sixty (60) calendar days (or such other period as set forth in the TMCH DRP) after such Sunrise Registration was deemed invalid or the conclusion of a challenge by the Trademark Holder or Trademark Agent (as defined in the TMCH DRP), whichever is later earlier , in which case the Registry Operator shall delete such Sunrise Registration and return the domain name to the pool of available names available for registration. Tx Marc, and our reasoning is almost right -- but once certain challenges are concluded, they are concluded. It the Trademark is invalid, and the Trademark DRP ends at day 15, then return the domain name to the available pool of available names. There are only two parties, and the deed is done. Which returns to the long history I shared from the Final Report of the RPM PDP WG - Phase -- which is the policy and needs to be continued as the policy or changed as policy by the Council. I've added the key language back in. We could restore the RPM IRT if we really need to, and it's a small and rapidly-working group. Best, Kathy On 12/11/2025 11:41 AM, trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> wrote: Registry Operator will immediately suspend a Sunrise Registration following notice from the Trademark Clearinghouse that the Trademark Record on which the Sunrise-Eligible Rights Holder based its Sunrise Registration was deemed invalid in accordance with the TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedure as set forth at https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Fz-kUS6P9AxW0t9jKOkY6iIuue4vmzswDCr4CYAgxxKWnYGw7mpPS1T14dcFsMhkPmZyK2kC3OwflZOuurUyJw$> (as updated from time to time, the “TMCH DRP”) (for purposes of this Section 2.3.7, “suspend” means the EPP status of such Sunrise Registration is set to “serverHold until the Trademark Clearinghouse provides further notice that such Trademark Record (A) has been updated to <verified> in accordance with the TMCH DRP, in which case the Registry Operator shall restore such Sunrise Registration; or (B) remains invalid following either sixty (60) calendar days (or such other period as set forth in the TMCH DRP) after such Sunrise Registration was deemed invalid or the conclusion of a challenge by the Trademark Holder or Trademark Agent (as defined in the TMCH DRP), whichever is later, in which case the Registry Operator shall delete such Sunrise Registration. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.

How does it not matter? This is exactly what is being challenged 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: Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2025 11:29:30 AM To: Trachtenberg, Marc H. (Shld-ASP-IP-Tech) <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>; subpro-irt@icann.org <subpro-irt@icann.org>; lars.hoffmann@icann.org <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Question - TMCH Which does not matter for the challenge to the trademark in the Clearinghouse. On 12/11/2025 12:25 PM, trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> wrote: It has to be the later of the two, not the earlier. If it was the earlier then that means at day 60 the sunrise registration is deleted even though the registrant may have filled a dispute that day. 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: Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com><mailto:Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2025 11:20:13 AM To: Trachtenberg, Marc H. (Shld-ASP-IP-Tech) <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com><mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>; subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org><mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>; lars.hoffmann@icann.org<mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org> <lars.hoffmann@icann.org><mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Question - TMCH *EXTERNAL TO GT* Registry Operator will immediately suspend a Sunrise Registration following notice from the Trademark Clearinghouse that the Trademark Record on which the Sunrise-Eligible Rights Holder based its Sunrise Registration was deemed invalid in accordance with the TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedure as set forth at https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Fz-kUS6P9AxW0t9jKOkY6iIuue4vmzswDCr4CYAgxxKWnYGw7mpPS1T14dcFsMhkPmZyK2kC3OwflZOuurUyJw$> (as updated from time to time, the “TMCH DRP”) (for purposes of this Section 2.3.7, “suspend” means the EPP status of such Sunrise Registration is set to “serverHold until the Trademark Clearinghouse provides further notice that such Trademark Record (A) has been updated to <verified> in accordance with the TMCH DRP, in which case the Registry Operator shall restore such Sunrise Registration; or (B) remains invalid following either sixty (60) calendar days (or such other period as set forth in the TMCH DRP) after such Sunrise Registration was deemed invalid or the conclusion of a challenge by the Trademark Holder or Trademark Agent (as defined in the TMCH DRP), whichever is later earlier , in which case the Registry Operator shall delete such Sunrise Registration and return the domain name to the pool of available names available for registration. Tx Marc, and our reasoning is almost right -- but once certain challenges are concluded, they are concluded. It the Trademark is invalid, and the Trademark DRP ends at day 15, then return the domain name to the available pool of available names. There are only two parties, and the deed is done. Which returns to the long history I shared from the Final Report of the RPM PDP WG - Phase -- which is the policy and needs to be continued as the policy or changed as policy by the Council. I've added the key language back in. We could restore the RPM IRT if we really need to, and it's a small and rapidly-working group. Best, Kathy On 12/11/2025 11:41 AM, trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> wrote: Registry Operator will immediately suspend a Sunrise Registration following notice from the Trademark Clearinghouse that the Trademark Record on which the Sunrise-Eligible Rights Holder based its Sunrise Registration was deemed invalid in accordance with the TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedure as set forth at https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Fz-kUS6P9AxW0t9jKOkY6iIuue4vmzswDCr4CYAgxxKWnYGw7mpPS1T14dcFsMhkPmZyK2kC3OwflZOuurUyJw$> (as updated from time to time, the “TMCH DRP”) (for purposes of this Section 2.3.7, “suspend” means the EPP status of such Sunrise Registration is set to “serverHold until the Trademark Clearinghouse provides further notice that such Trademark Record (A) has been updated to <verified> in accordance with the TMCH DRP, in which case the Registry Operator shall restore such Sunrise Registration; or (B) remains invalid following either sixty (60) calendar days (or such other period as set forth in the TMCH DRP) after such Sunrise Registration was deemed invalid or the conclusion of a challenge by the Trademark Holder or Trademark Agent (as defined in the TMCH DRP), whichever is later, in which case the Registry Operator shall delete such Sunrise Registration. ________________________________ 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<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>, and do not use or disseminate the information.

Hi Antonietta and All, With all the sad news of the last two days, it is hard to focus on the tasks before us. But like all of us, I believe in New gTLDs and new domain names and spaces for speech that will be created within them around the world. I hope that speech helps people find ways to come together. To that end, I raise concerns about language being proposed./As Co-Chair of the RPM PDP WG, we created the Sunrise Recommendation #8 for a reason, and that reason is being removed by the new language being proposed./I must raise objections because our job is to deal with the RPM WG policy recommendations now. Antonietta, you were an incredible RPM IRT Staff Member and we all appreciated your hard work on the implementation of our TMCH and Sunrise recommendations. Thank you for your long email, and let me respond so we have everything laid out for tomorrow: 1) “Excerpted Redline of Trademark Clearinghouse Rights Protection Mechanism Requirements – Sections 2.3.6 and 2.3.7 – For Discussion Purposes” /It’s unclear where the circulated draft came from, but the initial language was exactly what the RPM PDP WG believed should happen when Sunrise Rec #8 was adopted:/*/If a Sunrise Registration is based on an invalid TMCH registration and it’s successfully challenged, then _“the Registry Operator shall delete such Sunrise Registration, and return the domain name to the pool of available names available for registration.”_/* /That’s the only way that Sunrise Recommendation #8 makes sense: “The Working Group agrees that the TMCH dispute resolution procedure should be the primary mechanism for challenging the validity of the Trademark Record on which a registrant based its Sunrise registration.” [RPM PDP Final Report]/ Thus, in Rec#8, we allowed room for third parties – other TM owners in the TMCH or others – to challenge a TM in the Clearinghouse quickly and fairly – for the purpose of opening up that domain name to other uses – returning it to the pool of available-names for registration. -        Challenges discussed in the TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedures include another TMCH registrant (we know there are multiple registrations for the same word in the TMCH) and others party with a direct connection to or interest in that word. */That's why a Third Party would go through the cost of challenging an accepted TMCH record and bringing to light "new information" about a TMCH record -- because they are interested in the domain name themselves. (TMCH Disputes 3.3 and 3.4, /*https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/*/)./* Note: While I understand that Registries want to reserve names and have the right to do so, that time comes earlier – see e.g., “/Qualified Launch Program(QLP): A mechanism available in the New Generic Top-Level Domain Program (New gTLD Program) that allows a registry operator (RO) to register a limited number of domain names to third parties before the Sunrise Period begins./” [ICANN Acronyms & Terms]** *2)**Which leads us to TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedures and which ones apply here.* Antonietta, there are three (3) TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedures – and the drafted section references the first one. Only the 2^nd and 3^rd ones apply here.  As we see in 1.2, Scope, there is a dispute process for TM Holders or TM Agents “alleging that the Clearinghouse incorrectly rejected a Trademark Record.”That dispute must be filed in 60 days. Section 3.2, https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/*/)./* /* But we are talking about Challenges to the TM Record brought by Third Parties and they are much faster:*/ -“Disputes brought by Third Parties alleging that the Clearinghouse incorrectly accepted a Trademark Record” (3.1(2)) is laid out in 3.3.This is exactly for when “two TM Holders have the same Trademark Record” and both want the Sunrise registration (3.3). -“Dispute brought by Third Parties alleging that a Trademark Record is no longer valid based on new information” (3.1(3) is laid out in 3.4. -*/In both cases, The Dispute Procedure is quite fast: /* oAfter filing, the TM Holder or TM Agent have five (5) days to respond. o“The Review Panel will examine the Dispute and made a decision within ten (10) calendar days (or if during the Early Bird Registration, within fifteen (15) calendar days.”(3.4.2). oThus in a total of 15-20 days, the decision is made, and the TMCH has three days to implement. 3)3) No second bites at the apple. If the Third Party challenge is successful, the domain name should be returned to the pool of available names within 18-23 days –  and allows for a second registration during Sunrise, or later in Landrush or General Availability. Best, Kathy On 12/11/2025 3:54 PM, Antonietta Mangiacotti wrote:

Dear Kathy,

Thank you for your input. We believe the responses provided below address your questions. As we are in the process of finalizing the TMCH Requirements, which we are aiming to post for public comment next week, we encourage you to submit any additional feedback through that public comment process.

*1) *The 60-day requirement added in Section 2.3.7(B) comes from the TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedure <https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/#3.3> and reflects the window during which a Sunrise registrant may challenge a TMCH finding that their Sunrise registration was based on an invalid TMCH record. In such cases, the domain name must be suspended consistent with Sunrise Final Recommendation <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/rpm-phase-...> #8, meaning it will not resolve in the DNS during that 60-day period. The name will be restored only if the challenge is successful. Additionally, under the TMCH DRP, the TMCH Review Panel generally issues a decision within 7 calendar days (or 15 days during the Early Bird Registration period). To improve clarity regarding the 60-day requirement, ICANN org will consider adding further explanation in an FAQ or other educational materials.

*2)*As explained above, the 60-day period referenced in the Section 2.3.7(B) is the filing window for a Sunrise registrant to submit a challenge of a finding under the TMCH DRP. Consistent with Sunrise Final Recommendation #8, the Registry Operator will immediately suspend a Sunrise Registration upon notice from the TMCH that the underlying Trademark Record is invalid, to allow the Sunrise registrant to challenge the determination. Section 2.3.7(B) provides that once a challenge by the Trademark Holder or Trademark Agent concludes, the registry operator shall delete the Sunrise Registration. Following the SubPro IRT discussions on the list, ICANN org proposes updating Section 2.3.7(B) to add “*whichever is later*” to the clause:

/“…or (B) remains invalid following either sixty (60) calendar days (or such other period as set forth in the TMCH DRP) after such Sunrise Registration was deemed invalid or the conclusion of a challenge by the Trademark Holder or Trademark Agent (as defined in the TMCH DRP), *whichever is later*, in which case the Registry Operator shall delete such Sunrise Registration.” /

The addition of “*whichever is later*” ensures that if the challenge process extends beyond 60 days, the registry waits until the challenge is completed before taking action.

*3)*We are proposing to remove the phrase “*/and return the domain name to the pool of available names available for registration/*” from the end of Section 2.3.7 because including it would create a new obligation for registries by preventing them from reserving the domain name. Registries currently have the discretion to reserve a domain name. Section 2.3.7 already states that the domain name will be deleted if the Sunrise Registration remains invalid following either sixty (60) calendar days after such Sunrise Registration was deemed invalid or the conclusion of a challenge by the Trademark Holder. After the deletion, it is up to the Registry Operator to decide whether to reserve the domain name or not. Adding language that requires returning the domain name to the available pool would impose an unintended and additional obligation on registries, and it is not mandated by Sunrise Final Recommendation <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/rpm-phase-...> #8.

Thank you again for your input. We appreciate your engagement and encourage you to submit any additional feedback during the upcoming public comment period on the TMCH Requirements.

Best,

Antonietta

*From: *Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Reply-To: *Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> *Date: *Tuesday, December 9, 2025 at 11:01 PM *To: *"subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org>, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> *Subject: *[SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Question - TMCH

All, I see three problems with the revisions to 2.3.7 re: Sunrise Registration -- and additions and deletions in (B) make it inconsistent with the language written by the STI, and the review and recommendations of the RPM PDP WG – Phase 1:

1) 60 days is a too long time to allow for a TMCH DRP -- far longer than UDRP and URS response times involving much more difficult responses. I'm sure the TMCH can determine whether a challenged Trademark Record is invalid in a much shorter time – most TM records are online -- and 60 days is too long to keep an important (and available) domain name from the public. [2.3.7 (B)]

2) After the conclusion of a challenge by the TM Holder or TM agent, it appears that everything can linger for 60 days. By the wording, even if the TMCH DRP is concluded or the Sunrise Registration is deemed invalid, whichever path is taken, this section sounds like everyone can wait around a long time and eventually delete the Sunrise Registration. But this is the Internet, and we work quickly. The invalid Sunrise Registration must, of course, be deleted immediately after the challenge is concluded because we’re headed into General Availability and the domain name must be available to the public for registration. [2.3.7 (B)]

3) *Which leads us to the surprising deletion at the end of the section: “and return the domain name to the pool of available names available for registration. A Registry Operator may, through the Registry-Registrar Agreement its agreement with registrars, instead require the registrar to perform this implementation step.”  This sentence is the whole purpose the section – to return the domain name to the available pool and allow it to be registered by someone who needs and can use it. /Sunrise gives TMCH registrants a first right to register in the Sunrise Period, but not a wholesale removal of the domain name from registration. /*

Of course, domain names, if invalidly registered during the Sunrise Period must be returned to the pool of available names – that’s a key element of the fairness and balance of the TMCH and Sunrise Registration processes; they are limited for a reason. Returning appropriate domain names to the pool of domain names in New gTLDs is a) policy and b) good for Registries, Registrars, Registrants, and ultimately the end users who will use their websites, emails, listservs+. This final sentence is absolutely key to achieving the goals and intents of the RPM PDP WG; to change it is to change policy.  (However, if I have misunderstood or misread this deletion, please clarify for me and for all.)

`v  Best, Kathy

On 12/9/2025 1:19 PM, Lars Hoffmann via SubPro-IRT wrote:

Adding the IRT mailing list.

Thank you, Kathy.

Here is the link to the document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rDcaY1nPkfwcHpuhI74OY13rp5g99iI2/edit

Best wishes. Lars

*From: *Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> <mailto:Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> *Date: *Tuesday, 9 December 2025 at 10:09 *To: *Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> <mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Question - TMCH

Hi Lars,

I think we are on a deadline today for TMCH changes/review. Is that right?  Could you kindly point me to the right email or date to review it?  I've been on a long bit of travel for a workshop and speaking.

Best and tx, Kathy

On 12/9/2025 11:53 AM, Lars Hoffmann via SubPro-IRT wrote:

Dear IRT members,

For Thursday’s call (11 December, 10:00 UTC), we have the following agenda items

1. Welcome and SOI 2. Surplus/Deficit Discussion (see attached paper) 3. AGB Updates 4. AOB

Attached you find a paper outlining ICANN’s approach to the surplus/deficit issue. Feel free to review before the call and share any thoughts, questions etc. on-list.

*Please note, as mentioned today’s call, the **Name Collision procedures will now be covered on a yet-to-be-scheduled call on Tuesday 16 December 2025*.

Thank you all and best wishes, Lars

_______________________________________________

SubPro-IRT mailing list --subpro-irt@icann.org

To unsubscribe send an email tosubpro-irt-leave@icann.org

_______________________________________________

By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________

SubPro-IRT mailing list --subpro-irt@icann.org

To unsubscribe send an email tosubpro-irt-leave@icann.org

_______________________________________________

By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Hi all, Upon re-reviewing the documents raised by Susan, and in light of my experience working with numerous registries during the development of the 2012 AGB—including co-leading the effort to design the centralized TMCH model, Sunrise, Trademark Claims, and related mechanisms—I agree with Susan’s interpretation of Recommendation 8 and believe this issue has already been addressed by Antonietta. Sincerely, Jeff On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 8:55 AM Susan Payne via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:

Hi all, hi Kathy

Kathy, I think you are somewhat misremembering the reason that we created RPMs PDP Sunrise Recommendation #8 (Rec #8). The background to and purpose of this recommendation was to *move the venue* for a sunrise registration challenge process based on an alleged invalid Trademark Record from the Registry Operator to the Trademark Clearinghouse.

