Dear colleagues, Regarding open issue I.4 Whether to require implementation of differentiated access in RDAP for gTLD Registries. In section 1.4.11 of v12 the profile allows those that have a contract provision or once there is a consensus policy to offer differentiated access. The Registry Agreement for new gTLDs and the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement are clear about not allowing differentiated access when they say about the Registration Data Directory Services (a.k.a. Whois) output: "The fields specified below set forth the minimum output requirements." or "The format of responses shall contain all the elements and follow a semi-free text format outline below.” For the three legacy gTLDs that have differentiated access in their registry agreements, there are, at least two models. One model describes two levels of access (similar to Andrew's proposal shared in this list) for .tel and .cat. Another model includes four levels of access for .name. Additionally, there is a Policy Development Process (PDP) initiating on Registry Directory Services (http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201511) that will consider the broader issue of access to registration data, including the potential for differentiated access as described in the adopted Charter for the PDP working group (see Annex C of the Final Issues Report at https://whois.icann.org/sites/default/files/files/final-issue-report-next-g eneration-rds-07oct15-en.pdf). Given the ongoing discussions and work in the community on differentiated access, it is premature to include a requirement for all gTLDs in the RDAP Profile. For parties interested in differentiated access, we’d recommend to participate in the upcoming Registry Directory Services PDP, where a call for volunteers is expected to go out next January. I plan to forward the call for volunteers to this list when I see it. Regards, -- Francisco.