Thank you for this, Roger, Michele, and Theo. I’d suggest you to make this point in the public comment forum at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rdap-profile-2015-12-03-en Regards, -- Francisco. On 12/8/15, 12:03 PM, "gtheo" <gtheo@xs4all.nl> wrote:
This crossed my mind also.
Thanks
Theo Geurts
Realtime Register B.V.
Michele Neylon - Blacknight schreef op 2015-12-08 12:21 PM:
Why on earth would we go the expense of implementing this if it’s: - temporary - we can’t use proper ACLs etc., due to gaps in the ICANN policy
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
On 07/12/2015, 9:42 p.m., "gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Roger D Carney" <gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org on behalf of rcarney@godaddy.com> wrote:
Good Afternoon,
Thanks Francisco for providing some great context around each of these updates.
I believe the wording in 3.1.1 will cause some confusion with the intent of this update in 2.3, with 3.1.1 stating all sponsored names whereas the intent being only thin sponsored names.
Additionally, I would like to confirm that according to the wording in this latest draft, ICANN is suggesting that all Registrars sponsoring names in any thin registry will be obligated to create and manage code and infrastructure for a temporary RDAP server implementation that will be rendered useless and most likely be discarded once the three remaining thin TLDs are moved to thick?
Thanks Roger
-----Original Message----- From: gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Francisco Arias Sent: Friday, December 04, 2015 4:57 PM To: gtld-tech@icann.org Subject: [gtld-tech] Whether registrars have to implement a RDAP service
Dear colleagues,
Regarding open issue I.3 Whether registrars have to implement a RDAP service.
In section 2.3 of v12 we say that registrars MUST offer RDAP service for all "thin registrations” that they sponsor. There appears to be no benefit in requiring registrars to offer RDAP service for a thick registration. Please note that the requirements is regarding individual registrations as opposed to TLD-wise. We included a definition for “thin registration”.
Regards,
-- Francisco.