In the 2012 Round, there already was a requirement that sunrise registrations could be challenged on the following grounds, that:

(i) at time the challenged domain name was registered, the registrant did not hold a trademark registration of national effect (or regional effect) or the trademark had not been court-validated or protected by statute or treaty; …

(iii) the trademark registration on which the registrant based its Sunrise registration is not of national effect (or regional effect) or the trademark had not been court-validated or protected by statute or treaty.

Responsibility for managing such challenges was imposed on the Registry Operator. The RPM PDP WG agreed that the Registry Operator is not in fact the best placed to handle such challenges, recognised that the TMCH provider also handled such challenges, and so Rec #8 (1) removes that responsibility from the Registry Operator and onto the TMCH Operator, who is much better placed to deal with it, and (2) confirms that, should the challenge succeed then ultimately the sunrise registration would be cancelled.

In making Rec #8 the RPM PDP WG did not seek to override a Registry Operator’s discretion as to how it might categorise such name – general availability, reserved, premium, whatever. During wider discussions in the WG, representatives on the IP side actually argued that there should be greater clarity and potential controls generally over the designation of names by Registry Operators as reserved and premium, without success, so we can be very clear that Rec #8 did not do so.

For the avoidance of doubt, in case others misread it, as I initially did, the language in numbered paragraph 1 below that you have in bold, italics, underlined and quotation marks is not language from Rec #8 and, as I explain above, this is not in fact what the RPMs WG expected or intended. To save others having to locate it, I’m attaching the full text of Rec #8 plus the context and public comment discussion.

I think Antonietta’s responses do indeed put this to bed. The IRT is not a venue for re-litigation.

Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude *T* +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 *Ext* 255

<https://comlaude.com/>

*Follow us on** LinkedIn <https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAGVfAADw_RQA0> **and** YouTube <https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAGVfAADw_RQA0>*

*From:* Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Sent:* 15 December 2025 23:10 *To:* Antonietta Mangiacotti <antonietta.mangiacotti@icann.org>; subpro-irt@icann.org; Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> *Subject:* [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Question - TMCH

Hi Antonietta and All,

With all the sad news of the last two days, it is hard to focus on the tasks before us. But like all of us, I believe in New gTLDs and new domain names and spaces for speech that will be created within them around the world. I hope that speech helps people find ways to come together.

To that end, I raise concerns about language being proposed. *As Co-Chair of the RPM PDP WG, we created the Sunrise Recommendation #8 for a reason, and that reason is being removed by the new language being proposed.* I must raise objections because our job is to deal with the RPM WG policy recommendations now.

Antonietta, you were an incredible RPM IRT Staff Member and we all appreciated your hard work on the implementation of our TMCH and Sunrise recommendations. Thank you for your long email, and let me respond so we have everything laid out for tomorrow:

1) “Excerpted Redline of Trademark Clearinghouse Rights Protection Mechanism Requirements – Sections 2.3.6 and 2.3.7 – For Discussion Purposes”

*It’s unclear where the circulated draft came from, but the initial language was exactly what the RPM PDP WG believed should happen when Sunrise Rec #8 was adopted:* *If a Sunrise Registration is based on an invalid TMCH registration and it’s successfully challenged, then “the Registry Operator shall delete such Sunrise Registration, and return the domain name to the pool of available names available for registration.”*

*That’s the only way that Sunrise Recommendation #8 makes sense: “The Working Group agrees that the TMCH dispute resolution procedure should be the primary mechanism for challenging the validity of the Trademark Record on which a registrant based its Sunrise registration.” [RPM PDP Final Report]*

Thus, in Rec#8, we allowed room for third parties – other TM owners in the TMCH or others – to challenge a TM in the Clearinghouse quickly and fairly – for the purpose of opening up that domain name to other uses – returning it to the pool of available-names for registration.

- Challenges discussed in the TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedures include another TMCH registrant (we know there are multiple registrations for the same word in the TMCH) and others party with a direct connection to or interest in that word.

*That's why a Third Party would go through the cost of challenging an accepted TMCH record and bringing to light "new information" about a TMCH record -- because they are interested in the domain name themselves. (TMCH Disputes 3.3 and 3.4, * https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/* ).*

Note: While I understand that Registries want to reserve names and have the right to do so, that time comes earlier – see e.g., “*Qualified Launch Program(QLP): A mechanism available in the New Generic Top-Level Domain Program (New gTLD Program) that allows a registry operator (RO) to register a limited number of domain names to third parties before the Sunrise Period begins.*” [ICANN Acronyms & Terms]

*2)* *Which leads us to TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedures and which ones apply here.*

Antonietta, there are three (3) TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedures – and the drafted section references the first one. Only the 2nd and 3rd ones apply here.

As we see in 1.2, Scope, there is a dispute process for TM Holders or TM Agents “alleging that the Clearinghouse incorrectly rejected a Trademark Record.” That dispute must be filed in 60 days. Section 3.2, https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/* ).*

* But we are talking about Challenges to the TM Record brought by Third Parties and they are much faster:*

- “Disputes brought by Third Parties alleging that the Clearinghouse incorrectly accepted a Trademark Record” (3.1(2)) is laid out in 3.3. This is exactly for when “two TM Holders have the same Trademark Record” and both want the Sunrise registration (3.3).

- “Dispute brought by Third Parties alleging that a Trademark Record is no longer valid based on new information” (3.1(3) is laid out in 3.4.

- *In both cases, The Dispute Procedure is quite fast: *

o After filing, the TM Holder or TM Agent have five (5) days to respond.

o “The Review Panel will examine the Dispute and made a decision within ten (10) calendar days (or if during the Early Bird Registration, within fifteen (15) calendar days.” (3.4.2).

o Thus in a total of 15-20 days, the decision is made, and the TMCH has three days to implement.

3) 3) No second bites at the apple. If the Third Party challenge is successful, the domain name should be returned to the pool of available names within 18-23 days – and allows for a second registration during Sunrise, or later in Landrush or General Availability.

Best, Kathy

On 12/11/2025 3:54 PM, Antonietta Mangiacotti wrote:

Dear Kathy,

Thank you for your input. We believe the responses provided below address your questions. As we are in the process of finalizing the TMCH Requirements, which we are aiming to post for public comment next week, we encourage you to submit any additional feedback through that public comment process.

*1) *The 60-day requirement added in Section 2.3.7(B) comes from the TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedure <https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/#3.3> and reflects the window during which a Sunrise registrant may challenge a TMCH finding that their Sunrise registration was based on an invalid TMCH record. In such cases, the domain name must be suspended consistent with Sunrise Final Recommendation <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/rpm-phase-...> #8, meaning it will not resolve in the DNS during that 60-day period. The name will be restored only if the challenge is successful. Additionally, under the TMCH DRP, the TMCH Review Panel generally issues a decision within 7 calendar days (or 15 days during the Early Bird Registration period). To improve clarity regarding the 60-day requirement, ICANN org will consider adding further explanation in an FAQ or other educational materials.

*2)* As explained above, the 60-day period referenced in the Section 2.3.7(B) is the filing window for a Sunrise registrant to submit a challenge of a finding under the TMCH DRP. Consistent with Sunrise Final Recommendation #8, the Registry Operator will immediately suspend a Sunrise Registration upon notice from the TMCH that the underlying Trademark Record is invalid, to allow the Sunrise registrant to challenge the determination. Section 2.3.7(B) provides that once a challenge by the Trademark Holder or Trademark Agent concludes, the registry operator shall delete the Sunrise Registration. Following the SubPro IRT discussions on the list, ICANN org proposes updating Section 2.3.7(B) to add “*whichever is later*” to the clause:

*“…or (B) remains invalid following either sixty (60) calendar days (or such other period as set forth in the TMCH DRP) after such Sunrise Registration was deemed invalid or the conclusion of a challenge by the Trademark Holder or Trademark Agent (as defined in the TMCH DRP), whichever is later, in which case the Registry Operator shall delete such Sunrise Registration.” *

The addition of “*whichever is later*” ensures that if the challenge process extends beyond 60 days, the registry waits until the challenge is completed before taking action.

*3)* We are proposing to remove the phrase “*and return the domain name to the pool of available names available for registration*” from the end of Section 2.3.7 because including it would create a new obligation for registries by preventing them from reserving the domain name. Registries currently have the discretion to reserve a domain name. Section 2.3.7 already states that the domain name will be deleted if the Sunrise Registration remains invalid following either sixty (60) calendar days after such Sunrise Registration was deemed invalid or the conclusion of a challenge by the Trademark Holder. After the deletion, it is up to the Registry Operator to decide whether to reserve the domain name or not. Adding language that requires returning the domain name to the available pool would impose an unintended and additional obligation on registries, and it is not mandated by Sunrise Final Recommendation <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/rpm-phase-...> #8.

Thank you again for your input. We appreciate your engagement and encourage you to submit any additional feedback during the upcoming public comment period on the TMCH Requirements.

Best,

Antonietta

*From: *Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Reply-To: *Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> *Date: *Tuesday, December 9, 2025 at 11:01 PM *To: *"subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org>, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> *Subject: *[SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Question - TMCH

All, I see three problems with the revisions to 2.3.7 re: Sunrise Registration -- and additions and deletions in (B) make it inconsistent with the language written by the STI, and the review and recommendations of the RPM PDP WG – Phase 1:

1) 60 days is a too long time to allow for a TMCH DRP -- far longer than UDRP and URS response times involving much more difficult responses. I'm sure the TMCH can determine whether a challenged Trademark Record is invalid in a much shorter time – most TM records are online -- and 60 days is too long to keep an important (and available) domain name from the public. [2.3.7 (B)]

2) After the conclusion of a challenge by the TM Holder or TM agent, it appears that everything can linger for 60 days. By the wording, even if the TMCH DRP is concluded or the Sunrise Registration is deemed invalid, whichever path is taken, this section sounds like everyone can wait around a long time and eventually delete the Sunrise Registration. But this is the Internet, and we work quickly. The invalid Sunrise Registration must, of course, be deleted immediately after the challenge is concluded because we’re headed into General Availability and the domain name must be available to the public for registration. [2.3.7 (B)]

3) *Which leads us to the surprising deletion at the end of the section: “and return the domain name to the pool of available names available for registration. A Registry Operator may, through the Registry-Registrar Agreement its agreement with registrars, instead require the registrar to perform this implementation step.” This sentence is the whole purpose the section – to return the domain name to the available pool and allow it to be registered by someone who needs and can use it. Sunrise gives TMCH registrants a first right to register in the Sunrise Period, but not a wholesale removal of the domain name from registration. *

Of course, domain names, if invalidly registered during the Sunrise Period must be returned to the pool of available names – that’s a key element of the fairness and balance of the TMCH and Sunrise Registration processes; they are limited for a reason. Returning appropriate domain names to the pool of domain names in New gTLDs is a) policy and b) good for Registries, Registrars, Registrants, and ultimately the end users who will use their websites, emails, listservs+. This final sentence is absolutely key to achieving the goals and intents of the RPM PDP WG; to change it is to change policy. (However, if I have misunderstood or misread this deletion, please clarify for me and for all.)

`v Best, Kathy

On 12/9/2025 1:19 PM, Lars Hoffmann via SubPro-IRT wrote:

Adding the IRT mailing list.

Thank you, Kathy.

Here is the link to the document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rDcaY1nPkfwcHpuhI74OY13rp5g99iI2/edit

Best wishes. Lars

*From: *Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> *Date: *Tuesday, 9 December 2025 at 10:09 *To: *Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Question - TMCH

Hi Lars,

I think we are on a deadline today for TMCH changes/review. Is that right? Could you kindly point me to the right email or date to review it? I've been on a long bit of travel for a workshop and speaking.

Best and tx, Kathy

On 12/9/2025 11:53 AM, Lars Hoffmann via SubPro-IRT wrote:

Dear IRT members,

For Thursday’s call (11 December, 10:00 UTC), we have the following agenda items

1. Welcome and SOI 2. Surplus/Deficit Discussion (see attached paper) 3. AGB Updates 4. AOB

Attached you find a paper outlining ICANN’s approach to the surplus/deficit issue. Feel free to review before the call and share any thoughts, questions etc. on-list.

*Please note, as mentioned today’s call, the **Name Collision procedures will now be covered on a yet-to-be-scheduled call on Tuesday 16 December 2025*.

Thank you all and best wishes, Lars

_______________________________________________

SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org

To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org

_______________________________________________

By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________

SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org

To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org

_______________________________________________

By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

------------------------------ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com <https://comlaude.com/> _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org

