ICANN Contractual Compliance Dashboard for January 2025

*The following columns have been removed from the above table because they had no complaint counts for the reported month:

• 3rd Inquiry/Notice
• Escalated Notice
• Breach Notice
• Suspension Notice
• Termination Notice

*In the table above, the number of Reporter Complaints received may not equal the total number of closed Reporter Complaints plus the number of Notices/Inquiries sent, for any of the following reasons:

• Compliance actions took place in different months. The table reflects activity per month. Compliance may send Inquiries, Notices or Closures in different months from which it received the related complaint. For example, Compliance may receive a Reporter Complaint in one month, which is closed or results in an Inquiry/Notice sent to a contracted party the following month. Further, new Reporter Complaints may be pending review and processing by Compliance and therefore, only reported as received in the reported month.
• The reporter misfiled the complaint. A reporter may submit a complaint using the form for Disclosure of gTLD Registration Data or Consent to Display, which after review, Compliance determines is within the scope of ICANN's contractual authority, but should be processed under a different complaint type.
• Compliance bundled multiple complaints into a single Inquiry/Notice. A single compliance Inquiry or Notice may be based on one or multiple Reporter Complaints received by compliance, or on Compliance’s own observations of areas of non-compliance.

*Reporter type refers to the capacity in which the reporter submitted the complaint, which is selected by the reporter at the time of submission and is not determined by Compliance.

*Compliance processes Notices/Inquiries for disclosure of gTLD registration data to ensure compliance with disclosure requirements under the Interim Registration Data Policy for gTLDs. Notices/Inquiries may be closed upon a registrar correcting an area of non-compliance or demonstrating compliance, regardless of whether access to registration data is granted or denied.

*Out of scope complaints involving disclosure for gTLD registration data may include for example, requests for personal data of privacy or proxy registrant customers, requests for registration data that is available in the public Registration Data Directory Services (not redacted), or failure to provide evidence of request made to the contracted party.

*The 'total Inquiries/Notices in process' reflects the number pending during the month, which account for those in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd Inquiry/Notice status, including those for which Compliance may not have sent additional Inquiries or Notices due to ongoing remediation for example.

*For additional details of complaints processed in the legacy ticketing system, please refer to the Monthly Dashboard for May 2020 through August 2020 available here: https://features.icann.org/compliance/dashboard/report-list

*Examples of how “the registrar corrected its noncompliance” include:

• Registrar implemented changes to its disclosure process(es) to ensure compliance with disclosure requirements under the Interim Registration Data Policy for gTLDs.
• Registrar responded to a request for access to non-public registration data and provided the requested Data or an explanation for denial.
• Registrar implemented changes to ensure it was providing full registration data to UDRP providers upon notification of a complaint.
• Registrar implemented changes to the display of registration data in its RDDS to address the concerns raised in the compliance inquiry/notice (e.g., registrar is now providing an anonymized email address or a web form to facilitate email communication with the relevant contact).

*Examples of how “the registrar demonstrated compliance” include:

• Registrar demonstrated that it previously reviewed and responded to request(s) for access to/disclosure of non-public registration data per the Interim Registration Data Policy for gTLDs.
• Registrar demonstrated that it displays registration data in its RDDS pursuant to the requirements of the RAA and Interim Registration Data Policy for gTLDs (e.g. registrar demonstrated that it obtained Consent from the registrant to display personal registration data in the RDDS, otherwise subject to redaction requirements).