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

[Francisco Arias]

Thank you for this, Roger, Michele, and Theo. I’d suggest you to make this
point in the public comment forum at
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rdap-profile-2015-12-03-en

Regards,

-- 
Francisco.



On 12/8/15, 12:03 PM, "gtheo" <gtheo at xs4all.nl> wrote:

>This crossed my mind also.
>
>Thanks
>
>Theo Geurts
>
>Realtime Register B.V.
>
>
>Michele Neylon - Blacknight schreef op 2015-12-08 12:21 PM:
>> 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.
>>> 
>