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

[David Conrad]

Hi,

Apologies for being dense, but this conversation is confusing me.

> On Jan 13, 2016, at 3:34 PM, Andrew Sullivan <asullivan at dyn.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 09:03:26PM +0000, Francisco Arias wrote:
>> 
>> Just so that I understand, why would you like a registry/registrar to defer their RDAP implementation until there is a tiered access provision/policy?
>> 
> 
> I won't speak for anyone else, but to me this was a primary motivator
> for RDAP.  Having to do work on a brand new system twice because of
> ICANN policy/implementation mismatches seems like a needless burden on
> implementers.


AFAIK, ICANN's policy is:

a) The proposed operational profile supports the use of tiered access (if, of course, your RDAP server has the code to do it)
b) Because there has not been a consensus policy on the deployment of tiered access, if a registry wants to deploy tiered access they'll need to ask for a contractual waiver/amendment
c) Registries have asked for and been granted amendments permitting/requiring tiered access without any policy process.

Why would anyone have to "work on a brand new system twice"?

Thanks,
-drc

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-tech/attachments/20160113/8dc7a9f4/signature.asc>