The first UDRP review in 25 years: what was proposed

On 2 December 2025, WIPO and the Internet Commerce Association published the final report of the first comprehensive review of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy since its adoption in 1999. Twenty-five years of caselaw, two major advisory bodies, and a global consultancy process produced a document that does not rewrite the UDRP – but does recommend changes that, if adopted, would alter how disputes are conducted and how panelists are identified.

The report is a set of recommendations under consideration, not adopted law. Nothing in it has changed the Policy, the Rules, or the filing process as of this writing. Proposals described below remain proposals. Before acting on any element of this review, verify the current position with counsel, because the adoption timeline is set by ICANN and is outside any party's control.

This page sets out what the review covered, what was agreed unanimously, what was agreed in principle but left for further work, and what was rejected outright.

What triggered the first UDRP review in a quarter-century?

The Policy entered force in 1999 and has operated without a formal policy-level review ever since. That does not mean it has stood still – panel practice has evolved through the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview, procedural supplements, and accredited-provider rulemaking – but the core text has remained untouched. By the time the review launched, WIPO alone had administered more than 80,000 UDRP and related cases involving parties from 190 countries. The accumulated weight of that caselaw created pressure to codify settled practice, address procedural gaps, and evaluate structural features – such as the absence of any appeal – that practitioners had debated for years.

The review was a joint exercise. WIPO's Arbitration and Mediation Center and the Internet Commerce Association, whose membership includes domain investors and registrants, participated as co-authors. That joint sponsorship was itself significant: the UDRP has long been criticized by registrant advocates as structurally tilted toward complainants, and the involvement of the ICA was designed to surface both perspectives. The result is a report that includes minority positions where consensus was not reached.

What did the report recommend unanimously?

Three procedural recommendations carried unanimous support. First, the report called for identifying dissenting and concurring panelists by name in published decisions. Currently, a three-member panel issues a single unsigned decision; the report concluded that accountability and transparency require disclosure of individual positions. Second, it recommended adoption of a standardized decision template across all accredited providers – WIPO, the Forum, CAC, and ADNDRC – to improve consistency and make decisions easier to compare and cite. Third, it called for the codification of settled consensus practice from the Jurisprudential Overviews into the Rules or supplemental guidelines, reducing reliance on informal guidance that some panels follow and others do not.

These three items share a common theme: they make the existing system more legible without changing its substantive outcomes. A party filing today under the current rules would face the same three-element test, the same response window of 20 days, and the same forum-fee schedule. What would change is the paper trail: decisions would be more uniform, panel reasoning more attributable, and consensus doctrine more formally binding.

What was agreed in principle but left for further work?

A second tier of recommendations secured agreement in principle but was not finalized. These involve structural changes that require additional scoping and, potentially, ICANN policy development work before any text is drafted.

The most discussed is an appeals layer. The report acknowledged that the absence of any appeal from a UDRP decision has been a persistent criticism – a complainant or registrant who receives a wrong decision has no recourse within the Policy. The review agreed in principle that some form of appellate review should exist, but left the mechanism, the grounds, the fee, and the timeline entirely unresolved. The proposal is therefore a direction, not a design. Whether it would take the form of a new panel, an ICANN-level review, or a limited remand process is unknown as of the date of publication.

A "true cancellation" remedy protecting good-faith third parties was also agreed in principle. Under the current Policy, the only remedies are transfer to the complainant or cancellation of the registration. Cancellation returns the domain to the pool, where anyone may register it – including the bad-faith registrant again, under a different identity. The proposed true cancellation remedy would give a good-faith third party a prior claim, or temporarily block re-registration. The mechanics are unresolved.

The report also agreed in principle on expedited tracks for certain case types – most likely clear-cut cybersquatting where the registrant defaults. WIPO independently introduced its own expedited option in March 2026, delivering a decision in approximately one month for single-panelist cases of up to five domains at a complainant's fee of USD 4,000. That procedural step is separate from, and predates any action on, the policy-review recommendation.