_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

--

Kathy, I think there are a lot of assumptions being made here.  You are assuming that every registry does a Sunrise Auction as opposed to just first come, first served.  With how few sunrise registrations there were for almost all registries in the 2012 round, (a) many registries did not do an auction, and (b) even fewer will do it the next time around.  It is up to each registry how they want to do Sunrise in terms of the mechanics of first come, first served or auction.  The Registries individual policies can address (if they want to) what happens IF there is a Sunrise Auction and it turns out the winner was not a "qualified" applicant.  This is not policy we should be setting. Also, many registries did wait until after Sunrise to put names into their Premium lists.  They did not want to get into issues with trademark owners.  Sure, some dictionary terms were pulled out of Sunrise in advance, but not all of them.  Again, there is no reason we need to get in the middle of that.   Frankly, with all this back and forth, I cannot recall what NEW issues with the current language we are trying to solve for?     On 12/16/2025 9:51:17 AM, Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote: Hi Susan, I greatly appreciate your response and reasoning. This is very valuable. Can we dive a little deeper and look at winners, losers and timeframes, all being codified now? You write: <<In making Rec #8 the RPM PDP WG did not seek to override a Registry Operator’s discretion as to how it might categorise such name – general availability, reserved, premium, whatever. During wider discussions in the WG, representatives on the IP side actually argued that there should be greater clarity and potential controls generally over the designation of names by Registry Operators as reserved and premium, without success, so we can be very clear that Rec #8 did not do so.>> Agreed, but as between one TMCH TM Holder and a second TMCH TM Holder, both engaged in a Sunrise Auction, for example, and the auction loser prevails in a TMCH Third Party challenge, shouldn't he/she/it have the chance to register the domain name? They are a) in the TMCH, b) engaged in the Sunrise Auction, c) won TMCH Third Party challenge, and d) still want the domain name (during Sunrise or whatever period we've moved on to. This seems an odd time to pull the domain name off into a Premium or Reserved List -- wouldn't all of that have been done before Sunrise opened? Where's the equity? Further, timing: Could you address that too as you may be closer to this than I am: Why are we writing the timeline into 2.3.7 of the only TMCH dispute that does seems to apply -- when the TMCH rejects a mark initially (not when a Third Party challenges it)? "1.2. Scope The Dispute Resolution Process will only cover three types of disputes: * Disputes brought by Trademark Holders or Trademark Agents alleging that the Clearinghouse incorrectly rejected a Trademark Record [https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/glossary/#:~:text=the%20Trademark%20Clea...]; * Disputes brought by Third Parties alleging that the Clearinghouse incorrectly accepted a Trademark Record [https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/glossary/#:~:text=the%20Trademark%20Clea...]; and * Disputes brought by Third Parties alleging that a Trademark Record [https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/glossary/#:~:text=the%20Trademark%20Clea...] is no longer valid based on new information (i.e. information not available to the Verification Provider at the time it reviewed the Trademark Record [https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/glossary/#:~:text=the%20Trademark%20Clea...])" ------------------------- 60 days does not make apply to either Dispute #2 or #3, the only ones that seems to be implicated in the 2.3.7 language. Tx for the discussion! Best, Kathy On 12/16/2025 8:54 AM, Susan Payne via SubPro-IRT wrote: Hi all, hi Kathy Kathy, I think you are somewhat misremembering the reason that we created RPMs PDP Sunrise Recommendation #8 (Rec #8). The background to and purpose of this recommendation was to move the venue for a sunrise registration challenge process based on an alleged invalid Trademark Record from the Registry Operator to the Trademark Clearinghouse. In the 2012 Round, there already was a requirement that sunrise registrations could be challenged on the following grounds, that: (i) at time the challenged domain name was registered, the registrant did not hold a trademark registration of national effect (or regional effect) or the trademark had not been court-validated or protected by statute or treaty; … (iii) the trademark registration on which the registrant based its Sunrise registration is not of national effect (or regional effect) or the trademark had not been court-validated or protected by statute or treaty. Responsibility for managing such challenges was imposed on the Registry Operator. The RPM PDP WG agreed that the Registry Operator is not in fact the best placed to handle such challenges, recognised that the TMCH provider also handled such challenges, and so Rec #8 (1) removes that responsibility from the Registry Operator and onto the TMCH Operator, who is much better placed to deal with it, and (2) confirms that, should the challenge succeed then ultimately the sunrise registration would be cancelled. In making Rec #8 the RPM PDP WG did not seek to override a Registry Operator’s discretion as to how it might categorise such name – general availability, reserved, premium, whatever. During wider discussions in the WG, representatives on the IP side actually argued that there should be greater clarity and potential controls generally over the designation of names by Registry Operators as reserved and premium, without success, so we can be very clear that Rec #8 did not do so. For the avoidance of doubt, in case others misread it, as I initially did, the language in numbered paragraph 1 below that you have in bold, italics, underlined and quotation marks is not language from Rec #8 and, as I explain above, this is not in fact what the RPMs WG expected or intended. To save others having to locate it, I’m attaching the full text of Rec #8 plus the context and public comment discussion. I think Antonietta’s responses do indeed put this to bed. The IRT is not a venue for re-litigation. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 [https://comlaude.com/] Follow us on LinkedIn [https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAGVfAADw_RQA0] and YouTube [https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAGVfAADw_RQA0] From: Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> [mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org] Sent: 15 December 2025 23:10 To: Antonietta Mangiacotti <antonietta.mangiacotti@icann.org> [mailto:antonietta.mangiacotti@icann.org]; subpro-irt@icann.org [mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org]; Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> [mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org] Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Question - TMCH Hi Antonietta and All, With all the sad news of the last two days, it is hard to focus on the tasks before us. But like all of us, I believe in New gTLDs and new domain names and spaces for speech that will be created within them around the world. I hope that speech helps people find ways to come together. To that end, I raise concerns about language being proposed. As Co-Chair of the RPM PDP WG, we created the Sunrise Recommendation #8 for a reason, and that reason is being removed by the new language being proposed. I must raise objections because our job is to deal with the RPM WG policy recommendations now. Antonietta, you were an incredible RPM IRT Staff Member and we all appreciated your hard work on the implementation of our TMCH and Sunrise recommendations. Thank you for your long email, and let me respond so we have everything laid out for tomorrow: 1) “Excerpted Redline of Trademark Clearinghouse Rights Protection Mechanism Requirements – Sections 2.3.6 and 2.3.7 – For Discussion Purposes” It’s unclear where the circulated draft came from, but the initial language was exactly what the RPM PDP WG believed should happen when Sunrise Rec #8 was adopted: If a Sunrise Registration is based on an invalid TMCH registration and it’s successfully challenged, then “the Registry Operator shall delete such Sunrise Registration, and return the domain name to the pool of available names available for registration.” That’s the only way that Sunrise Recommendation #8 makes sense: “The Working Group agrees that the TMCH dispute resolution procedure should be the primary mechanism for challenging the validity of the Trademark Record on which a registrant based its Sunrise registration.” [RPM PDP Final Report] Thus, in Rec#8, we allowed room for third parties – other TM owners in the TMCH or others – to challenge a TM in the Clearinghouse quickly and fairly – for the purpose of opening up that domain name to other uses – returning it to the pool of available-names for registration. - Challenges discussed in the TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedures include another TMCH registrant (we know there are multiple registrations for the same word in the TMCH) and others party with a direct connection to or interest in that word. That's why a Third Party would go through the cost of challenging an accepted TMCH record and bringing to light "new information" about a TMCH record -- because they are interested in the domain name themselves. (TMCH Disputes 3.3 and 3.4, https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/ [https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/] ). Note: While I understand that Registries want to reserve names and have the right to do so, that time comes earlier – see e.g., “Qualified Launch Program(QLP): A mechanism available in the New Generic Top-Level Domain Program (New gTLD Program) that allows a registry operator (RO) to register a limited number of domain names to third parties before the Sunrise Period begins.” [ICANN Acronyms & Terms] 2) Which leads us to TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedures and which ones apply here. Antonietta, there are three (3) TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedures – and the drafted section references the first one. Only the 2nd and 3rd ones apply here. As we see in 1.2, Scope, there is a dispute process for TM Holders or TM Agents “alleging that the Clearinghouse incorrectly rejected a Trademark Record.” That dispute must be filed in 60 days. Section 3.2, https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/ [https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/] ). But we are talking about Challenges to the TM Record brought by Third Parties and they are much faster: - “Disputes brought by Third Parties alleging that the Clearinghouse incorrectly accepted a Trademark Record” (3.1(2)) is laid out in 3.3. This is exactly for when “two TM Holders have the same Trademark Record” and both want the Sunrise registration (3.3). - “Dispute brought by Third Parties alleging that a Trademark Record is no longer valid based on new information” (3.1(3) is laid out in 3.4. - In both cases, The Dispute Procedure is quite fast: o After filing, the TM Holder or TM Agent have five (5) days to respond. o “The Review Panel will examine the Dispute and made a decision within ten (10) calendar days (or if during the Early Bird Registration, within fifteen (15) calendar days.” (3.4.2). o Thus in a total of 15-20 days, the decision is made, and the TMCH has three days to implement. 3) 3) No second bites at the apple. If the Third Party challenge is successful, the domain name should be returned to the pool of available names within 18-23 days – and allows for a second registration during Sunrise, or later in Landrush or General Availability. Best, Kathy On 12/11/2025 3:54 PM, Antonietta Mangiacotti wrote: Dear Kathy, Thank you for your input. We believe the responses provided below address your questions. As we are in the process of finalizing the TMCH Requirements, which we are aiming to post for public comment next week, we encourage you to submit any additional feedback through that public comment process. 1) The 60-day requirement added in Section 2.3.7(B) comes from the TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedure [https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/#3.3] and reflects the window during which a Sunrise registrant may challenge a TMCH finding that their Sunrise registration was based on an invalid TMCH record. In such cases, the domain name must be suspended consistent with Sunrise Final Recommendation [https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/rpm-phase-...] #8, meaning it will not resolve in the DNS during that 60-day period. The name will be restored only if the challenge is successful. Additionally, under the TMCH DRP, the TMCH Review Panel generally issues a decision within 7 calendar days (or 15 days during the Early Bird Registration period). To improve clarity regarding the 60-day requirement, ICANN org will consider adding further explanation in an FAQ or other educational materials. 2) As explained above, the 60-day period referenced in the Section 2.3.7(B) is the filing window for a Sunrise registrant to submit a challenge of a finding under the TMCH DRP. Consistent with Sunrise Final Recommendation #8, the Registry Operator will immediately suspend a Sunrise Registration upon notice from the TMCH that the underlying Trademark Record is invalid, to allow the Sunrise registrant to challenge the determination. Section 2.3.7(B) provides that once a challenge by the Trademark Holder or Trademark Agent concludes, the registry operator shall delete the Sunrise Registration. Following the SubPro IRT discussions on the list, ICANN org proposes updating Section 2.3.7(B) to add “whichever is later” to the clause: “…or (B) remains invalid following either sixty (60) calendar days (or such other period as set forth in the TMCH DRP) after such Sunrise Registration was deemed invalid or the conclusion of a challenge by the Trademark Holder or Trademark Agent (as defined in the TMCH DRP), whichever is later, in which case the Registry Operator shall delete such Sunrise Registration.” The addition of “whichever is later” ensures that if the challenge process extends beyond 60 days, the registry waits until the challenge is completed before taking action. 3) We are proposing to remove the phrase “and return the domain name to the pool of available names available for registration” from the end of Section 2.3.7 because including it would create a new obligation for registries by preventing them from reserving the domain name. Registries currently have the discretion to reserve a domain name. Section 2.3.7 already states that the domain name will be deleted if the Sunrise Registration remains invalid following either sixty (60) calendar days after such Sunrise Registration was deemed invalid or the conclusion of a challenge by the Trademark Holder. After the deletion, it is up to the Registry Operator to decide whether to reserve the domain name or not. Adding language that requires returning the domain name to the available pool would impose an unintended and additional obligation on registries, and it is not mandated by Sunrise Final Recommendation [https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/rpm-phase-...] #8. Thank you again for your input. We appreciate your engagement and encourage you to submit any additional feedback during the upcoming public comment period on the TMCH Requirements. Best, Antonietta From: Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> [mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org] Reply-To: Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> [mailto:Kathy@KathyKleiman.com] Date: Tuesday, December 9, 2025 at 11:01 PM To: "subpro-irt@icann.org" [mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org] <subpro-irt@icann.org> [mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org], Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> [mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org] Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Question - TMCH All, I see three problems with the revisions to 2.3.7 re: Sunrise Registration -- and additions and deletions in (B) make it inconsistent with the language written by the STI, and the review and recommendations of the RPM PDP WG – Phase 1: 1) 60 days is a too long time to allow for a TMCH DRP -- far longer than UDRP and URS response times involving much more difficult responses. I'm sure the TMCH can determine whether a challenged Trademark Record is invalid in a much shorter time – most TM records are online -- and 60 days is too long to keep an important (and available) domain name from the public. [2.3.7 (B)] 2) After the conclusion of a challenge by the TM Holder or TM agent, it appears that everything can linger for 60 days. By the wording, even if the TMCH DRP is concluded or the Sunrise Registration is deemed invalid, whichever path is taken, this section sounds like everyone can wait around a long time and eventually delete the Sunrise Registration. But this is the Internet, and we work quickly. The invalid Sunrise Registration must, of course, be deleted immediately after the challenge is concluded because we’re headed into General Availability and the domain name must be available to the public for registration. [2.3.7 (B)] 3) Which leads us to the surprising deletion at the end of the section: “and return the domain name to the pool of available names available for registration. A Registry Operator may, through the Registry-Registrar Agreement its agreement with registrars, instead require the registrar to perform this implementation step.” This sentence is the whole purpose the section – to return the domain name to the available pool and allow it to be registered by someone who needs and can use it. Sunrise gives TMCH registrants a first right to register in the Sunrise Period, but not a wholesale removal of the domain name from registration. Of course, domain names, if invalidly registered during the Sunrise Period must be returned to the pool of available names – that’s a key element of the fairness and balance of the TMCH and Sunrise Registration processes; they are limited for a reason. Returning appropriate domain names to the pool of domain names in New gTLDs is a) policy and b) good for Registries, Registrars, Registrants, and ultimately the end users who will use their websites, emails, listservs+. This final sentence is absolutely key to achieving the goals and intents of the RPM PDP WG; to change it is to change policy. (However, if I have misunderstood or misread this deletion, please clarify for me and for all.) `v Best, Kathy On 12/9/2025 1:19 PM, Lars Hoffmann via SubPro-IRT wrote: Adding the IRT mailing list. Thank you, Kathy. Here is the link to the document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rDcaY1nPkfwcHpuhI74OY13rp5g99iI2/edit [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rDcaY1nPkfwcHpuhI74OY13rp5g99iI2/edit] Best wishes. Lars From: Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> [mailto:Kathy@KathyKleiman.com] Date: Tuesday, 9 December 2025 at 10:09 To: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> [mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org] Subject: [Ext] Question - TMCH Hi Lars, I think we are on a deadline today for TMCH changes/review. Is that right? Could you kindly point me to the right email or date to review it? I've been on a long bit of travel for a workshop and speaking. Best and tx, Kathy On 12/9/2025 11:53 AM, Lars Hoffmann via SubPro-IRT wrote: Dear IRT members, For Thursday’s call (11 December, 10:00 UTC), we have the following agenda items * Welcome and SOI * Surplus/Deficit Discussion (see attached paper) * AGB Updates * AOB Attached you find a paper outlining ICANN’s approach to the surplus/deficit issue. Feel free to review before the call and share any thoughts, questions etc. on-list. Please note, as mentioned today’s call, the Name Collision procedures will now be covered on a yet-to-be-scheduled call on Tuesday 16 December 2025. Thank you all and best wishes, Lars _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org [mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org] To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org [mailto:subpro-irt-leave@icann.org] _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy]) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos]). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org [mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org] To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org [mailto:subpro-irt-leave@icann.org] _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy]) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos]). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com [https://comlaude.com/] _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org [mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org] To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org [mailto:subpro-irt-leave@icann.org] _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy]) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos]). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. [00c5d030-aa3a-43f5-afca-575c10b155a4]

