[gtld-tech] Allowing/requiring differentiated access

[Francisco Arias]

Dear colleagues,

Regarding open issue I.4 Whether to require implementation of
differentiated access in RDAP for gTLD
Registries.

In section 1.4.11 of v12 the profile allows those that have a contract
provision or once there is a consensus policy to offer differentiated
access. The Registry Agreement for new gTLDs and the 2013 Registrar
Accreditation Agreement are clear about not allowing differentiated access
when they say about the Registration Data Directory Services (a.k.a.
Whois) output: "The fields specified below set forth the minimum output
requirements." or "The format of responses shall contain all the elements
and follow a semi-free text format outline below.”

For the three legacy gTLDs that have differentiated access in their
registry agreements, there are, at least two models. One model describes
two levels of access (similar to Andrew's proposal shared in this list)
for .tel and .cat. Another model includes four levels of access for .name.
Additionally, there is a Policy Development Process (PDP) initiating on
Registry Directory Services
(http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201511) that will consider
the broader issue of access to registration data, including the potential
for differentiated access as described in the adopted Charter for the PDP
working group (see Annex C of the Final Issues Report at
https://whois.icann.org/sites/default/files/files/final-issue-report-next-g
eneration-rds-07oct15-en.pdf).

Given the ongoing discussions and work in the community on differentiated
access, it is premature to include a requirement for all gTLDs in the RDAP
Profile. For parties interested in differentiated access, we’d recommend
to participate in the upcoming Registry Directory Services PDP, where a
call for volunteers is expected to go out next January. I plan to forward
the call for volunteers to this list when I see it.

Regards,

-- 
Francisco.