Good Afternoon, Should the related documents in section 3 include the CL&D and transition documents? I am not sure that I am reading items 6 and 7 below correctly as compared to section 3.1.1 (which I think reads appropriately except for the footnote, see below). #7 of email states “Section 3.1.1: clarify that registrars will only be required to offer RDAP services for thin registrations under .com, .jobs, and .net until the effective date of the Thick WHOIS policy.” But section 3.1.1 in the document states “For all gTLDs, with the exception of .com, .jobs and .net, Registrars are REQUIRED to provide an RDAP service for domain names for which the Registrar is the Sponsoring Registrar, and the registration data stored in the Registry is "thin". Registrars MAY offer an RDAP service for domain names registered under any gTLD.” These two seem to contradict each other over the “grandfathering” of com/net/jobs. I just wanted to get clarification as I believe that section 3.1.1 is correct and registrars should not have to provide RDAP services for com/net/jobs until post transition and only in the case of “thin” registrations. Footnote from section 3.1.1 should be removed as it implies a defined implementation date on an “if” scenario. The removal will not impact the intent of this section or document. I am not sure that the Appendix C reference in 1.5.6 is valid anymore or Appendix 3 may not be valid any more as almost all of it has been deleted except two rows. In section 3 of the RDAP Operational Profile, item 1.5.17 seems to be out of place and should apply to the registry only requirements. I don’t see how registrars can fulfill this requirement. Thanks Roger -----Original Message----- From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Francisco Arias Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 5:53 AM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] FW: gTLD RDAP profile - release candidate FYI On 6/30/16, 1:43 PM, "gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Francisco Arias<mailto:gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org%20on%20behalf%20of%20Francisco%20Arias>" <gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org on behalf of francisco.arias@icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org%20on%20behalf%20of%20francisco.arias@icann.org>> wrote: Dear colleagues, I’ve attached release candidate 1 (i.e., draft final) of the gTLD RDAP profile in PDF and Office Open XML formats. This version is a redline vs the version that underwent public comment. We plan to publish the final version by the end of July. Please review and let us know if you find any glaring issues by 15 July. This version incorporates the feedback received during the public comment period we run earlier this year and this mailing list. The main changes are as follows: 1. Section 1.3.6: allow contracted parties to add fields, events, roles without further ICANN approval. 2. Section 1.4.1: clarify requirement to support queries for strings mixing A- and U-labels. 3. Section 1.5.6: clarify mapping of EPP to RDAP statuses. 4. Section 1.5.15: make registrar expiration date optional. 5. Section 1.5.23: allow contracted parties to operate RDAP test services. 6. Section 3.1.1: limit requirement for registrars to offer RDAP services for thin registrations only. 7. Section 3.1.1: clarify that registrars will only be required to offer RDAP services for thin registrations under .com, .jobs, and .net until the effective date of the Thick Whois policy. Regards, -- Francisco Arias Director, Technical Services Domain Name Services & Industry Engagement Global Domains Division ICANN PGP fingerprint: 1FDE 819F 7BEC 1CB2 127E EE54 9A4D 337B D510 E397