[gtld-tech] Draft RDAP Operational Profile for gTLD Registries and Registrars

Hollenbeck, Scott shollenbeck at verisign.com
Mon Feb 8 13:00:24 UTC 2016

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francisco Arias [mailto:francisco.arias at icann.org]
> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 6:07 PM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott
> Cc: gtld-tech at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] Draft RDAP Operational Profile for gTLD
> Registries and Registrars
> On 2/3/16, 4:31 AM, "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck at verisign.com>
> wrote:
> >Francisco, about a month ago I sent this message to this list:
> >
> >http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-tech/2016-January/000577.html
> >
> >You asked a few clarifying questions, which I answered. My last reply
> sent on 13 January:
> >
> >http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-tech/2016-January/000592.html
> >
> >I never did receive an answer to my original question:
> >
> >"Will those that do not be able to defer implementation until the
> needed "agreement provision,
> >waiver, or Consensus Policy" terms are in place?"
> Since we are considering at least 6 months between request and deadline
> to implement RDAP, I’d think an interested registry would have enough
> time to follow the process prescribed in its agreement to obtain an
> amendment to have differentiated access, no?

Another question

Probably not. As Rubens noted, there are no SLAs in place for ICANN responsiveness. If I have an obligation to deliver something without differentiated access I have to do that software development work under the assumption that no amendment will be in place before the clock stops ticking. It would be much more efficient to start the work knowing what the end system needs to be because mid-stream changes to software requirements and design or extensive modifications to add new features later are both inefficient and expensive.


More information about the gtld-tech mailing list