gtld-tech Clarifications to the registry monthly transactions report for new gTLDs

James Mitchell james.mitchell at
Wed Jun 26 03:51:33 UTC 2013

Thanks Francisco.

I believe the original requirements were too vague and support this
clarification. We want to review these changes, however would appreciate
having until early next week to provide feedback. Is this possible?


On 26/06/13 12:06 PM, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at> 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
>-----Original Message-----
>From: gtld-tech-bounces at [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces at] On
>Behalf Of Francisco Arias
>Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 9:59 PM
>To: gTLD-tech at
>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

More information about the gtld-tech mailing list