Kathy, I afraid I’m not following what your question is regarding the timing. I thought you were objecting to 60 days but now you seem to be arguing it should apply more extensively? Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 [cid:image001.png@01DC6E9F.55A78690] <https://comlaude.com/> Follow us on LinkedIn<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAGVfAADw_RQA0> and YouTube<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAGVfAADw_RQA0> From: Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> Sent: 16 December 2025 14:51 To: subpro-irt@icann.org; Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Question - TMCH Hi Susan, I greatly appreciate your response and reasoning. This is very valuable. Can we dive a little deeper and look at winners, losers and timeframes, all being codified now? You write: <<In making Rec #8 the RPM PDP WG did not seek to override a Registry Operator’s discretion as to how it might categorise such name – general availability, reserved, premium, whatever. During wider discussions in the WG, representatives on the IP side actually argued that there should be greater clarity and potential controls generally over the designation of names by Registry Operators as reserved and premium, without success, so we can be very clear that Rec #8 did not do so.>> Agreed, but as between one TMCH TM Holder and a second TMCH TM Holder, both engaged in a Sunrise Auction, for example, and the auction loser prevails in a TMCH Third Party challenge, shouldn't he/she/it have the chance to register the domain name? They are a) in the TMCH, b) engaged in the Sunrise Auction, c) won TMCH Third Party challenge, and d) still want the domain name (during Sunrise or whatever period we've moved on to. This seems an odd time to pull the domain name off into a Premium or Reserved List -- wouldn't all of that have been done before Sunrise opened? Where's the equity? Further, timing: Could you address that too as you may be closer to this than I am: Why are we writing the timeline into 2.3.7 of the only TMCH dispute that does seems to apply -- when the TMCH rejects a mark initially (not when a Third Party challenges it)? "1.2. Scope The Dispute Resolution Process will only cover three types of disputes: 1. Disputes brought by Trademark Holders or Trademark Agents alleging that the Clearinghouse incorrectly rejected a Trademark Record<https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/glossary/#:~:text=the%20Trademark%20Clea...>; 2. Disputes brought by Third Parties alleging that the Clearinghouse incorrectly accepted a Trademark Record<https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/glossary/#:~:text=the%20Trademark%20Clea...>; and 3. Disputes brought by Third Parties alleging that a Trademark Record<https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/glossary/#:~:text=the%20Trademark%20Clea...> is no longer valid based on new information (i.e. information not available to the Verification Provider at the time it reviewed the Trademark Record<https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/glossary/#:~:text=the%20Trademark%20Clea...>)" ------------------------- 60 days does not make apply to either Dispute #2 or #3, the only ones that seems to be implicated in the 2.3.7 language. Tx for the discussion! Best, Kathy On 12/16/2025 8:54 AM, Susan Payne via SubPro-IRT wrote: Hi all, hi Kathy Kathy, I think you are somewhat misremembering the reason that we created RPMs PDP Sunrise Recommendation #8 (Rec #8). The background to and purpose of this recommendation was to move the venue for a sunrise registration challenge process based on an alleged invalid Trademark Record from the Registry Operator to the Trademark Clearinghouse. In the 2012 Round, there already was a requirement that sunrise registrations could be challenged on the following grounds, that: 1. at time the challenged domain name was registered, the registrant did not hold a trademark registration of national effect (or regional effect) or the trademark had not been court-validated or protected by statute or treaty; … (iii) the trademark registration on which the registrant based its Sunrise registration is not of national effect (or regional effect) or the trademark had not been court-validated or protected by statute or treaty. Responsibility for managing such challenges was imposed on the Registry Operator. The RPM PDP WG agreed that the Registry Operator is not in fact the best placed to handle such challenges, recognised that the TMCH provider also handled such challenges, and so Rec #8 (1) removes that responsibility from the Registry Operator and onto the TMCH Operator, who is much better placed to deal with it, and (2) confirms that, should the challenge succeed then ultimately the sunrise registration would be cancelled. In making Rec #8 the RPM PDP WG did not seek to override a Registry Operator’s discretion as to how it might categorise such name – general availability, reserved, premium, whatever. During wider discussions in the WG, representatives on the IP side actually argued that there should be greater clarity and potential controls generally over the designation of names by Registry Operators as reserved and premium, without success, so we can be very clear that Rec #8 did not do so. For the avoidance of doubt, in case others misread it, as I initially did, the language in numbered paragraph 1 below that you have in bold, italics, underlined and quotation marks is not language from Rec #8 and, as I explain above, this is not in fact what the RPMs WG expected or intended. To save others having to locate it, I’m attaching the full text of Rec #8 plus the context and public comment discussion. I think Antonietta’s responses do indeed put this to bed. The IRT is not a venue for re-litigation. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 [cid:image001.png@01DC6E9F.55A78690] <https://comlaude.com/> Follow us on LinkedIn<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAGVfAADw_RQA0> and YouTube<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAGVfAADw_RQA0> From: Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org><mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Sent: 15 December 2025 23:10 To: Antonietta Mangiacotti <antonietta.mangiacotti@icann.org><mailto:antonietta.mangiacotti@icann.org>; subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>; Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org><mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Question - TMCH Hi Antonietta and All, With all the sad news of the last two days, it is hard to focus on the tasks before us. But like all of us, I believe in New gTLDs and new domain names and spaces for speech that will be created within them around the world. I hope that speech helps people find ways to come together. To that end, I raise concerns about language being proposed. As Co-Chair of the RPM PDP WG, we created the Sunrise Recommendation #8 for a reason, and that reason is being removed by the new language being proposed. I must raise objections because our job is to deal with the RPM WG policy recommendations now. Antonietta, you were an incredible RPM IRT Staff Member and we all appreciated your hard work on the implementation of our TMCH and Sunrise recommendations. Thank you for your long email, and let me respond so we have everything laid out for tomorrow: 1) “Excerpted Redline of Trademark Clearinghouse Rights Protection Mechanism Requirements – Sections 2.3.6 and 2.3.7 – For Discussion Purposes” It’s unclear where the circulated draft came from, but the initial language was exactly what the RPM PDP WG believed should happen when Sunrise Rec #8 was adopted: If a Sunrise Registration is based on an invalid TMCH registration and it’s successfully challenged, then “the Registry Operator shall delete such Sunrise Registration, and return the domain name to the pool of available names available for registration.” That’s the only way that Sunrise Recommendation #8 makes sense: “The Working Group agrees that the TMCH dispute resolution procedure should be the primary mechanism for challenging the validity of the Trademark Record on which a registrant based its Sunrise registration.” [RPM PDP Final Report] Thus, in Rec#8, we allowed room for third parties – other TM owners in the TMCH or others – to challenge a TM in the Clearinghouse quickly and fairly – for the purpose of opening up that domain name to other uses – returning it to the pool of available-names for registration. - Challenges discussed in the TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedures include another TMCH registrant (we know there are multiple registrations for the same word in the TMCH) and others party with a direct connection to or interest in that word. That's why a Third Party would go through the cost of challenging an accepted TMCH record and bringing to light "new information" about a TMCH record -- because they are interested in the domain name themselves. (TMCH Disputes 3.3 and 3.4, https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/ ). Note: While I understand that Registries want to reserve names and have the right to do so, that time comes earlier – see e.g., “Qualified Launch Program(QLP): A mechanism available in the New Generic Top-Level Domain Program (New gTLD Program) that allows a registry operator (RO) to register a limited number of domain names to third parties before the Sunrise Period begins.” [ICANN Acronyms & Terms] 2) Which leads us to TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedures and which ones apply here. Antonietta, there are three (3) TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedures – and the drafted section references the first one. Only the 2nd and 3rd ones apply here. As we see in 1.2, Scope, there is a dispute process for TM Holders or TM Agents “alleging that the Clearinghouse incorrectly rejected a Trademark Record.” That dispute must be filed in 60 days. Section 3.2, https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/ ). But we are talking about Challenges to the TM Record brought by Third Parties and they are much faster: - “Disputes brought by Third Parties alleging that the Clearinghouse incorrectly accepted a Trademark Record” (3.1(2)) is laid out in 3.3. This is exactly for when “two TM Holders have the same Trademark Record” and both want the Sunrise registration (3.3). - “Dispute brought by Third Parties alleging that a Trademark Record is no longer valid based on new information” (3.1(3) is laid out in 3.4. - In both cases, The Dispute Procedure is quite fast: o After filing, the TM Holder or TM Agent have five (5) days to respond. o “The Review Panel will examine the Dispute and made a decision within ten (10) calendar days (or if during the Early Bird Registration, within fifteen (15) calendar days.” (3.4.2). o Thus in a total of 15-20 days, the decision is made, and the TMCH has three days to implement. 3) 3) No second bites at the apple. If the Third Party challenge is successful, the domain name should be returned to the pool of available names within 18-23 days – and allows for a second registration during Sunrise, or later in Landrush or General Availability. Best, Kathy On 12/11/2025 3:54 PM, Antonietta Mangiacotti wrote: Dear Kathy, Thank you for your input. We believe the responses provided below address your questions. As we are in the process of finalizing the TMCH Requirements, which we are aiming to post for public comment next week, we encourage you to submit any additional feedback through that public comment process. 1) The 60-day requirement added in Section 2.3.7(B) comes from the TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedure<https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/#3.3> and reflects the window during which a Sunrise registrant may challenge a TMCH finding that their Sunrise registration was based on an invalid TMCH record. In such cases, the domain name must be suspended consistent with Sunrise Final Recommendation<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/rpm-phase-...> #8, meaning it will not resolve in the DNS during that 60-day period. The name will be restored only if the challenge is successful. Additionally, under the TMCH DRP, the TMCH Review Panel generally issues a decision within 7 calendar days (or 15 days during the Early Bird Registration period). To improve clarity regarding the 60-day requirement, ICANN org will consider adding further explanation in an FAQ or other educational materials. 2) As explained above, the 60-day period referenced in the Section 2.3.7(B) is the filing window for a Sunrise registrant to submit a challenge of a finding under the TMCH DRP. Consistent with Sunrise Final Recommendation #8, the Registry Operator will immediately suspend a Sunrise Registration upon notice from the TMCH that the underlying Trademark Record is invalid, to allow the Sunrise registrant to challenge the determination. Section 2.3.7(B) provides that once a challenge by the Trademark Holder or Trademark Agent concludes, the registry operator shall delete the Sunrise Registration. Following the SubPro IRT discussions on the list, ICANN org proposes updating Section 2.3.7(B) to add “whichever is later” to the clause: “…or (B) remains invalid following either sixty (60) calendar days (or such other period as set forth in the TMCH DRP) after such Sunrise Registration was deemed invalid or the conclusion of a challenge by the Trademark Holder or Trademark Agent (as defined in the TMCH DRP), whichever is later, in which case the Registry Operator shall delete such Sunrise Registration.” The addition of “whichever is later” ensures that if the challenge process extends beyond 60 days, the registry waits until the challenge is completed before taking action. 3) We are proposing to remove the phrase “and return the domain name to the pool of available names available for registration” from the end of Section 2.3.7 because including it would create a new obligation for registries by preventing them from reserving the domain name. Registries currently have the discretion to reserve a domain name. Section 2.3.7 already states that the domain name will be deleted if the Sunrise Registration remains invalid following either sixty (60) calendar days after such Sunrise Registration was deemed invalid or the conclusion of a challenge by the Trademark Holder. After the deletion, it is up to the Registry Operator to decide whether to reserve the domain name or not. Adding language that requires returning the domain name to the available pool would impose an unintended and additional obligation on registries, and it is not mandated by Sunrise Final Recommendation<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/rpm-phase-...> #8. Thank you again for your input. We appreciate your engagement and encourage you to submit any additional feedback during the upcoming public comment period on the TMCH Requirements. Best, Antonietta From: Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org><mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Reply-To: Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com><mailto:Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> Date: Tuesday, December 9, 2025 at 11:01 PM To: "subpro-irt@icann.org"<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org><mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org><mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Question - TMCH [cid:image002.png@01DC6E9F.55A78690] All, I see three problems with the revisions to 2.3.7 re: Sunrise Registration -- and additions and deletions in (B) make it inconsistent with the language written by the STI, and the review and recommendations of the RPM PDP WG – Phase 1: 1) 60 days is a too long time to allow for a TMCH DRP -- far longer than UDRP and URS response times involving much more difficult responses. I'm sure the TMCH can determine whether a challenged Trademark Record is invalid in a much shorter time – most TM records are online -- and 60 days is too long to keep an important (and available) domain name from the public. [2.3.7 (B)] 2) After the conclusion of a challenge by the TM Holder or TM agent, it appears that everything can linger for 60 days. By the wording, even if the TMCH DRP is concluded or the Sunrise Registration is deemed invalid, whichever path is taken, this section sounds like everyone can wait around a long time and eventually delete the Sunrise Registration. But this is the Internet, and we work quickly. The invalid Sunrise Registration must, of course, be deleted immediately after the challenge is concluded because we’re headed into General Availability and the domain name must be available to the public for registration. [2.3.7 (B)] 3) Which leads us to the surprising deletion at the end of the section: “and return the domain name to the pool of available names available for registration. A Registry Operator may, through the Registry-Registrar Agreement its agreement with registrars, instead require the registrar to perform this implementation step.” This sentence is the whole purpose the section – to return the domain name to the available pool and allow it to be registered by someone who needs and can use it. Sunrise gives TMCH registrants a first right to register in the Sunrise Period, but not a wholesale removal of the domain name from registration. Of course, domain names, if invalidly registered during the Sunrise Period must be returned to the pool of available names – that’s a key element of the fairness and balance of the TMCH and Sunrise Registration processes; they are limited for a reason. Returning appropriate domain names to the pool of domain names in New gTLDs is a) policy and b) good for Registries, Registrars, Registrants, and ultimately the end users who will use their websites, emails, listservs+. This final sentence is absolutely key to achieving the goals and intents of the RPM PDP WG; to change it is to change policy. (However, if I have misunderstood or misread this deletion, please clarify for me and for all.) `v Best, Kathy On 12/9/2025 1:19 PM, Lars Hoffmann via SubPro-IRT wrote: Adding the IRT mailing list. Thank you, Kathy. Here is the link to the document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rDcaY1nPkfwcHpuhI74OY13rp5g99iI2/edit Best wishes. Lars From: Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com><mailto:Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> Date: Tuesday, 9 December 2025 at 10:09 To: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org><mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Question - TMCH Hi Lars, I think we are on a deadline today for TMCH changes/review. Is that right? Could you kindly point me to the right email or date to review it? I've been on a long bit of travel for a workshop and speaking. Best and tx, Kathy On 12/9/2025 11:53 AM, Lars Hoffmann via SubPro-IRT wrote: Dear IRT members, For Thursday’s call (11 December, 10:00 UTC), we have the following agenda items 1. Welcome and SOI 2. Surplus/Deficit Discussion (see attached paper) 3. AGB Updates 4. AOB Attached you find a paper outlining ICANN’s approach to the surplus/deficit issue. Feel free to review before the call and share any thoughts, questions etc. on-list. Please note, as mentioned today’s call, the Name Collision procedures will now be covered on a yet-to-be-scheduled call on Tuesday 16 December 2025. Thank you all and best wishes, Lars _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com/> _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com/>

I think the 60 days reflects the duration of any appeal – but I’m sure Antonietta can confirm. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 [cid:image001.png@01DC6EA2.B1BC3090] <https://comlaude.com/> Follow us on LinkedIn<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAGVfAADw_RQA0> and YouTube<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAGVfAADw_RQA0> From: Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> Sent: 16 December 2025 15:22 To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>; subpro-irt@icann.org Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Question - TMCH Susan, Tx for following up. I'm concerned that the 60 days does not reflect the actual (and shorter) timeframes of the two types of Third Party disputes, https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/ On 12/16/2025 10:19 AM, Susan Payne wrote: Kathy, I afraid I’m not following what your question is regarding the timing. I thought you were objecting to 60 days but now you seem to be arguing it should apply more extensively? Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 [cid:image001.png@01DC6EA2.B1BC3090] <https://comlaude.com/> Follow us on LinkedIn<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAGVfAADw_RQA0> and YouTube<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAGVfAADw_RQA0> From: Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com><mailto:Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> Sent: 16 December 2025 14:51 To: subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>; Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com><mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Question - TMCH Hi Susan, I greatly appreciate your response and reasoning. This is very valuable. Can we dive a little deeper and look at winners, losers and timeframes, all being codified now? You write: <<In making Rec #8 the RPM PDP WG did not seek to override a Registry Operator’s discretion as to how it might categorise such name – general availability, reserved, premium, whatever. During wider discussions in the WG, representatives on the IP side actually argued that there should be greater clarity and potential controls generally over the designation of names by Registry Operators as reserved and premium, without success, so we can be very clear that Rec #8 did not do so.>> Agreed, but as between one TMCH TM Holder and a second TMCH TM Holder, both engaged in a Sunrise Auction, for example, and the auction loser prevails in a TMCH Third Party challenge, shouldn't he/she/it have the chance to register the domain name? They are a) in the TMCH, b) engaged in the Sunrise Auction, c) won TMCH Third Party challenge, and d) still want the domain name (during Sunrise or whatever period we've moved on to. This seems an odd time to pull the domain name off into a Premium or Reserved List -- wouldn't all of that have been done before Sunrise opened? Where's the equity? Further, timing: Could you address that too as you may be closer to this than I am: Why are we writing the timeline into 2.3.7 of the only TMCH dispute that does seems to apply -- when the TMCH rejects a mark initially (not when a Third Party challenges it)? "1.2. Scope The Dispute Resolution Process will only cover three types of disputes: 1. Disputes brought by Trademark Holders or Trademark Agents alleging that the Clearinghouse incorrectly rejected a Trademark Record<https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/glossary/#:~:text=the%20Trademark%20Clea...>; 2. Disputes brought by Third Parties alleging that the Clearinghouse incorrectly accepted a Trademark Record<https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/glossary/#:~:text=the%20Trademark%20Clea...>; and 3. Disputes brought by Third Parties alleging that a Trademark Record<https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/glossary/#:~:text=the%20Trademark%20Clea...> is no longer valid based on new information (i.e. information not available to the Verification Provider at the time it reviewed the Trademark Record<https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/glossary/#:~:text=the%20Trademark%20Clea...>)" ------------------------- 60 days does not make apply to either Dispute #2 or #3, the only ones that seems to be implicated in the 2.3.7 language. Tx for the discussion! Best, Kathy On 12/16/2025 8:54 AM, Susan Payne via SubPro-IRT wrote: Hi all, hi Kathy Kathy, I think you are somewhat misremembering the reason that we created RPMs PDP Sunrise Recommendation #8 (Rec #8). The background to and purpose of this recommendation was to move the venue for a sunrise registration challenge process based on an alleged invalid Trademark Record from the Registry Operator to the Trademark Clearinghouse. In the 2012 Round, there already was a requirement that sunrise registrations could be challenged on the following grounds, that: 1. at time the challenged domain name was registered, the registrant did not hold a trademark registration of national effect (or regional effect) or the trademark had not been court-validated or protected by statute or treaty; … (iii) the trademark registration on which the registrant based its Sunrise registration is not of national effect (or regional effect) or the trademark had not been court-validated or protected by statute or treaty. Responsibility for managing such challenges was imposed on the Registry Operator. The RPM PDP WG agreed that the Registry Operator is not in fact the best placed to handle such challenges, recognised that the TMCH provider also handled such challenges, and so Rec #8 (1) removes that responsibility from the Registry Operator and onto the TMCH Operator, who is much better placed to deal with it, and (2) confirms that, should the challenge succeed then ultimately the sunrise registration would be cancelled. In making Rec #8 the RPM PDP WG did not seek to override a Registry Operator’s discretion as to how it might categorise such name – general availability, reserved, premium, whatever. During wider discussions in the WG, representatives on the IP side actually argued that there should be greater clarity and potential controls generally over the designation of names by Registry Operators as reserved and premium, without success, so we can be very clear that Rec #8 did not do so. For the avoidance of doubt, in case others misread it, as I initially did, the language in numbered paragraph 1 below that you have in bold, italics, underlined and quotation marks is not language from Rec #8 and, as I explain above, this is not in fact what the RPMs WG expected or intended. To save others having to locate it, I’m attaching the full text of Rec #8 plus the context and public comment discussion. I think Antonietta’s responses do indeed put this to bed. The IRT is not a venue for re-litigation. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 [cid:image001.png@01DC6EA2.B1BC3090] <https://comlaude.com/> Follow us on LinkedIn<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAGVfAADw_RQA0> and YouTube<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAGVfAADw_RQA0> From: Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org><mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Sent: 15 December 2025 23:10 To: Antonietta Mangiacotti <antonietta.mangiacotti@icann.org><mailto:antonietta.mangiacotti@icann.org>; subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>; Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org><mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Question - TMCH Hi Antonietta and All, With all the sad news of the last two days, it is hard to focus on the tasks before us. But like all of us, I believe in New gTLDs and new domain names and spaces for speech that will be created within them around the world. I hope that speech helps people find ways to come together. To that end, I raise concerns about language being proposed. As Co-Chair of the RPM PDP WG, we created the Sunrise Recommendation #8 for a reason, and that reason is being removed by the new language being proposed. I must raise objections because our job is to deal with the RPM WG policy recommendations now. Antonietta, you were an incredible RPM IRT Staff Member and we all appreciated your hard work on the implementation of our TMCH and Sunrise recommendations. Thank you for your long email, and let me respond so we have everything laid out for tomorrow: 1) “Excerpted Redline of Trademark Clearinghouse Rights Protection Mechanism Requirements – Sections 2.3.6 and 2.3.7 – For Discussion Purposes” It’s unclear where the circulated draft came from, but the initial language was exactly what the RPM PDP WG believed should happen when Sunrise Rec #8 was adopted: If a Sunrise Registration is based on an invalid TMCH registration and it’s successfully challenged, then “the Registry Operator shall delete such Sunrise Registration, and return the domain name to the pool of available names available for registration.” That’s the only way that Sunrise Recommendation #8 makes sense: “The Working Group agrees that the TMCH dispute resolution procedure should be the primary mechanism for challenging the validity of the Trademark Record on which a registrant based its Sunrise registration.” [RPM PDP Final Report] Thus, in Rec#8, we allowed room for third parties – other TM owners in the TMCH or others – to challenge a TM in the Clearinghouse quickly and fairly – for the purpose of opening up that domain name to other uses – returning it to the pool of available-names for registration. - Challenges discussed in the TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedures include another TMCH registrant (we know there are multiple registrations for the same word in the TMCH) and others party with a direct connection to or interest in that word. That's why a Third Party would go through the cost of challenging an accepted TMCH record and bringing to light "new information" about a TMCH record -- because they are interested in the domain name themselves. (TMCH Disputes 3.3 and 3.4, https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/ ). Note: While I understand that Registries want to reserve names and have the right to do so, that time comes earlier – see e.g., “Qualified Launch Program(QLP): A mechanism available in the New Generic Top-Level Domain Program (New gTLD Program) that allows a registry operator (RO) to register a limited number of domain names to third parties before the Sunrise Period begins.” [ICANN Acronyms & Terms] 2) Which leads us to TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedures and which ones apply here. Antonietta, there are three (3) TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedures – and the drafted section references the first one. Only the 2nd and 3rd ones apply here. As we see in 1.2, Scope, there is a dispute process for TM Holders or TM Agents “alleging that the Clearinghouse incorrectly rejected a Trademark Record.” That dispute must be filed in 60 days. Section 3.2, https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/ ). But we are talking about Challenges to the TM Record brought by Third Parties and they are much faster: - “Disputes brought by Third Parties alleging that the Clearinghouse incorrectly accepted a Trademark Record” (3.1(2)) is laid out in 3.3. This is exactly for when “two TM Holders have the same Trademark Record” and both want the Sunrise registration (3.3). - “Dispute brought by Third Parties alleging that a Trademark Record is no longer valid based on new information” (3.1(3) is laid out in 3.4. - In both cases, The Dispute Procedure is quite fast: o After filing, the TM Holder or TM Agent have five (5) days to respond. o “The Review Panel will examine the Dispute and made a decision within ten (10) calendar days (or if during the Early Bird Registration, within fifteen (15) calendar days.” (3.4.2). o Thus in a total of 15-20 days, the decision is made, and the TMCH has three days to implement. 3) 3) No second bites at the apple. If the Third Party challenge is successful, the domain name should be returned to the pool of available names within 18-23 days – and allows for a second registration during Sunrise, or later in Landrush or General Availability. Best, Kathy On 12/11/2025 3:54 PM, Antonietta Mangiacotti wrote: Dear Kathy, Thank you for your input. We believe the responses provided below address your questions. As we are in the process of finalizing the TMCH Requirements, which we are aiming to post for public comment next week, we encourage you to submit any additional feedback through that public comment process. 1) The 60-day requirement added in Section 2.3.7(B) comes from the TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedure<https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/#3.3> and reflects the window during which a Sunrise registrant may challenge a TMCH finding that their Sunrise registration was based on an invalid TMCH record. In such cases, the domain name must be suspended consistent with Sunrise Final Recommendation<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/rpm-phase-...> #8, meaning it will not resolve in the DNS during that 60-day period. The name will be restored only if the challenge is successful. Additionally, under the TMCH DRP, the TMCH Review Panel generally issues a decision within 7 calendar days (or 15 days during the Early Bird Registration period). To improve clarity regarding the 60-day requirement, ICANN org will consider adding further explanation in an FAQ or other educational materials. 2) As explained above, the 60-day period referenced in the Section 2.3.7(B) is the filing window for a Sunrise registrant to submit a challenge of a finding under the TMCH DRP. Consistent with Sunrise Final Recommendation #8, the Registry Operator will immediately suspend a Sunrise Registration upon notice from the TMCH that the underlying Trademark Record is invalid, to allow the Sunrise registrant to challenge the determination. Section 2.3.7(B) provides that once a challenge by the Trademark Holder or Trademark Agent concludes, the registry operator shall delete the Sunrise Registration. Following the SubPro IRT discussions on the list, ICANN org proposes updating Section 2.3.7(B) to add “whichever is later” to the clause: “…or (B) remains invalid following either sixty (60) calendar days (or such other period as set forth in the TMCH DRP) after such Sunrise Registration was deemed invalid or the conclusion of a challenge by the Trademark Holder or Trademark Agent (as defined in the TMCH DRP), whichever is later, in which case the Registry Operator shall delete such Sunrise Registration.” The addition of “whichever is later” ensures that if the challenge process extends beyond 60 days, the registry waits until the challenge is completed before taking action. 3) We are proposing to remove the phrase “and return the domain name to the pool of available names available for registration” from the end of Section 2.3.7 because including it would create a new obligation for registries by preventing them from reserving the domain name. Registries currently have the discretion to reserve a domain name. Section 2.3.7 already states that the domain name will be deleted if the Sunrise Registration remains invalid following either sixty (60) calendar days after such Sunrise Registration was deemed invalid or the conclusion of a challenge by the Trademark Holder. After the deletion, it is up to the Registry Operator to decide whether to reserve the domain name or not. Adding language that requires returning the domain name to the available pool would impose an unintended and additional obligation on registries, and it is not mandated by Sunrise Final Recommendation<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/rpm-phase-...> #8. Thank you again for your input. We appreciate your engagement and encourage you to submit any additional feedback during the upcoming public comment period on the TMCH Requirements. Best, Antonietta From: Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org><mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Reply-To: Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com><mailto:Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> Date: Tuesday, December 9, 2025 at 11:01 PM To: "subpro-irt@icann.org"<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org><mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org><mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Question - TMCH [cid:image002.png@01DC6EA2.B1BC3090] All, I see three problems with the revisions to 2.3.7 re: Sunrise Registration -- and additions and deletions in (B) make it inconsistent with the language written by the STI, and the review and recommendations of the RPM PDP WG – Phase 1: 1) 60 days is a too long time to allow for a TMCH DRP -- far longer than UDRP and URS response times involving much more difficult responses. I'm sure the TMCH can determine whether a challenged Trademark Record is invalid in a much shorter time – most TM records are online -- and 60 days is too long to keep an important (and available) domain name from the public. [2.3.7 (B)] 2) After the conclusion of a challenge by the TM Holder or TM agent, it appears that everything can linger for 60 days. By the wording, even if the TMCH DRP is concluded or the Sunrise Registration is deemed invalid, whichever path is taken, this section sounds like everyone can wait around a long time and eventually delete the Sunrise Registration. But this is the Internet, and we work quickly. The invalid Sunrise Registration must, of course, be deleted immediately after the challenge is concluded because we’re headed into General Availability and the domain name must be available to the public for registration. [2.3.7 (B)] 3) Which leads us to the surprising deletion at the end of the section: “and return the domain name to the pool of available names available for registration. A Registry Operator may, through the Registry-Registrar Agreement its agreement with registrars, instead require the registrar to perform this implementation step.” This sentence is the whole purpose the section – to return the domain name to the available pool and allow it to be registered by someone who needs and can use it. Sunrise gives TMCH registrants a first right to register in the Sunrise Period, but not a wholesale removal of the domain name from registration. Of course, domain names, if invalidly registered during the Sunrise Period must be returned to the pool of available names – that’s a key element of the fairness and balance of the TMCH and Sunrise Registration processes; they are limited for a reason. Returning appropriate domain names to the pool of domain names in New gTLDs is a) policy and b) good for Registries, Registrars, Registrants, and ultimately the end users who will use their websites, emails, listservs+. This final sentence is absolutely key to achieving the goals and intents of the RPM PDP WG; to change it is to change policy. (However, if I have misunderstood or misread this deletion, please clarify for me and for all.) `v Best, Kathy On 12/9/2025 1:19 PM, Lars Hoffmann via SubPro-IRT wrote: Adding the IRT mailing list. Thank you, Kathy. Here is the link to the document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rDcaY1nPkfwcHpuhI74OY13rp5g99iI2/edit Best wishes. Lars From: Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com><mailto:Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> Date: Tuesday, 9 December 2025 at 10:09 To: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org><mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Question - TMCH Hi Lars, I think we are on a deadline today for TMCH changes/review. Is that right? Could you kindly point me to the right email or date to review it? I've been on a long bit of travel for a workshop and speaking. Best and tx, Kathy On 12/9/2025 11:53 AM, Lars Hoffmann via SubPro-IRT wrote: Dear IRT members, For Thursday’s call (11 December, 10:00 UTC), we have the following agenda items 1. Welcome and SOI 2. Surplus/Deficit Discussion (see attached paper) 3. AGB Updates 4. AOB Attached you find a paper outlining ICANN’s approach to the surplus/deficit issue. Feel free to review before the call and share any thoughts, questions etc. on-list. Please note, as mentioned today’s call, the Name Collision procedures will now be covered on a yet-to-be-scheduled call on Tuesday 16 December 2025. Thank you all and best wishes, Lars _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com/> _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com/> ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com/>

