- Comments-proposed-amendment-1-jobs-registry-agreement-30sep20

[Comments-proposed-amendment-1-jobs-registry-agreement-30sep20] .jobs Inflated Cost? Conflict of interest?
by Chris Walik Dec. 4, 2020

Dec. 4, 2020

Hello, Is the new proposed sponsor oversight of .jobs being allowed to control pricing of these domains? Is that not a conflict of interest? I purchased two .jobs domains from GoDaddy a couple months ago that GoDaddy had to abruptly cancel. Now I see these domains are in limbo and being offered for over $6000. Thanks for review Chris Walik

1 0

Ratified: ALAC Statement on Proposed Amendment 1 to the .JOBS Registry Agreement
by ICANN At-Large Staff Nov. 23, 2020

Nov. 23, 2020

Dear All, Please find attached the ALAC Statement on Proposed Amendment 1 to the .JOBS Registry Agreement. ALAC ratification information is included on the cover page. Kind Regards, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

Pending Ratification: ALAC Statement on Proposed Amendment 1 to the .JOBS Registry Agreement
by ICANN At-Large Staff Nov. 18, 2020

Nov. 18, 2020

Dear All, Please find attached the ALAC Statement on Proposed Amendment 1 to the .JOBS Registry Agreement. In the interest of time, the ALAC Chair requested that the statement be transmitted to the ICANN public comment process with a note that the statement is pending ALAC ratification. Kind Regards, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

[Comments-proposed-amendment-1-jobs-registry-agreement-30sep20] Response to query regarding Proposed Amendment 1 to the .JOBS Registry Agreement
by Ray Fassett Nov. 16, 2020

Nov. 16, 2020

Hello Justine, thank you for your interest and for your questions. In assuming the role and duties of the sponsor we expect the effect of this change to be neutral. Our rationale includes preserving the concept of the HR Council maintaining independence in serving the interests of the .Jobs community, adding the RRDRP mechanism for the resolution of registration restriction disputes and simplifying Specification 12 comparable to other legacy sponsored TLD's. We have not received any objections, oral or written, from the .Jobs community referenced in our letter of 8 April 2020 to ICANN or expressed by SHRM. Sources include Employ Media, SHRM and ICANN. Sincerely, Ray Fassett Employ Media LLC (.Jobs)

1 0

[Comments-proposed-amendment-1-jobs-registry-agreement-30sep20] Proposed Amendment 1 to the .JOBS Registry Agreement - NCSG Comment
by Tomslin Samme-Nlar Nov. 16, 2020

Nov. 16, 2020

Dear team, On behalf of the NCSG, please find attached our comment on the proposed amendment 1 to the .JOBS registry agreement. Thank you. Tomslin

1 0

Removal of restrictions should adequately address concerns of Brand Owners
by Amitendra Singh Antal Nov. 15, 2020

Nov. 15, 2020

Any changes should take care of the rights of brand owners, this can be achieved by ensuring that the TMCH mechanism that has been put in place should be respected. Existing TMCH registrations should be honored even if the Registry Operator has itself registered a domain name. Especially those TM holders who had tried to register their brands as .jobs domains in the past and have TMCH registrations. Amitendra Antal Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10 DISCLAIMER This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the person or the entity to whom they are addressed and may contain information which is Confidential and Privileged. Any misuse of the information contained in this email, including but not limited to retransmission or dissemination of the said information by person or entities other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, please delete this email and contact the sender immediately.

1 0

Business Constituency (BC) comment on Proposed Amendment to the .JOBS Registry Agreement
by Steve DelBianco Nov. 15, 2020

Nov. 15, 2020

BC Comment on Proposed Amendment 1 to the .JOBS Registry Agreement This comment is in response to the “Proposed Amendment 1 to the .JOBS Registry Agreement” posted for comment on 30-Sep-2020 (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposed-amendment-1-jobs-registry-ag…) The BC supports Proposed Amendment 1 (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-jobs-amendment-1-30sep…) The BC recognizes the importance of maintaining the TLD Sponsor’s role, obligations, and commitments to the sponsored TLD Community. The Proposed Amendment 1 maintains this important role, obligations, and commitments through creating an “HR Council” as the policy delegate responsible for establishing registration requirements for second level domains in the TLD, consistent with the TLD’s Charter and in the interests of the Community. Pursuant to Proposed Amendment 1, the Registry Operator will create an HR Council comprised of HR professionals and will inter alia, perform its duties “independent of the Registry Operator”. Furthermore, members of the HR Council will be obliged to act “solely in the best interests of the Community”. Accordingly, provided that such important safeguards are maintained and adhered to in compliance with both the express requirements and the spirit of the Charter and Specification 12 in particular, the BC believes that replacing the third-party with the HR Council is not a drastic change from the TLD Sponsor’s role, obligations, and commitments to the sponsored TLD Community. Nevertheless, the BC recommends that ICANN Compliance monitor and evaluate the results of Proposed Amendment 1 once it is implemented, in order to ensure that the HR Council is performing its role as a truly independent policy delegate acting solely in the best interests of the Community, as expected and as required. The requirement that the Registry Operator annually certify to ICANN that the HR Council was able to perform its duties independently of the Registry Operator and in the interests of the Community, as set out in the Charter, will be of assistance in this regard. However, the BC recommends that the certification also be made by the HR Council itself, rather than the Registry Operator alone. The BC also generally supports the proposed amendments to the Charter in connection with “Qualified Applicants” for second-level domains in the TLD. While the expansion of Qualified Applicants beyond those in the existing definition contained in the Charter appears to enable a less restrictive qualification criteria, the new requirement maintains the requirement that applicants be engaged in human resource management and is bolstered by the new requirement that applicants be supportive of the code of ethics in human resources management as exemplified by the Society for Human Resource Management. Accordingly, the BC views this change as providing some greater flexibility to the Sponsor while maintaining crucial qualifications for second-level domain name applicants. Nevertheless, the BC recommends that ICANN Compliance ensure that the relaxing of the qualifications do not erode or depreciate the crucial and required nature of the sponsored TLD. Lastly, the BC supports the amendment to implement and bind the Registry Operator to the Registry Restrictions Dispute Resolution Policy (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rrdrp-2014-01-09-en) which enables third-party complainants to assert that they have been harmed as a result of the community-based gTLD registry operator not complying with the registration restrictions set out in the Registry Agreement. This inclusion provides an additional and important means of ensuring that .JOBS will continue to be a community-focused TLD by enabling a “community objection”. -- This comment was drafted by Zak Muscovitch and was approved in accord with the BC Charter. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

[Comments-proposed-amendment-1-jobs-registry-agreement-30sep20] Query regarding Proposed Amendment 1 to the .JOBS Registry Agreement
by Justine Chew Nov. 10, 2020

Nov. 10, 2020

I hope that answers could be sought for the following questions; or in the event they have already been sought then to publish the same or at least an indication as to the source(s) for which answers can be established. 1. Could Employ Media LLC provide a reason or rationale for wishing to assume the duties of the Sponsoring Organization for the .JOBS TLD? 2. Has Employ Media LLC received any comments to the proposed change from any member of its .JOBS Community referenced in the letter of 8 April 2020 to ICANN? 3. Has the current Sponsor Organization (i.e. SHRM) expressed a position on the proposed change? Thank you. Justine Chew

1 0