[gtld-tech] Whether registrars have to implement a RDAP service

[Michele Neylon - Blacknight]

Why on earth would we go the expense of implementing this if it’s: 
- temporary
- we can’t use proper ACLs etc., due to gaps in the ICANN policy


--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
http://www.blacknight.host/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://ceo.hosting/ 
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845






On 07/12/2015, 9:42 p.m., "gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Roger D Carney" <gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org on behalf of rcarney at godaddy.com> wrote:

>Good Afternoon,
>
>Thanks Francisco for providing some great context around each of these updates.
>
>I believe the wording in 3.1.1 will cause some confusion with the intent of this update in 2.3, with 3.1.1 stating all sponsored names whereas the intent being only thin sponsored names.
>
>Additionally, I would like to confirm that according to the wording in this latest draft, ICANN is suggesting that all Registrars sponsoring names in any thin registry will be obligated to create and manage code and infrastructure for a temporary RDAP server implementation that will be rendered useless and most likely be discarded once the three remaining thin TLDs are moved to thick?
>
>
>Thanks
>Roger
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Francisco Arias
>Sent: Friday, December 04, 2015 4:57 PM
>To: gtld-tech at icann.org
>Subject: [gtld-tech] Whether registrars have to implement a RDAP service
>
>Dear colleagues,
>
>Regarding open issue I.3 Whether registrars have to implement a RDAP service.
>
>In section 2.3 of v12 we say that registrars MUST offer RDAP service for all "thin registrations” that they sponsor. There appears to be no benefit in requiring registrars to offer RDAP service for a thick registration.
>Please note that the requirements is regarding individual registrations as opposed to TLD-wise. We included a definition for “thin registration”.
>
>Regards,
>
>--
>Francisco.
>