-----Original Message----- From: Francisco Arias [mailto:francisco.arias@icann.org] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 6:07 PM To: Hollenbeck, Scott Cc: gtld-tech@icann.org Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] Draft RDAP Operational Profile for gTLD Registries and Registrars
On 2/3/16, 4:31 AM, "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> wrote:
Francisco, about a month ago I sent this message to this list:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-tech/2016-January/000577.html
You asked a few clarifying questions, which I answered. My last reply sent on 13 January:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-tech/2016-January/000592.html
I never did receive an answer to my original question:
"Will those that do not be able to defer implementation until the needed "agreement provision, waiver, or Consensus Policy" terms are in place?"
Since we are considering at least 6 months between request and deadline to implement RDAP, I’d think an interested registry would have enough time to follow the process prescribed in its agreement to obtain an amendment to have differentiated access, no?
Another question 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. Scott