And so thus is the appropriate time period for this section, even if the time period for other challenges or processes might be less, right? Best regards, Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP [cid:image003.png@01DC6E7E.6A367240] 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: Antonietta Mangiacotti via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 11:21 AM To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>; Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com>; subpro-irt@icann.org Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Question - TMCH *EXTERNAL TO GT* Hi Susan, the 60 calendar day period refers to the window during which a Sunrise registrant may submit a challenge following a TMCH determination that their Sunrise registration was based on an invalid TMCH record. See: https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Dnz3F1fCmNCVgiwGD-VDmFu64dn6P99h0iNF1-sxj6mCo0vpk-wFAjVhl9TLtT5hgSrPEON3-mRf0aVU8PD2CZw$> Best, Antonietta From: Susan Payne via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Reply-To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>> Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 at 7:44 AM To: Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com<mailto:Kathy@KathyKleiman.com>>, "subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Question - TMCH I think the 60 days reflects the duration of any appeal – but I’m sure Antonietta can confirm. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 [cid:image006.png@01DC6E7E.6A367240] [comlaude.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/comlaude.com/__;!!PtGJab4!8h20b4zFwYSECFl...> Follow us on LinkedIn [t-uk.xink.io]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAGVfAADw_...> and YouTube [t-uk.xink.io]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAGVfAADw_...> From: Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com<mailto:Kathy@KathyKleiman.com>> Sent: 16 December 2025 15:22 To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>>; subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Question - TMCH Susan, Tx for following up. I'm concerned that the 60 days does not reflect the actual (and shorter) timeframes of the two types of Third Party disputes, https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/ [trademark-clearinghouse.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resol...> On 12/16/2025 10:19 AM, Susan Payne wrote: Kathy, I afraid I’m not following what your question is regarding the timing. I thought you were objecting to 60 days but now you seem to be arguing it should apply more extensively? Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 [cid:image006.png@01DC6E7E.6A367240] [comlaude.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/comlaude.com/__;!!PtGJab4!8h20b4zFwYSECFl...> Follow us on LinkedIn [t-uk.xink.io]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAGVfAADw_...> and YouTube [t-uk.xink.io]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAGVfAADw_...> From: Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com><mailto:Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> Sent: 16 December 2025 14:51 To: subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>; Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com><mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Question - TMCH Hi Susan, I greatly appreciate your response and reasoning. This is very valuable. Can we dive a little deeper and look at winners, losers and timeframes, all being codified now? You write: <<In making Rec #8 the RPM PDP WG did not seek to override a Registry Operator’s discretion as to how it might categorise such name – general availability, reserved, premium, whatever. During wider discussions in the WG, representatives on the IP side actually argued that there should be greater clarity and potential controls generally over the designation of names by Registry Operators as reserved and premium, without success, so we can be very clear that Rec #8 did not do so.>> Agreed, but as between one TMCH TM Holder and a second TMCH TM Holder, both engaged in a Sunrise Auction, for example, and the auction loser prevails in a TMCH Third Party challenge, shouldn't he/she/it have the chance to register the domain name? They are a) in the TMCH, b) engaged in the Sunrise Auction, c) won TMCH Third Party challenge, and d) still want the domain name (during Sunrise or whatever period we've moved on to. This seems an odd time to pull the domain name off into a Premium or Reserved List -- wouldn't all of that have been done before Sunrise opened? Where's the equity? Further, timing: Could you address that too as you may be closer to this than I am: Why are we writing the timeline into 2.3.7 of the only TMCH dispute that does seems to apply -- when the TMCH rejects a mark initially (not when a Third Party challenges it)? "1.2. Scope The Dispute Resolution Process will only cover three types of disputes: 1. Disputes brought by Trademark Holders or Trademark Agents alleging that the Clearinghouse incorrectly rejected a Trademark Record [trademark-clearinghouse.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/trademark-clearinghouse.com/glossary/*:*:...>; 2. Disputes brought by Third Parties alleging that the Clearinghouse incorrectly accepted a Trademark Record [trademark-clearinghouse.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/trademark-clearinghouse.com/glossary/*:*:...>; and 3. Disputes brought by Third Parties alleging that a Trademark Record [trademark-clearinghouse.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/trademark-clearinghouse.com/glossary/*:*:...> is no longer valid based on new information (i.e. information not available to the Verification Provider at the time it reviewed the Trademark Record [trademark-clearinghouse.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/trademark-clearinghouse.com/glossary/*:*:...>)" ------------------------- 60 days does not make apply to either Dispute #2 or #3, the only ones that seems to be implicated in the 2.3.7 language. Tx for the discussion! Best, Kathy On 12/16/2025 8:54 AM, Susan Payne via SubPro-IRT wrote: Hi all, hi Kathy Kathy, I think you are somewhat misremembering the reason that we created RPMs PDP Sunrise Recommendation #8 (Rec #8). The background to and purpose of this recommendation was to move the venue for a sunrise registration challenge process based on an alleged invalid Trademark Record from the Registry Operator to the Trademark Clearinghouse. In the 2012 Round, there already was a requirement that sunrise registrations could be challenged on the following grounds, that: 1. at time the challenged domain name was registered, the registrant did not hold a trademark registration of national effect (or regional effect) or the trademark had not been court-validated or protected by statute or treaty; … (iii) the trademark registration on which the registrant based its Sunrise registration is not of national effect (or regional effect) or the trademark had not been court-validated or protected by statute or treaty. Responsibility for managing such challenges was imposed on the Registry Operator. The RPM PDP WG agreed that the Registry Operator is not in fact the best placed to handle such challenges, recognised that the TMCH provider also handled such challenges, and so Rec #8 (1) removes that responsibility from the Registry Operator and onto the TMCH Operator, who is much better placed to deal with it, and (2) confirms that, should the challenge succeed then ultimately the sunrise registration would be cancelled. In making Rec #8 the RPM PDP WG did not seek to override a Registry Operator’s discretion as to how it might categorise such name – general availability, reserved, premium, whatever. During wider discussions in the WG, representatives on the IP side actually argued that there should be greater clarity and potential controls generally over the designation of names by Registry Operators as reserved and premium, without success, so we can be very clear that Rec #8 did not do so. For the avoidance of doubt, in case others misread it, as I initially did, the language in numbered paragraph 1 below that you have in bold, italics, underlined and quotation marks is not language from Rec #8 and, as I explain above, this is not in fact what the RPMs WG expected or intended. To save others having to locate it, I’m attaching the full text of Rec #8 plus the context and public comment discussion. I think Antonietta’s responses do indeed put this to bed. The IRT is not a venue for re-litigation. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 [cid:image006.png@01DC6E7E.6A367240] [comlaude.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/comlaude.com/__;!!PtGJab4!8h20b4zFwYSECFl...> Follow us on LinkedIn [t-uk.xink.io]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAGVfAADw_...> and YouTube [t-uk.xink.io]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAGVfAADw_...> From: Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org><mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Sent: 15 December 2025 23:10 To: Antonietta Mangiacotti <antonietta.mangiacotti@icann.org><mailto:antonietta.mangiacotti@icann.org>; subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>; Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org><mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Question - TMCH Hi Antonietta and All, With all the sad news of the last two days, it is hard to focus on the tasks before us. But like all of us, I believe in New gTLDs and new domain names and spaces for speech that will be created within them around the world. I hope that speech helps people find ways to come together. To that end, I raise concerns about language being proposed. As Co-Chair of the RPM PDP WG, we created the Sunrise Recommendation #8 for a reason, and that reason is being removed by the new language being proposed. I must raise objections because our job is to deal with the RPM WG policy recommendations now. Antonietta, you were an incredible RPM IRT Staff Member and we all appreciated your hard work on the implementation of our TMCH and Sunrise recommendations. Thank you for your long email, and let me respond so we have everything laid out for tomorrow: 1) “Excerpted Redline of Trademark Clearinghouse Rights Protection Mechanism Requirements – Sections 2.3.6 and 2.3.7 – For Discussion Purposes” It’s unclear where the circulated draft came from, but the initial language was exactly what the RPM PDP WG believed should happen when Sunrise Rec #8 was adopted: If a Sunrise Registration is based on an invalid TMCH registration and it’s successfully challenged, then “the Registry Operator shall delete such Sunrise Registration, and return the domain name to the pool of available names available for registration.” That’s the only way that Sunrise Recommendation #8 makes sense: “The Working Group agrees that the TMCH dispute resolution procedure should be the primary mechanism for challenging the validity of the Trademark Record on which a registrant based its Sunrise registration.” [RPM PDP Final Report] Thus, in Rec#8, we allowed room for third parties – other TM owners in the TMCH or others – to challenge a TM in the Clearinghouse quickly and fairly – for the purpose of opening up that domain name to other uses – returning it to the pool of available-names for registration. - Challenges discussed in the TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedures include another TMCH registrant (we know there are multiple registrations for the same word in the TMCH) and others party with a direct connection to or interest in that word. That's why a Third Party would go through the cost of challenging an accepted TMCH record and bringing to light "new information" about a TMCH record -- because they are interested in the domain name themselves. (TMCH Disputes 3.3 and 3.4, https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/ [trademark-clearinghouse.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resol...> ). Note: While I understand that Registries want to reserve names and have the right to do so, that time comes earlier – see e.g., “Qualified Launch Program(QLP): A mechanism available in the New Generic Top-Level Domain Program (New gTLD Program) that allows a registry operator (RO) to register a limited number of domain names to third parties before the Sunrise Period begins.” [ICANN Acronyms & Terms] 2) Which leads us to TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedures and which ones apply here. Antonietta, there are three (3) TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedures – and the drafted section references the first one. Only the 2nd and 3rd ones apply here. As we see in 1.2, Scope, there is a dispute process for TM Holders or TM Agents “alleging that the Clearinghouse incorrectly rejected a Trademark Record.” That dispute must be filed in 60 days. Section 3.2, https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/ [trademark-clearinghouse.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resol...> ). But we are talking about Challenges to the TM Record brought by Third Parties and they are much faster: - “Disputes brought by Third Parties alleging that the Clearinghouse incorrectly accepted a Trademark Record” (3.1(2)) is laid out in 3.3. This is exactly for when “two TM Holders have the same Trademark Record” and both want the Sunrise registration (3.3). - “Dispute brought by Third Parties alleging that a Trademark Record is no longer valid based on new information” (3.1(3) is laid out in 3.4. - In both cases, The Dispute Procedure is quite fast: o After filing, the TM Holder or TM Agent have five (5) days to respond. o “The Review Panel will examine the Dispute and made a decision within ten (10) calendar days (or if during the Early Bird Registration, within fifteen (15) calendar days.” (3.4.2). o Thus in a total of 15-20 days, the decision is made, and the TMCH has three days to implement. 3) 3) No second bites at the apple. If the Third Party challenge is successful, the domain name should be returned to the pool of available names within 18-23 days – and allows for a second registration during Sunrise, or later in Landrush or General Availability. Best, Kathy On 12/11/2025 3:54 PM, Antonietta Mangiacotti wrote: Dear Kathy, Thank you for your input. We believe the responses provided below address your questions. As we are in the process of finalizing the TMCH Requirements, which we are aiming to post for public comment next week, we encourage you to submit any additional feedback through that public comment process. 1) The 60-day requirement added in Section 2.3.7(B) comes from the TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedure [trademark-clearinghouse.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resol...> and reflects the window during which a Sunrise registrant may challenge a TMCH finding that their Sunrise registration was based on an invalid TMCH record. In such cases, the domain name must be suspended consistent with Sunrise Final Recommendation [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/f...> #8, meaning it will not resolve in the DNS during that 60-day period. The name will be restored only if the challenge is successful. Additionally, under the TMCH DRP, the TMCH Review Panel generally issues a decision within 7 calendar days (or 15 days during the Early Bird Registration period). To improve clarity regarding the 60-day requirement, ICANN org will consider adding further explanation in an FAQ or other educational materials. 2) As explained above, the 60-day period referenced in the Section 2.3.7(B) is the filing window for a Sunrise registrant to submit a challenge of a finding under the TMCH DRP. Consistent with Sunrise Final Recommendation #8, the Registry Operator will immediately suspend a Sunrise Registration upon notice from the TMCH that the underlying Trademark Record is invalid, to allow the Sunrise registrant to challenge the determination. Section 2.3.7(B) provides that once a challenge by the Trademark Holder or Trademark Agent concludes, the registry operator shall delete the Sunrise Registration. Following the SubPro IRT discussions on the list, ICANN org proposes updating Section 2.3.7(B) to add “whichever is later” to the clause: “…or (B) remains invalid following either sixty (60) calendar days (or such other period as set forth in the TMCH DRP) after such Sunrise Registration was deemed invalid or the conclusion of a challenge by the Trademark Holder or Trademark Agent (as defined in the TMCH DRP), whichever is later, in which case the Registry Operator shall delete such Sunrise Registration.” The addition of “whichever is later” ensures that if the challenge process extends beyond 60 days, the registry waits until the challenge is completed before taking action. 3) We are proposing to remove the phrase “and return the domain name to the pool of available names available for registration” from the end of Section 2.3.7 because including it would create a new obligation for registries by preventing them from reserving the domain name. Registries currently have the discretion to reserve a domain name. Section 2.3.7 already states that the domain name will be deleted if the Sunrise Registration remains invalid following either sixty (60) calendar days after such Sunrise Registration was deemed invalid or the conclusion of a challenge by the Trademark Holder. After the deletion, it is up to the Registry Operator to decide whether to reserve the domain name or not. Adding language that requires returning the domain name to the available pool would impose an unintended and additional obligation on registries, and it is not mandated by Sunrise Final Recommendation [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/f...> #8. Thank you again for your input. We appreciate your engagement and encourage you to submit any additional feedback during the upcoming public comment period on the TMCH Requirements. Best, Antonietta From: Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org><mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Reply-To: Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com><mailto:Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> Date: Tuesday, December 9, 2025 at 11:01 PM To: "subpro-irt@icann.org"<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org><mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org><mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Question - TMCH [cid:image007.png@01DC6E7E.6A367240] All, I see three problems with the revisions to 2.3.7 re: Sunrise Registration -- and additions and deletions in (B) make it inconsistent with the language written by the STI, and the review and recommendations of the RPM PDP WG – Phase 1: 1) 60 days is a too long time to allow for a TMCH DRP -- far longer than UDRP and URS response times involving much more difficult responses. I'm sure the TMCH can determine whether a challenged Trademark Record is invalid in a much shorter time – most TM records are online -- and 60 days is too long to keep an important (and available) domain name from the public. [2.3.7 (B)] 2) After the conclusion of a challenge by the TM Holder or TM agent, it appears that everything can linger for 60 days. By the wording, even if the TMCH DRP is concluded or the Sunrise Registration is deemed invalid, whichever path is taken, this section sounds like everyone can wait around a long time and eventually delete the Sunrise Registration. But this is the Internet, and we work quickly. The invalid Sunrise Registration must, of course, be deleted immediately after the challenge is concluded because we’re headed into General Availability and the domain name must be available to the public for registration. [2.3.7 (B)] 3) Which leads us to the surprising deletion at the end of the section: “and return the domain name to the pool of available names available for registration. A Registry Operator may, through the Registry-Registrar Agreement its agreement with registrars, instead require the registrar to perform this implementation step.” This sentence is the whole purpose the section – to return the domain name to the available pool and allow it to be registered by someone who needs and can use it. Sunrise gives TMCH registrants a first right to register in the Sunrise Period, but not a wholesale removal of the domain name from registration. Of course, domain names, if invalidly registered during the Sunrise Period must be returned to the pool of available names – that’s a key element of the fairness and balance of the TMCH and Sunrise Registration processes; they are limited for a reason. Returning appropriate domain names to the pool of domain names in New gTLDs is a) policy and b) good for Registries, Registrars, Registrants, and ultimately the end users who will use their websites, emails, listservs+. This final sentence is absolutely key to achieving the goals and intents of the RPM PDP WG; to change it is to change policy. (However, if I have misunderstood or misread this deletion, please clarify for me and for all.) `v Best, Kathy On 12/9/2025 1:19 PM, Lars Hoffmann via SubPro-IRT wrote: Adding the IRT mailing list. Thank you, Kathy. Here is the link to the document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rDcaY1nPkfwcHpuhI74OY13rp5g99iI2/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1rDcaY1nPkfwcH...> Best wishes. Lars From: Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com><mailto:Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> Date: Tuesday, 9 December 2025 at 10:09 To: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org><mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Question - TMCH Hi Lars, I think we are on a deadline today for TMCH changes/review. Is that right? Could you kindly point me to the right email or date to review it? I've been on a long bit of travel for a workshop and speaking. Best and tx, Kathy On 12/9/2025 11:53 AM, Lars Hoffmann via SubPro-IRT wrote: Dear IRT members, For Thursday’s call (11 December, 10:00 UTC), we have the following agenda items 1. Welcome and SOI 2. Surplus/Deficit Discussion (see attached paper) 3. AGB Updates 4. AOB Attached you find a paper outlining ICANN’s approach to the surplus/deficit issue. Feel free to review before the call and share any thoughts, questions etc. on-list. Please note, as mentioned today’s call, the Name Collision procedures will now be covered on a yet-to-be-scheduled call on Tuesday 16 December 2025. Thank you all and best wishes, Lars _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Dnz3F1fCmNCVgiwGD-VDmFu64dn6P99h0iNF1-sxj6mCo0vpk-wFAjVhl9TLtT5hgSrPEON3-mRf0aVUHWrhSXc$>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Dnz3F1fCmNCVgiwGD-VDmFu64dn6P99h0iNF1-sxj6mCo0vpk-wFAjVhl9TLtT5hgSrPEON3-mRf0aVUQmKk-3o$>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Dnz3F1fCmNCVgiwGD-VDmFu64dn6P99h0iNF1-sxj6mCo0vpk-wFAjVhl9TLtT5hgSrPEON3-mRf0aVUHWrhSXc$>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Dnz3F1fCmNCVgiwGD-VDmFu64dn6P99h0iNF1-sxj6mCo0vpk-wFAjVhl9TLtT5hgSrPEON3-mRf0aVUQmKk-3o$>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com [comlaude.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/comlaude.com/__;!!PtGJab4!8h20b4zFwYSECFl...> _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Dnz3F1fCmNCVgiwGD-VDmFu64dn6P99h0iNF1-sxj6mCo0vpk-wFAjVhl9TLtT5hgSrPEON3-mRf0aVUHWrhSXc$>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Dnz3F1fCmNCVgiwGD-VDmFu64dn6P99h0iNF1-sxj6mCo0vpk-wFAjVhl9TLtT5hgSrPEON3-mRf0aVUQmKk-3o$>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com [comlaude.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/comlaude.com/__;!!PtGJab4!8h20b4zFwYSECFl...> ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com [comlaude.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/comlaude.com/__;!!PtGJab4!8h20b4zFwYSECFl...> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.

