On 14 Jan 2016, at 13:27, Hollenbeck, Scott <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
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>
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_we_avoid_the_same_mistakes/

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