gtld-tech Clarifications to the registry monthly transactions report for new gTLDs
JGould at verisign.com
Wed Jul 3 22:19:02 UTC 2013
Verisign supports the initial comments provided by Jeff Neuman
at Neustar and that these proposed ³clarifications² require additional
discussion before implementing what appear to be changes to the ICANN
reports. Assuming that ICANN leverages the monthly reports to reconcile
Registrar fees payable to ICANN identified in Article 6 of the new gTLD
Agreement, we would have suggested that ICANN take the necessary time to
these proposed clarifications with the registry community as required by
bylaws, to ensure that the monthly transactions reports and required
reporting and billing provisions are consistent.
These initial draft ³clarifications² appear to request the
counts for the new gTLDs to be based on the grace period end dates instead
the actual transaction dates. We have historically counted the net
transactions for all other TLDs in the month that the transaction occurred
the exception of the auto renews, since you cannot wait 45 days for a
report. Verisign feels that the reporting of the new gTLDs can and should
wait the 5 days for the grace periods (add, renew, and transfer) to
reflect the net transactions in the appropriate monthly report to retain
consistency with reporting and related invoicing.
Verisign has become aware that the ³clarifications² originally
posted only on this technical mail list on June 26, 2013, which were in the
process of on-going discussions, were nevertheless inserted into the final
of the Registry Agreement, which was approved on July 2 (Ref: Redline from
April 29 version -
-item-1d-02jul13-en.pdf). It was premature to incorporate what you
called ³clarifications² into an agreement in this manner. There has not
review and comment among many interested parties including the registry
stakeholder group and others. We intend to address this regrettable
and other similar ICANN failures concerning the Registry Agreement, in an
Principal Software Engineer
jgould at verisign.com
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
On 6/25/13 10:06 PM, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us> wrote:
>Thanks for sending this around. Perhaps you can provide us a little
>background as to why you believe these changes are necessary. Were there
>comments from the community that this meant to address?
>Also, please note that these changes are changes to the standard reports
>that registries have provided for years and until these changes, we have
>not heard any issues with the reports that we have been providing.
>Finally, I think I am speaking for everyone (but people can correct me if
>I am wrong), but we will need more time to review then less than 48 hours.
>Jeffrey J. Neuman
>Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
>From: gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org] On
>Behalf Of Francisco Arias
>Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 9:59 PM
>To: gTLD-tech at icann.org
>Subject: gtld-tech Clarifications to the registry monthly transactions
>report for new gTLDs
>I've attached a draft of the updated section of Specification 3 for the
>new gTLDs related to the registry monthly transactions report. The
>attached file contains clarifications on what each of the fields mean.
>We are looking to see if the new proposed text makes clearer the intent
>on each field. We are not looking to change the meaning.
>Your kind and timely review would be greatly appreciated by this Thursday,
>27 June at 15:00 UTC. Apologies for the short notice.
>gtld-tech mailing list
>gtld-tech at icann.org
More information about the gtld-tech