What did the report reject?

Several changes that had been seriously proposed over the years were explicitly rejected. The report did not recommend a loser-pays costs regime. Under the current Policy, each party bears its own legal costs, and the filing fee is set by the chosen provider. A costs-shifting rule would have changed the risk calculus for both complainants and registrant-defenders, and the review concluded the case for it was not made. This is a notable outcome for domain investors, for whom the threat of costs had been a concern in respondent-side planning.

The report also declined to recommend monetary damages within the UDRP. The Policy's remedial scope – transfer or cancellation, nothing more – was preserved. A complainant who wants damages for lost revenue, brand harm, or other losses must still pursue a court action, such as US anticybersquatting litigation, outside the UDRP framework entirely.

Mandatory mediation was not recommended. The Nominet DRS for .uk includes a mediation stage that parties must pass through before an expert decision; the UDRP review declined to adopt that model at the global level. And, importantly, the report did not recommend a limitation period – so a domain registered in bad faith two decades ago may still be attacked under the current rules.

What does this mean in practice – right now?

The short answer is that it means nothing to a filing made today. The UDRP text, the Rules, and the procedures at WIPO, the Forum, CAC, and ADNDRC are unchanged as of the date of this article. The review produced recommendations, not amendments. The adoption process – if and when ICANN initiates one – would involve its own policy development procedure, public comment, and stakeholder consensus, a process that typically spans years.

What the report does change is the discourse. Panelists are now on notice that an appeals layer is under consideration; complainants and registrants know that a true-cancellation remedy is being discussed. It is not implausible that some panels will begin writing decisions with an eye toward a future appellate review – but that is speculation, not law.

For a brand owner whose name has been registered as a .com by a stranger demanding a five-figure payout, the path to recovery is the same as it was before 2 December 2025: assess the three UDRP elements, document the bad-faith evidence, select the forum, and file. The review does not alter any element of that analysis, and holding the trademark still does not guarantee the domain transfers automatically – panels examine the evidence under each element independently, and a weak record on any one of the three is enough to defeat a complaint.

To assess whether the three UDRP elements are met in your situation, and which forum fits your facts, reach us at info@cognomenlaw.com.

What about the RDNH finding – did the review address it?

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking – a panel finding that a complaint was brought in bad faith to deprive a legitimate registrant – was addressed in the review and preserved. The finding carries no monetary penalty under the current Policy, but it places a reputational mark on the complainant and the filing counsel of record. The report's recommendation to identify individual panelists by name in dissenting and concurring positions is, indirectly, relevant here: RDNH findings in three-member panels would become more individually attributed if the recommendation is adopted.

In our practice we advise registrants facing abusive complaints that an RDNH finding, while not a financial remedy, can be a meaningful outcome – particularly where the complainant's mark is weak, the domain was registered before the mark, or the complaint ignores clear safe-harbor evidence. None of that analysis changes as a result of the review.

As of the date of this article (September 12, 2026), the recommendations remain proposals. Verify the current position with counsel before making any filing decision.

COGNOMEN focuses only on domain-name disputes – recovery, defense, and transactions. We handle UDRP matters across gTLDs and ccTLDs, before WIPO, the Forum, CAC, and ADNDRC, and in court where arbitration cannot reach. We act for both complainants and registrants, and we regularly pursue RDNH findings where the evidence supports them. To discuss a domain dispute, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.

Related at COGNOMEN

• udrp recovery – full guide to recovering a domain under the UDRP
• AI company names and the new wave of cybersquatting – how AI-related names are targeted and what to do
• prove no legitimate interest co – what complainants must show on the second UDRP element

Author: Cordelia Roe — UDRP complainant practice & gTLD recovery; domain transactions and brand protection. Meet the team.

Speak with Cognomen Law

For a scoped view of your domain matter, contact info@cognomenlaw.com. Discuss your matter

This publication is general information and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your situation, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.