The proposal is that neither registrars nor registries in the gTLD space would 
have to do RDAP (at least not for now). In other words, the proposal is to 
reverse the requirement that went out on 26 July to gTLD registries and 
registrars. There is no timeline on when the request could be reissued.

Per the email below, should you have comments or concerns, please feel free to 
submit them to the list gnso-impl-thickwhois...@icann.org before 4-Oct.

Regards,

-- 
Francisco

On 9/21/16, 11:39 AM, "Andrew Newton" <a...@hxr.us> wrote:

    For those of us who don't speak ICANNanian, does this mean domain
    registrars do not have to implement RDAP and that domain registries
    have until March 4, 2017 to implement it?
    
    -andy
    
    On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Francisco Arias
    <francisco.ar...@icann.org> wrote:
    > FYI,
    >
    >
    >
    > On 9/21/16, 10:41 AM, "gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-boun...@icann.org on behalf
    > of Dennis Chang" <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-boun...@icann.org on behalf of
    > dennis.ch...@icann.org> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > Dear IRT members,
    >
    >
    >
    > As you know, on 7 February 2014, the ICANN Board adopted GNSO consensus
    > policy recommendations regarding the provision of “Thick” Whois by all 
gTLD
    > registries.
    >
    >
    >
    > In consultation with the consensus policy Implementation Review Team 
(IRT),
    > the implementation team identified two expected outcomes in the policy
    > development process (PDP) recommendations:
    >
    > The consistent labeling and display of WHOIS output for all gTLDs
    > The transition from Thin to Thick WHOIS for .COM, .NET and .JOBS
    >
    >
    >
    > The first outcome was published as a consensus policy, the Registry
    > Registration Data Directory Services Consistent Labeling and Display 
Policy
    > (CL&D Policy), on 26 July 2016.
    >
    >
    >
    > In August 2016, the Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG) submitted a Request
    > for Reconsideration (RfR) regarding the CL&D Policy. The RfR objects to 
the
    > inclusion of RDAP as part of the Consensus Policy as RDAP was not
    > contemplated or referenced in the policy recommendations.
    >
    >
    >
    > To resolve this matter, ICANN proposes the following path forward for the
    > IRT:
    >
    >
    >
    > 1. ICANN to issue a revised CL&D Policy to all registry operators, 
removing
    > provision 12. For your reference, provision 12 states: “The implementation
    > of an RDAP service in accordance with the "RDAP Operational Profile for 
gTLD
    > Registries and Registrars" is required for all gTLD registries in order to
    > achieve consistent labeling and display.” Additionally, I have attached 
the
    > proposed revised CL&D Policy.
    >
    >
    >
    > 2. Issue a revised notification to registry operators regarding
    > implementation of the CL&D Policy, clearly indicating what has changed in
    > the revised CL&D Policy.
    >
    >
    >
    > 3. Set the revised CL&D Policy effective date to allow for full 6-month
    > implementation from the date of the revised notice.
    >
    >
    >
    > 4. Update the published CL&D Policy on the ICANN website, noting a change
    > has been made. Note: The revised CL&D Policy would not be subject to 
another
    > Public Comment process.
    >
    >
    >
    > 5. Rescind the notification sent to registrars to implement RDAP.
    >
    >
    >
    > ICANN intends to issue notices for registries and registrars to implement
    > RDAP after further dialogue with the community.
    >
    >
    >
    > Please let us know if you have comments or concerns by responding to this
    > list (gnso-impl-thickwhois...@icann.org). Unless we hear otherwise, we
    > intend to move forward with the plan outlined above on 4 October 2016.
    >
    >
    >
    > —
    >
    > Kind Regards,
    >
    > Dennis S. Chang
    >
    > GDD Services & Engagement Program Director
    >
    > +1 213 293 7889
    >
    > Skype: dennisSchang
    >
    > www.icann.org   "One World, One Internet"
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > regext mailing list
    > regext@ietf.org
    > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
    >
    

_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

Reply via email to