+1 Ron Geens DNS Belgium .be/.vlaanderen/.brussels On 14 Jan 2016, at 13:27, Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck@verisign.com<mailto:shollenbeck@verisign.com>> wrote: -----Original Message----- From: Francisco Arias [mailto:francisco.arias@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 4:03 PM To: Hollenbeck, Scott Cc: gtld-tech@icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] Draft RDAP Operational Profile for gTLD Registries and Registrars On 1/12/16, 9:59 AM, "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com<mailto:shollenbeck@verisign.com>> wrote: What implementation are you suggesting to be deferred? Are we talking about more than one? As I understand it, the profile has been written to describe proposed RDAP implementation requirements for gTLD registries and registrars. I'm asking if registries and registrars that wish to support tiered access will be able to defer an RDAP implementation until an agreement provision, waiver, or Consensus Policy that allows tiered access for more than 3 out of 901 gTLDs is in place. 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? The answer is described in this blog post: http://blogs.verisign.com/blog/entry/as_whois_transitions_to_rdap http://www.circleid.com/posts/20151123_as_whois_transitions_to_rdap_how_do_w... Summary: I'm deeply concerned that a production implementation of RDAP that is designed to provide "complete functionality equivalence with WHOIS" (quoted from the profile discussion session in Dublin) without taking advantage of the new features in RDAP is itself functionally incomplete and inadequate. I want to be able to deploy an implementation of RDAP that addresses the deficiencies of WHOIS without first having to deploy (and later replace (probably more than once) as the multitude of ICANN's WHOIS-fixing policy efforts evolve) something that is little more than JSON-encoded WHOIS. Scott