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.
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.
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? Regards, James On 26/06/13 12:06 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
I think we can make it work for early next week. -- Francisco. On 6/25/13 8:51 PM, "James Mitchell" <james.mitchell@ausregistry.com.au> wrote:
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?
Regards, James
On 26/06/13 12:06 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
Jeff, We received public commentary, CSC questions, and in person request to clarify the fields for Specification 3 in the new gTLD agreement. Regarding the timeline, I understand and will see how we can make it work. -- Francisco. On 6/25/13 7:06 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.
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
Francisco, Thank you for providing an updated report specification. Upon review, we have identified several areas that we believe warrant further clarification. Your reply is appreciated. 1- Please clarify whether the 1 year extension to the registration period resulting from a successful transfer is counted in the net-renews-1-yr column. 2- Please confirm that the net-renews-1-yr field reports on the number of transactions, not the number of domains, i.e. a domain repeatedly renewed for one year will not be reported as 1. 3- We note that inconsistencies may be observed in the report with respect to the number of transfers. For us, a domain that is transferred will have a 5-day transfer grace period. The deletion of the domain during this period will not result in the increment of the transfer-gaining-successful field, even though the transfer‐losing-successfully field will be incremented (grace period is not considered for losing). Reports will have accurate domains transferred out statistics, however can never have accurate domains transferred in statistics. Please confirm this is the intended behaviour. 4- Please confirm the restored-domains field considers only those transactions where the restore report has been processed, reported in the month that the report was processed, i.e. requests to restore the domain, where the report is pending should not be counted in the report. Furthermore, please clarify that the restored-domains field reports on the number of transactions that have occurred, not the number of domains, i.e. a domain repeatedly deleted and restored would not be reported as 1. 5- Please confirm that the agp-exemption-requests should be counted in the month the request is submitted, and the agp-exemptions-granted and agp-exempted-domains are counted in the month the exemption is granted. Note that this means that exemption numbers may span monthly reports. 6- The specification uses the terms "domain", "domain name" and "name", seemingly interchangeably. Our preference would be the use of "domain" as this best corresponds to the "domain object" modelled in registry databases. 7- Part A, Section 6 of the IRTP provides mechanisms for the registry operator to undo a transfer under certain circumstances. Please confirm that transfer undo's are not counted (positively or negatively) in this report, even though initiated by the registrar. Furthermore, please confirm that bulk transfers, performed in accordance with Part B of the IRTP, are excluded from this report. Regards, James Mitchell / Product Owner ARI Registry Services
-----Original Message----- From: gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Francisco Arias Sent: Wednesday, 26 June 2013 11:59 AM 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.
participants (4)
-
Francisco Arias -
Gould, James -
James Mitchell -
Neuman, Jeff