With great respect, Antonietta,  I think we are mixed up TMCH disputes.  No Sunrise Registrant would submit a "challenge following a TMCH determination that their Sunrise registration was based on an invalid TMCH record" because they are already in the Clearinghouse. /Expanding this a bit: A Sunrise Registrant is, by definition, already in the TMCH and _we know _/_their TM was accepted_/, not rejected, _by the TMCH, _so TMCH Dispute 1 and its 60 day period do not apply. / Thus, we're only concerned about Third Party challenges to the Sunrise Registrant's TMCH determination -- Disputes 2 and 3 -- and they are much faster timeframes. Also, to the best of my knowledge, no appeals. /Would you be able to share the TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedures doc during the call?  I look forward to everyone seeing the text and discussing./ If not, I'm happy to have it ready. Best and tx, Kathy On 12/16/2025 12:20 PM, Antonietta Mangiacotti wrote:

Hi Susan, the 60 calendar day period refers to the window during which a Sunrise registrant may submit a challenge following a TMCH determination that their Sunrise registration was based on an invalid TMCH record. See: https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/

Best,

Antonietta

*From: *Susan Payne via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Reply-To: *Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> *Date: *Tuesday, December 16, 2025 at 7:44 AM *To: *Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *[SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Question - TMCH

I think the 60 days reflects the duration of any appeal – but I’m sure Antonietta can confirm.

Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude *T* +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 *Ext* 255

[comlaude.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/comlaude.com/__;!!PtGJab4!8h20b4zFwYSECFl...>

/Follow us on/LinkedIn [t-uk.xink.io] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAGVfAADw_...> /and/YouTube [t-uk.xink.io] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAGVfAADw_RQA0__;!!PtGJab4!8h20b4zFwYSECFlTsr5trtc7HSsk6AfOoEhEOrXDOrQK6_guKFDWcVI8Po6XZp4wv_QZjzdObbyJGgqRLBDPS0qYrnSTJb2nUyI$>//

Image removed by sender.

*From:*Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> *Sent:* 16 December 2025 15:22 *To:* Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>; subpro-irt@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Question - TMCH

Susan, Tx for following up. I'm concerned that the 60 days does not reflect the actual (and shorter) timeframes of the two types of Third Party disputes, https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/ [trademark-clearinghouse.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resol...>

On 12/16/2025 10:19 AM, Susan Payne wrote:

Kathy, I afraid I’m not following what your question is regarding the timing.  I thought you were objecting to 60 days but now you seem to be arguing it should apply more extensively?

Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude *T* +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 *Ext* 255

[comlaude.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/comlaude.com/__;!!PtGJab4!8h20b4zFwYSECFl...>

/Follow us on/LinkedIn [t-uk.xink.io] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAGVfAADw_...> /and/YouTube [t-uk.xink.io] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAGVfAADw_RQA0__;!!PtGJab4!8h20b4zFwYSECFlTsr5trtc7HSsk6AfOoEhEOrXDOrQK6_guKFDWcVI8Po6XZp4wv_QZjzdObbyJGgqRLBDPS0qYrnSTJb2nUyI$>//

Image removed by sender.

*From:*Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> <mailto:Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> *Sent:* 16 December 2025 14:51 *To:* subpro-irt@icann.org; Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> <mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com> *Subject:* Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Question - TMCH

Hi Susan,

I greatly appreciate your response and reasoning.  This is very valuable.  Can we dive a little deeper and look at winners, losers and timeframes, all being codified now?

You write: <<*In making Rec #8 the RPM PDP WG did not seek to override a Registry Operator’s discretion as to how it might categorise such name – general availability, reserved, premium, whatever.  During wider discussions in the WG, representatives on the IP side actually argued that there should be greater clarity and potential controls generally over the designation of names by Registry Operators as reserved and premium, without success, so we can be very clear that Rec #8 did not do so.*>>

*/Agreed, but as between one TMCH TM Holder and a second TMCH TM Holder, both engaged in a Sunrise Auction, for example, and the auction loser prevails in a TMCH Third Party challenge, shouldn't he/she/it have the chance to register the domain name? /*They are a) in the TMCH, b) engaged in the Sunrise Auction, c) won TMCH Third Party challenge, and d) still want the domain name (during Sunrise or whatever period we've moved on to.

This seems an odd time to pull the domain name off into a Premium or Reserved List -- wouldn't all of that have been done before Sunrise opened? Where's the equity?

Further, timing: /Could you address that too as you may be closer to this than I am:  Why are we writing the timeline into 2.3.7 of the only TMCH dispute that does seems to apply -- when the TMCH rejects a mark initially (not when a Third Party challenges it)?/

"1.2. Scope

The Dispute Resolution Process will only cover three types of disputes:

1. Disputes brought by Trademark Holders or Trademark Agents alleging that the Clearinghouse incorrectly rejected aTrademark Record [trademark-clearinghouse.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/trademark-clearinghouse.com/glossary/*:*:...>; 2. Disputes brought by Third Parties alleging that the Clearinghouse incorrectly accepted a Trademark Record [trademark-clearinghouse.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/trademark-clearinghouse.com/glossary/*:*:...>; and 3. Disputes brought by Third Parties alleging that aTrademark Record [trademark-clearinghouse.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/trademark-clearinghouse.com/glossary/*:*:...> is no longer valid based on new information (i.e. information not available to the Verification Provider at the time it reviewed theTrademark Record [trademark-clearinghouse.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/trademark-clearinghouse.com/glossary/*:*:...>)"

-------------------------

*60 days does not make apply to either Dispute #2 or #3, the only ones that seems to be implicated in the 2.3.7 language. *

Tx for the discussion!

Best,

Kathy

On 12/16/2025 8:54 AM, Susan Payne via SubPro-IRT wrote:

Hi all, hi Kathy

Kathy, I think you are somewhat misremembering the reason that we created RPMs PDP Sunrise Recommendation #8 (Rec #8).  The background to and purpose of this recommendation was to _move the venue_ for a sunrise registration challenge process based on an alleged invalid Trademark Record from the Registry Operator to the Trademark Clearinghouse.

In the 2012 Round, there already was a requirement that sunrise registrations could be challenged on the following grounds, that:

1.at time the challenged domain name was registered, the registrant did not hold a trademark registration of national effect (or regional effect) or the trademark had not been court-validated or protected by statute or treaty; …

(iii)    the trademark registration on which the registrant based its Sunrise registration is not of national effect (or regional effect) or the trademark had not been court-validated or protected by statute or treaty.

Responsibility for managing such challenges was imposed on the Registry Operator. The RPM PDP WG agreed that the Registry Operator is not in fact the best placed to handle such challenges, recognised that the TMCH provider also handled such challenges, and so Rec #8 (1) removes that responsibility from the Registry Operator and onto the TMCH Operator, who is much better placed to deal with it, and (2) confirms that, should the challenge succeed then ultimately the sunrise registration would be cancelled.

In making Rec #8 the RPM PDP WG did not seek to override a Registry Operator’s discretion as to how it might categorise such name – general availability, reserved, premium, whatever. During wider discussions in the WG, representatives on the IP side actually argued that there should be greater clarity and potential controls generally over the designation of names by Registry Operators as reserved and premium, without success, so we can be very clear that Rec #8 did not do so.

For the avoidance of doubt, in case others misread it, as I initially did, the language in numbered paragraph 1 below that you have in bold, italics, underlined and quotation marks is not language from Rec #8 and, as I explain above, this is not in fact what the RPMs WG expected or intended.  To save others having to locate it, I’m attaching the full text of Rec #8 plus the context and public comment discussion.

I think Antonietta’s responses do indeed put this to bed.  The IRT is not a venue for re-litigation.

Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude *T* +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 *Ext* 255

[comlaude.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/comlaude.com/__;!!PtGJab4!8h20b4zFwYSECFl...>

/Follow us on/LinkedIn [t-uk.xink.io] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAGVfAADw_...> /and/YouTube [t-uk.xink.io] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAGVfAADw_RQA0__;!!PtGJab4!8h20b4zFwYSECFlTsr5trtc7HSsk6AfOoEhEOrXDOrQK6_guKFDWcVI8Po6XZp4wv_QZjzdObbyJGgqRLBDPS0qYrnSTJb2nUyI$>//

Image removed by sender.

*From:*Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> *Sent:* 15 December 2025 23:10 *To:* Antonietta Mangiacotti <antonietta.mangiacotti@icann.org> <mailto:antonietta.mangiacotti@icann.org>; subpro-irt@icann.org; Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> <mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org> *Subject:* [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Question - TMCH

Hi Antonietta and All,

With all the sad news of the last two days, it is hard to focus on the tasks before us. But like all of us, I believe in New gTLDs and new domain names and spaces for speech that will be created within them around the world. I hope that speech helps people find ways to come together.

To that end, I raise concerns about language being proposed. /As Co-Chair of the RPM PDP WG, we created the Sunrise Recommendation #8 for a reason, and that reason is being removed by the new language being proposed./ I must raise objections because our job is to deal with the RPM WG policy recommendations now.

Antonietta, you were an incredible RPM IRT Staff Member and we all appreciated your hard work on the implementation of our TMCH and Sunrise recommendations. Thank you for your long email, and let me respond so we have everything laid out for tomorrow:

1) “Excerpted Redline of Trademark Clearinghouse Rights Protection Mechanism Requirements – Sections 2.3.6 and 2.3.7 – For Discussion Purposes”

/It’s unclear where the circulated draft came from, but the initial language was exactly what the RPM PDP WG believed should happen when Sunrise Rec #8 was adopted:/*/If a Sunrise Registration is based on an invalid TMCH registration and it’s successfully challenged, then _“the Registry Operator shall delete such Sunrise Registration, and return the domain name to the pool of available names available for registration.”_/*

/That’s the only way that Sunrise Recommendation #8 makes sense: “The Working Group agrees that the TMCH dispute resolution procedure should be the primary mechanism for challenging the validity of the Trademark Record on which a registrant based its Sunrise registration.” [RPM PDP Final Report]/

Thus, in Rec#8, we allowed room for third parties – other TM owners in the TMCH or others – to challenge a TM in the Clearinghouse quickly and fairly – for the purpose of opening up that domain name to other uses – returning it to the pool of available-names for registration.

-        Challenges discussed in the TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedures include another TMCH registrant (we know there are multiple registrations for the same word in the TMCH) and others party with a direct connection to or interest in that word.

*/That's why a Third Party would go through the cost of challenging an accepted TMCH record and bringing to light "new information" about a TMCH record -- because they are interested in the domain name themselves. (TMCH Disputes 3.3 and 3.4, /*https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/ [trademark-clearinghouse.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/__;!!PtGJab4!8h20b4zFwYSECFlTsr5trtc7HSsk6AfOoEhEOrXDOrQK6_guKFDWcVI8Po6XZp4wv_QZjzdObbyJGgqRLBDPS0qYrnSTQtXnpCo$>*/)./*

Note: While I understand that Registries want to reserve names and have the right to do so, that time comes earlier – see e.g., “/Qualified Launch Program(QLP): A mechanism available in the New Generic Top-Level Domain Program (New gTLD Program) that allows a registry operator (RO) to register a limited number of domain names to third parties before the Sunrise Period begins./” [ICANN Acronyms & Terms]**

*2)**Which leads us to TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedures and which ones apply here.*

Antonietta, there are three (3) TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedures – and the drafted section references the first one. Only the 2^nd and 3^rd ones apply here.

 As we see in 1.2, Scope, there is a dispute process for TM Holders or TM Agents “alleging that the Clearinghouse incorrectly rejected a Trademark Record.”  That dispute must be filed in 60 days. Section 3.2, https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/ [trademark-clearinghouse.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/__;!!PtGJab4!8h20b4zFwYSECFlTsr5trtc7HSsk6AfOoEhEOrXDOrQK6_guKFDWcVI8Po6XZp4wv_QZjzdObbyJGgqRLBDPS0qYrnSTQtXnpCo$>*/)./*

*/ But we are talking about Challenges to the TM Record brought by Third Parties and they are much faster:/*

-“Disputes brought by Third Parties alleging that the Clearinghouse incorrectly accepted a Trademark Record” (3.1(2)) is laid out in 3.3.  This is exactly for when “two TM Holders have the same Trademark Record” and both want the Sunrise registration (3.3).

-“Dispute brought by Third Parties alleging that a Trademark Record is no longer valid based on new information” (3.1(3) is laid out in 3.4.

-*/In both cases, The Dispute Procedure is quite fast: /***

oAfter filing, the TM Holder or TM Agent have five (5) days to respond.

o“The Review Panel will examine the Dispute and made a decision within ten (10) calendar days (or if during the Early Bird Registration, within fifteen (15) calendar days.”  (3.4.2).

oThus in a total of 15-20 days, the decision is made, and the TMCH has three days to implement.

3)3) No second bites at the apple. If the Third Party challenge is successful, the domain name should be returned to the pool of available names within 18-23 days –  and allows for a second registration during Sunrise, or later in Landrush or General Availability.

Best, Kathy

On 12/11/2025 3:54 PM, Antonietta Mangiacotti wrote:

Dear Kathy,

Thank you for your input. We believe the responses provided below address your questions. As we are in the process of finalizing the TMCH Requirements, which we are aiming to post for public comment next week, we encourage you to submit any additional feedback through that public comment process.

*1) *The 60-day requirement added in Section 2.3.7(B) comes from the TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedure [trademark-clearinghouse.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resol...> and reflects the window during which a Sunrise registrant may challenge a TMCH finding that their Sunrise registration was based on an invalid TMCH record. In such cases, the domain name must be suspended consistent with Sunrise Final Recommendation [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/f...> #8, meaning it will not resolve in the DNS during that 60-day period. The name will be restored only if the challenge is successful. Additionally, under the TMCH DRP, the TMCH Review Panel generally issues a decision within 7 calendar days (or 15 days during the Early Bird Registration period). To improve clarity regarding the 60-day requirement, ICANN org will consider adding further explanation in an FAQ or other educational materials.

*2)*As explained above, the 60-day period referenced in the Section 2.3.7(B) is the filing window for a Sunrise registrant to submit a challenge of a finding under the TMCH DRP. Consistent with Sunrise Final Recommendation #8, the Registry Operator will immediately suspend a Sunrise Registration upon notice from the TMCH that the underlying Trademark Record is invalid, to allow the Sunrise registrant to challenge the determination. Section 2.3.7(B) provides that once a challenge by the Trademark Holder or Trademark Agent concludes, the registry operator shall delete the Sunrise Registration. Following the SubPro IRT discussions on the list, ICANN org proposes updating Section 2.3.7(B) to add “*whichever is later*” to the clause:

/“…or (B) remains invalid following either sixty (60) calendar days (or such other period as set forth in the TMCH DRP) after such Sunrise Registration was deemed invalid or the conclusion of a challenge by the Trademark Holder or Trademark Agent (as defined in the TMCH DRP), *whichever is later*, in which case the Registry Operator shall delete such Sunrise Registration.” /

The addition of “*whichever is later*” ensures that if the challenge process extends beyond 60 days, the registry waits until the challenge is completed before taking action.

*3)*We are proposing to remove the phrase “*/and return the domain name to the pool of available names available for registration/*” from the end of Section 2.3.7 because including it would create a new obligation for registries by preventing them from reserving the domain name. Registries currently have the discretion to reserve a domain name. Section 2.3.7 already states that the domain name will be deleted if the Sunrise Registration remains invalid following either sixty (60) calendar days after such Sunrise Registration was deemed invalid or the conclusion of a challenge by the Trademark Holder. After the deletion, it is up to the Registry Operator to decide whether to reserve the domain name or not. Adding language that requires returning the domain name to the available pool would impose an unintended and additional obligation on registries, and it is not mandated by Sunrise Final Recommendation [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/f...> #8.

Thank you again for your input. We appreciate your engagement and encourage you to submit any additional feedback during the upcoming public comment period on the TMCH Requirements.

Best,

Antonietta

*From: *Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> *Reply-To: *Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> <mailto:Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> *Date: *Tuesday, December 9, 2025 at 11:01 PM *To: *"subpro-irt@icann.org" <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org> <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> <mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org> *Subject: *[SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Question - TMCH

All, I see three problems with the revisions to 2.3.7 re: Sunrise Registration -- and additions and deletions in (B) make it inconsistent with the language written by the STI, and the review and recommendations of the RPM PDP WG – Phase 1:

1) 60 days is a too long time to allow for a TMCH DRP -- far longer than UDRP and URS response times involving much more difficult responses. I'm sure the TMCH can determine whether a challenged Trademark Record is invalid in a much shorter time – most TM records are online -- and 60 days is too long to keep an important (and available) domain name from the public. [2.3.7 (B)]

2) After the conclusion of a challenge by the TM Holder or TM agent, it appears that everything can linger for 60 days. By the wording, even if the TMCH DRP is concluded or the Sunrise Registration is deemed invalid, whichever path is taken, this section sounds like everyone can wait around a long time and eventually delete the Sunrise Registration. But this is the Internet, and we work quickly. The invalid Sunrise Registration must, of course, be deleted immediately after the challenge is concluded because we’re headed into General Availability and the domain name must be available to the public for registration. [2.3.7 (B)]

3) *Which leads us to the surprising deletion at the end of the section: “and return the domain name to the pool of available names available for registration. A Registry Operator may, through the Registry-Registrar Agreement its agreement with registrars, instead require the registrar to perform this implementation step.”  This sentence is the whole purpose the section – to return the domain name to the available pool and allow it to be registered by someone who needs and can use it. /Sunrise gives TMCH registrants a first right to register in the Sunrise Period, but not a wholesale removal of the domain name from registration. /*

Of course, domain names, if invalidly registered during the Sunrise Period must be returned to the pool of available names – that’s a key element of the fairness and balance of the TMCH and Sunrise Registration processes; they are limited for a reason. Returning appropriate domain names to the pool of domain names in New gTLDs is a) policy and b) good for Registries, Registrars, Registrants, and ultimately the end users who will use their websites, emails, listservs+. This final sentence is absolutely key to achieving the goals and intents of the RPM PDP WG; to change it is to change policy.  (However, if I have misunderstood or misread this deletion, please clarify for me and for all.)

`v  Best, Kathy

On 12/9/2025 1:19 PM, Lars Hoffmann via SubPro-IRT wrote:

Adding the IRT mailing list.

Thank you, Kathy.

Here is the link to the document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rDcaY1nPkfwcHpuhI74OY13rp5g99iI2/edit [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1rDcaY1nPkfwcH...>

Best wishes. Lars

*From: *Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> <mailto:Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> *Date: *Tuesday, 9 December 2025 at 10:09 *To: *Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> <mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Question - TMCH

Hi Lars,

I think we are on a deadline today for TMCH changes/review. Is that right?  Could you kindly point me to the right email or date to review it?  I've been on a long bit of travel for a workshop and speaking.

Best and tx, Kathy

On 12/9/2025 11:53 AM, Lars Hoffmann via SubPro-IRT wrote:

Dear IRT members,

For Thursday’s call (11 December, 10:00 UTC), we have the following agenda items

1. Welcome and SOI 2. Surplus/Deficit Discussion (see attached paper) 3. AGB Updates 4. AOB

Attached you find a paper outlining ICANN’s approach to the surplus/deficit issue. Feel free to review before the call and share any thoughts, questions etc. on-list.

*Please note, as mentioned today’s call, the **Name Collision procedures will now be covered on a yet-to-be-scheduled call on Tuesday 16 December 2025*.

Thank you all and best wishes, Lars

_______________________________________________

SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org

To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org

_______________________________________________

By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________

SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org

To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org

_______________________________________________

By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com [comlaude.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/comlaude.com/__;!!PtGJab4!8h20b4zFwYSECFl...>

_______________________________________________

SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org

To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org

_______________________________________________

By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com [comlaude.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/comlaude.com/__;!!PtGJab4!8h20b4zFwYSECFl...>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com [comlaude.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/comlaude.com/__;!!PtGJab4!8h20b4zFwYSECFl...>

Hi Lars,  I appreciate your email -- and actually think we are being unfair to registrants in the TMCH with the same mark seeking the same domain name during Sunrise.  It seems inconsistent with the letter and spirit of RPM Sunrise Rec #1, that a Registry Operator shall not operate its TLD in such a way as to have the effect of intentionally circumventing the mandatory RPMs imposed by ICANN or restricting brand owners’ reasonable use of the Sunrise RPM. As former Co-Chair, this matters. /Let me confirm -- we will not be discussing this today in the meeting?  If so, OK and tx for letting me know./ Best, Kathy On 12/16/2025 1:34 PM, Lars Hoffmann via SubPro-IRT wrote:

Thanks everyone for the discussion. Kathy, the document has been shared before on-list. The link has not changed.

Ialso believe that there has been exhaustive discussions on-list. Kathy, to your point below, i believe the recommendation(8)does not mention third parties, it pertains to the registrant (Section 3.2 relatesto disputes that could be introducted by the TM holder). Therefore, the language reflects the wording of the recommendation. Considering that there is consensus in the group – albeit not full consensus – we will proceed with the publication for public comment later this week.

Asfor your queston about the deletion, as already explained by Jeff, the registry should not be undere obligation to return the domain to the pool of availablename, if, e.g., they would like to reserve it.And, as Antonietta already pointed out on list, adding language that requires returning the domain name to the available pool would impose an unintended and additional obligation on registries, and it is not mandated by Sunrise Final_Recommendation <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/rpm-phase-1-proposed-24nov20-en.pdf>_#8.Again, this will go out for public comment as is, later this week.

*Unfortunately, Antonietta will not be able to join the call today. If Kathy or anyone else would like to read anything into the record on the topic that is fine, but we _will not hold the public comment_. *

**

Best wishes.

Lars

*From: *Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Reply to: *Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> *Date: *Tuesday, 16 December 2025 at 19:10 *To: *Antonietta Mangiacotti <antonietta.mangiacotti@icann.org>, Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *[SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Question - TMCH

With great respexwct, Antonietta, I think we are mixed up TMCH disputes.  No Sunrise Registrant would submit a "challenge following a TMCH determination that their Sunrise registration was based on an invalid TMCH record" because they are already in the Clearinghouse.

/Expanding this a bit: A Sunrise Registrant is, by definition, already in the TMCH and _we know _/_their TM was accepted_/, not rejected, _by the TMCH, _so TMCH Dispute 1 and its 60 day period do not apply. /

Thus, we're only concerned about Third Party challenges to the Sunrise Registrant's TMCH determination -- Disputes 2 and 3 -- and they are much faster timeframes. Also, to the best of my knowledge, no appeals.

/Would you be able to share the TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedures doc during the call?  I look forward to everyone seeing the text and discussing./

If not, I'm happy to have it ready.

Best and tx,

Kathy

On 12/16/2025 12:20 PM, Antonietta Mangiacotti wrote:

Hi Susan, the 60 calendar day period refers to the window during which a Sunrise registrant may submit a challenge following a TMCH determination that their Sunrise registration was based on an invalid TMCH record. See: https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/ [trademark-clearinghouse.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resol...>

Best,

Antonietta

*From: *Susan Payne via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> *Reply-To: *Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> <mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com> *Date: *Tuesday, December 16, 2025 at 7:44 AM *To: *Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> <mailto:Kathy@KathyKleiman.com>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org> <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *[SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Question - TMCH

I think the 60 days reflects the duration of any appeal – but I’m sure Antonietta can confirm.

Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude *T* +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 *Ext* 255

[comlaude.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/comlaude.com/__;!!PtGJab4!8h20b4zFwYSECFl...>

/Follow us on/LinkedIn [t-uk.xink.io] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAGVfAADw_...> /and/YouTube [t-uk.xink.io] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAGVfAADw_RQA0__;!!PtGJab4!8h20b4zFwYSECFlTsr5trtc7HSsk6AfOoEhEOrXDOrQK6_guKFDWcVI8Po6XZp4wv_QZjzdObbyJGgqRLBDPS0qYrnSTJb2nUyI$>//

Image removed by sender.

*From:*Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> <mailto:Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> *Sent:* 16 December 2025 15:22 *To:* Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> <mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>; subpro-irt@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Question - TMCH

Susan, Tx for following up. I'm concerned that the 60 days does not reflect the actual (and shorter) timeframes of the two types of Third Party disputes, https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/ [trademark-clearinghouse.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resol...>

On 12/16/2025 10:19 AM, Susan Payne wrote:

Kathy, I afraid I’m not following what your question is regarding the timing.  I thought you were objecting to 60 days but now you seem to be arguing it should apply more extensively?

Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude *T* +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 *Ext* 255

[comlaude.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/comlaude.com/__;!!PtGJab4!8h20b4zFwYSECFl...>

/Follow us on/LinkedIn [t-uk.xink.io] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAGVfAADw_...> /and/YouTube [t-uk.xink.io] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAGVfAADw_RQA0__;!!PtGJab4!8h20b4zFwYSECFlTsr5trtc7HSsk6AfOoEhEOrXDOrQK6_guKFDWcVI8Po6XZp4wv_QZjzdObbyJGgqRLBDPS0qYrnSTJb2nUyI$>//

Image removed by sender.

