[gtld-tech] Draft RDAP Operational Profile for gTLD Registries and Registrars
andy at hxr.us
Mon Feb 8 17:39:32 UTC 2016
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 8:00 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott
<shollenbeck at verisign.com> wrote:
> 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.
Which is why Andrew Sullivan's proposal is especially nice. It is
backwards compatible with today's policy, but puts the registry
operators in a very good position to adapt to any future changes.
As much as this thread has turned into a pile-on of ICANN, I think the
registry operators should start doing this. As the saying goes:
actions speak louder than words.
More information about the gtld-tech