Francisco, 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 monthly reports. Assuming that ICANN leverages the monthly reports to reconcile Registry and Registrar fees payable to ICANN identified in Article 6 of the new gTLD Registry Agreement, we would have suggested that ICANN take the necessary time to review these proposed clarifications with the registry community as required by ICANN¹s bylaws, to ensure that the monthly transactions reports and required financial 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 of the actual transaction dates. We have historically counted the net transactions for all other TLDs in the month that the transaction occurred with the exception of the auto renews, since you cannot wait 45 days for a monthly 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 accurately 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 draft of the Registry Agreement, which was approved on July 2 (Ref: Redline from April 29 version - http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-3 -item-1d-02jul13-en.pdf). It was premature to incorporate what you called ³clarifications² into an agreement in this manner. There has not been proper review and comment among many interested parties including the registry stakeholder group and others. We intend to address this regrettable situation, and other similar ICANN failures concerning the Registry Agreement, in an appropriate forum. -- JG James Gould Principal Software Engineer jgould@verisign.com 703-948-3271 (Office) 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com On 6/25/13 10:06 PM, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> wrote:
Francisco,
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.
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
-----Original Message----- From: gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Francisco Arias Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 9:59 PM To: gTLD-tech@icann.org Subject: gtld-tech Clarifications to the registry monthly transactions report for new gTLDs
Colleagues,
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.
Regards,
-- Francisco.
_______________________________________________ gtld-tech mailing list gtld-tech@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-tech