*From:*Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> <mailto:Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> *Sent:* 16 December 2025 14:51 *To:* subpro-irt@icann.org; Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> <mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com> *Subject:* Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Question - TMCH

Hi Susan,

I greatly appreciate your response and reasoning.  This is very valuable.  Can we dive a little deeper and look at winners, losers and timeframes, all being codified now?

You write: <<*In making Rec #8 the RPM PDP WG did not seek to override a Registry Operator’s discretion as to how it might categorise such name – general availability, reserved, premium, whatever.  During wider discussions in the WG, representatives on the IP side actually argued that there should be greater clarity and potential controls generally over the designation of names by Registry Operators as reserved and premium, without success, so we can be very clear that Rec #8 did not do so.*>>

*/Agreed, but as between one TMCH TM Holder and a second TMCH TM Holder, both engaged in a Sunrise Auction, for example, and the auction loser prevails in a TMCH Third Party challenge, shouldn't he/she/it have the chance to register the domain name? /*They are a) in the TMCH, b) engaged in the Sunrise Auction, c) won TMCH Third Party challenge, and d) still want the domain name (during Sunrise or whatever period we've moved on to.

This seems an odd time to pull the domain name off into a Premium or Reserved List -- wouldn't all of that have been done before Sunrise opened? Where's the equity?

Further, timing: /Could you address that too as you may be closer to this than I am:  Why are we writing the timeline into 2.3.7 of the only TMCH dispute that does seems to apply -- when the TMCH rejects a mark initially (not when a Third Party challenges it)?/

"1.2. Scope

The Dispute Resolution Process will only cover three types of disputes:

1. Disputes brought by Trademark Holders or Trademark Agents alleging that the Clearinghouse incorrectly rejected aTrademark Record [trademark-clearinghouse.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/trademark-clearinghouse.com/glossary/*:*:...>; 2. Disputes brought by Third Parties alleging that the Clearinghouse incorrectly accepted a Trademark Record [trademark-clearinghouse.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/trademark-clearinghouse.com/glossary/*:*:...>; and 3. Disputes brought by Third Parties alleging that aTrademark Record [trademark-clearinghouse.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/trademark-clearinghouse.com/glossary/*:*:...> is no longer valid based on new information (i.e. information not available to the Verification Provider at the time it reviewed theTrademark Record [trademark-clearinghouse.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/trademark-clearinghouse.com/glossary/*:*:...>)"

-------------------------

*60 days does not make apply to either Dispute #2 or #3, the only ones that seems to be implicated in the 2.3.7 language. *

Tx for the discussion!

Best,

Kathy

On 12/16/2025 8:54 AM, Susan Payne via SubPro-IRT wrote:

Hi all, hi Kathy

Kathy, I think you are somewhat misremembering the reason that we created RPMs PDP Sunrise Recommendation #8 (Rec #8). The background to and purpose of this recommendation was to _move the venue_ for a sunrise registration challenge process based on an alleged invalid Trademark Record from the Registry Operator to the Trademark Clearinghouse.

In the 2012 Round, there already was a requirement that sunrise registrations could be challenged on the following grounds, that:

1.at time the challenged domain name was registered, the registrant did not hold a trademark registration of national effect (or regional effect) or the trademark had not been court-validated or protected by statute or treaty; …

(iii)    the trademark registration on which the registrant based its Sunrise registration is not of national effect (or regional effect) or the trademark had not been court-validated or protected by statute or treaty.

Responsibility for managing such challenges was imposed on the Registry Operator. The RPM PDP WG agreed that the Registry Operator is not in fact the best placed to handle such challenges, recognised that the TMCH provider also handled such challenges, and so Rec #8 (1) removes that responsibility from the Registry Operator and onto the TMCH Operator, who is much better placed to deal with it, and (2) confirms that, should the challenge succeed then ultimately the sunrise registration would be cancelled.

In making Rec #8 the RPM PDP WG did not seek to override a Registry Operator’s discretion as to how it might categorise such name – general availability, reserved, premium, whatever. During wider discussions in the WG, representatives on the IP side actually argued that there should be greater clarity and potential controls generally over the designation of names by Registry Operators as reserved and premium, without success, so we can be very clear that Rec #8 did not do so.

For the avoidance of doubt, in case others misread it, as I initially did, the language in numbered paragraph 1 below that you have in bold, italics, underlined and quotation marks is not language from Rec #8 and, as I explain above, this is not in fact what the RPMs WG expected or intended. To save others having to locate it, I’m attaching the full text of Rec #8 plus the context and public comment discussion.

I think Antonietta’s responses do indeed put this to bed.  The IRT is not a venue for re-litigation.

Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude *T* +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 *Ext* 255

[comlaude.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/comlaude.com/__;!!PtGJab4!8h20b4zFwYSECFl...>

/Follow us on/LinkedIn [t-uk.xink.io] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAGVfAADw_...> /and/YouTube [t-uk.xink.io] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAGVfAADw_RQA0__;!!PtGJab4!8h20b4zFwYSECFlTsr5trtc7HSsk6AfOoEhEOrXDOrQK6_guKFDWcVI8Po6XZp4wv_QZjzdObbyJGgqRLBDPS0qYrnSTJb2nUyI$>//

Image removed by sender.

*From:*Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> *Sent:* 15 December 2025 23:10 *To:* Antonietta Mangiacotti <antonietta.mangiacotti@icann.org> <mailto:antonietta.mangiacotti@icann.org>; subpro-irt@icann.org; Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> <mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org> *Subject:* [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Question - TMCH

Hi Antonietta and All,

With all the sad news of the last two days, it is hard to focus on the tasks before us. But like all of us, I believe in New gTLDs and new domain names and spaces for speech that will be created within them around the world. I hope that speech helps people find ways to come together.

To that end, I raise concerns about language being proposed. /As Co-Chair of the RPM PDP WG, we created the Sunrise Recommendation #8 for a reason, and that reason is being removed by the new language being proposed./  I must raise objections because our job is to deal with the RPM WG policy recommendations now.

Antonietta, you were an incredible RPM IRT Staff Member and we all appreciated your hard work on the implementation of our TMCH and Sunrise recommendations. Thank you for your long email, and let me respond so we have everything laid out for tomorrow:

1) “Excerpted Redline of Trademark Clearinghouse Rights Protection Mechanism Requirements – Sections 2.3.6 and 2.3.7 – For Discussion Purposes”

/It’s unclear where the circulated draft came from, but the initial language was exactly what the RPM PDP WG believed should happen when Sunrise Rec #8 was adopted:/*/If a Sunrise Registration is based on an invalid TMCH registration and it’s successfully challenged, then _“the Registry Operator shall delete such Sunrise Registration, and return the domain name to the pool of available names available for registration.”_/*

/That’s the only way that Sunrise Recommendation #8 makes sense:  “The Working Group agrees that the TMCH dispute resolution procedure should be the primary mechanism for challenging the validity of the Trademark Record on which a registrant based its Sunrise registration.” [RPM PDP Final Report]/

Thus, in Rec#8, we allowed room for third parties – other TM owners in the TMCH or others – to challenge a TM in the Clearinghouse quickly and fairly – for the purpose of opening up that domain name to other uses – returning it to the pool of available-names for registration.

-        Challenges discussed in the TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedures include another TMCH registrant (we know there are multiple registrations for the same word in the TMCH) and others party with a direct connection to or interest in that word.

*/That's why a Third Party would go through the cost of challenging an accepted TMCH record and bringing to light "new information" about a TMCH record -- because they are interested in the domain name themselves. (TMCH Disputes 3.3 and 3.4, /*https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/ [trademark-clearinghouse.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/__;!!PtGJab4!8h20b4zFwYSECFlTsr5trtc7HSsk6AfOoEhEOrXDOrQK6_guKFDWcVI8Po6XZp4wv_QZjzdObbyJGgqRLBDPS0qYrnSTQtXnpCo$>*/)./*

Note: While I understand that Registries want to reserve names and have the right to do so, that time comes earlier – see e.g., “/Qualified Launch Program(QLP): A mechanism available in the New Generic Top-Level Domain Program (New gTLD Program) that allows a registry operator (RO) to register a limited number of domain names to third parties before the Sunrise Period begins./” [ICANN Acronyms & Terms]**

*2)**Which leads us to TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedures and which ones apply here.*

Antonietta, there are three (3) TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedures – and the drafted section references the first one. Only the 2^nd and 3^rd ones apply here.

 As we see in 1.2, Scope, there is a dispute process for TM Holders or TM Agents “alleging that the Clearinghouse incorrectly rejected a Trademark Record.”  That dispute must be filed in 60 days. Section 3.2, https://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/ [trademark-clearinghouse.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resolution-procedures/__;!!PtGJab4!8h20b4zFwYSECFlTsr5trtc7HSsk6AfOoEhEOrXDOrQK6_guKFDWcVI8Po6XZp4wv_QZjzdObbyJGgqRLBDPS0qYrnSTQtXnpCo$>*/)./*

*/ But we are talking about Challenges to the TM Record brought by Third Parties and they are much faster:/*

-“Disputes brought by Third Parties alleging that the Clearinghouse incorrectly accepted a Trademark Record” (3.1(2)) is laid out in 3.3.  This is exactly for when “two TM Holders have the same Trademark Record” and both want the Sunrise registration (3.3).

-“Dispute brought by Third Parties alleging that a Trademark Record is no longer valid based on new information” (3.1(3) is laid out in 3.4.

-*/In both cases, The Dispute Procedure is quite fast: /***

oAfter filing, the TM Holder or TM Agent have five (5) days to respond.

o“The Review Panel will examine the Dispute and made a decision within ten (10) calendar days (or if during the Early Bird Registration, within fifteen (15) calendar days.” (3.4.2).

oThus in a total of 15-20 days, the decision is made, and the TMCH has three days to implement.

3)3) No second bites at the apple. If the Third Party challenge is successful, the domain name should be returned to the pool of available names within 18-23 days –  and allows for a second registration during Sunrise, or later in Landrush or General Availability.

Best, Kathy

On 12/11/2025 3:54 PM, Antonietta Mangiacotti wrote:

Dear Kathy,

Thank you for your input. We believe the responses provided below address your questions. As we are in the process of finalizing the TMCH Requirements, which we are aiming to post for public comment next week, we encourage you to submit any additional feedback through that public comment process.

*1) *The 60-day requirement added in Section 2.3.7(B) comes from the TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedure [trademark-clearinghouse.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute-resol...> and reflects the window during which a Sunrise registrant may challenge a TMCH finding that their Sunrise registration was based on an invalid TMCH record. In such cases, the domain name must be suspended consistent with Sunrise Final Recommendation [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/f...> #8, meaning it will not resolve in the DNS during that 60-day period. The name will be restored only if the challenge is successful. Additionally, under the TMCH DRP, the TMCH Review Panel generally issues a decision within 7 calendar days (or 15 days during the Early Bird Registration period). To improve clarity regarding the 60-day requirement, ICANN org will consider adding further explanation in an FAQ or other educational materials.

*2)*As explained above, the 60-day period referenced in the Section 2.3.7(B) is the filing window for a Sunrise registrant to submit a challenge of a finding under the TMCH DRP. Consistent with Sunrise Final Recommendation #8, the Registry Operator will immediately suspend a Sunrise Registration upon notice from the TMCH that the underlying Trademark Record is invalid, to allow the Sunrise registrant to challenge the determination. Section 2.3.7(B) provides that once a challenge by the Trademark Holder or Trademark Agent concludes, the registry operator shall delete the Sunrise Registration. Following the SubPro IRT discussions on the list, ICANN org proposes updating Section 2.3.7(B) to add “*whichever is later*” to the clause:

/“…or (B) remains invalid following either sixty (60) calendar days (or such other period as set forth in the TMCH DRP) after such Sunrise Registration was deemed invalid or the conclusion of a challenge by the Trademark Holder or Trademark Agent (as defined in the TMCH DRP), *whichever is later*, in which case the Registry Operator shall delete such Sunrise Registration.” /

The addition of “*whichever is later*” ensures that if the challenge process extends beyond 60 days, the registry waits until the challenge is completed before taking action.

*3)*We are proposing to remove the phrase “*/and return the domain name to the pool of available names available for registration/*” from the end of Section 2.3.7 because including it would create a new obligation for registries by preventing them from reserving the domain name. Registries currently have the discretion to reserve a domain name. Section 2.3.7 already states that the domain name will be deleted if the Sunrise Registration remains invalid following either sixty (60) calendar days after such Sunrise Registration was deemed invalid or the conclusion of a challenge by the Trademark Holder. After the deletion, it is up to the Registry Operator to decide whether to reserve the domain name or not. Adding language that requires returning the domain name to the available pool would impose an unintended and additional obligation on registries, and it is not mandated by Sunrise Final Recommendation [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/f...> #8.

Thank you again for your input. We appreciate your engagement and encourage you to submit any additional feedback during the upcoming public comment period on the TMCH Requirements.

Best,

Antonietta

*From: *Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> *Reply-To: *Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> <mailto:Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> *Date: *Tuesday, December 9, 2025 at 11:01 PM *To: *"subpro-irt@icann.org" <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org> <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> <mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org> *Subject: *[SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Question - TMCH

All, I see three problems with the revisions to 2.3.7 re: Sunrise Registration -- and additions and deletions in (B) make it inconsistent with the language written by the STI, and the review and recommendations of the RPM PDP WG – Phase 1:

1) 60 days is a too long time to allow for a TMCH DRP -- far longer than UDRP and URS response times involving much more difficult responses. I'm sure the TMCH can determine whether a challenged Trademark Record is invalid in a much shorter time – most TM records are online -- and 60 days is too long to keep an important (and available) domain name from the public. [2.3.7 (B)]

2) After the conclusion of a challenge by the TM Holder or TM agent, it appears that everything can linger for 60 days. By the wording, even if the TMCH DRP is concluded or the Sunrise Registration is deemed invalid, whichever path is taken, this section sounds like everyone can wait around a long time and eventually delete the Sunrise Registration. But this is the Internet, and we work quickly. The invalid Sunrise Registration must, of course, be deleted immediately after the challenge is concluded because we’re headed into General Availability and the domain name must be available to the public for registration. [2.3.7 (B)]

3) *Which leads us to the surprising deletion at the end of the section: “and return the domain name to the pool of available names available for registration. A Registry Operator may, through the Registry-Registrar Agreement its agreement with registrars, instead require the registrar to perform this implementation step.”  This sentence is the whole purpose the section – to return the domain name to the available pool and allow it to be registered by someone who needs and can use it. /Sunrise gives TMCH registrants a first right to register in the Sunrise Period, but not a wholesale removal of the domain name from registration. /*

Of course, domain names, if invalidly registered during the Sunrise Period must be returned to the pool of available names – that’s a key element of the fairness and balance of the TMCH and Sunrise Registration processes; they are limited for a reason. Returning appropriate domain names to the pool of domain names in New gTLDs is a) policy and b) good for Registries, Registrars, Registrants, and ultimately the end users who will use their websites, emails, listservs+. This final sentence is absolutely key to achieving the goals and intents of the RPM PDP WG; to change it is to change policy. (However, if I have misunderstood or misread this deletion, please clarify for me and for all.)

`v  Best, Kathy

On 12/9/2025 1:19 PM, Lars Hoffmann via SubPro-IRT wrote:

Adding the IRT mailing list.

Thank you, Kathy.

Here is the link to the document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rDcaY1nPkfwcHpuhI74OY13rp5g99iI2/edit [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1rDcaY1nPkfwcH...>

Best wishes. Lars

*From: *Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> <mailto:Kathy@KathyKleiman.com> *Date: *Tuesday, 9 December 2025 at 10:09 *To: *Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> <mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Question - TMCH

Hi Lars,

I think we are on a deadline today for TMCH changes/review. Is that right? Could you kindly point me to the right email or date to review it?  I've been on a long bit of travel for a workshop and speaking.

Best and tx, Kathy

On 12/9/2025 11:53 AM, Lars Hoffmann via SubPro-IRT wrote:

Dear IRT members,

For Thursday’s call (11 December, 10:00 UTC), we have the following agenda items

1. Welcome and SOI 2. Surplus/Deficit Discussion (see attached paper) 3. AGB Updates 4. AOB

Attached you find a paper outlining ICANN’s approach to the surplus/deficit issue. Feel free to review before the call and share any thoughts, questions etc. on-list.

*Please note, as mentioned today’s call, the **Name Collision procedures will now be covered on a yet-to-be-scheduled call on Tuesday 16 December 2025*.

Thank you all and best wishes, Lars

_______________________________________________

SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org

To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org

_______________________________________________

By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________

SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org

To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org

_______________________________________________

By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com [comlaude.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/comlaude.com/__;!!PtGJab4!8h20b4zFwYSECFl...>

_______________________________________________

SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org

To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org

_______________________________________________

By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com [comlaude.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/comlaude.com/__;!!PtGJab4!8h20b4zFwYSECFl...>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com [comlaude.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/comlaude.com/__;!!PtGJab4!8h20b4zFwYSECFl...>

_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list --subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email tosubpro-irt-leave@icann.org

_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.