I think there are two parts to your question. First, the Registry Stakeholder 
Group (RySG) request for reconsideration that triggered this proposal; perhaps 
someone else in this list (from the RySG) can speak to that.

The second part would be ICANN organization’s proposal to address the RySG 
request. ICANN is putting for the community’s consideration to do as requested 
by the RySG and remove the requirement to implement RDAP. We are looking to 
learn what other members from the community have to say.

Regards,

-- 
Francisco


On 9/21/16, 2:12 PM, "Andrew Newton" <a...@hxr.us> wrote:

    Is there a reason being given?
    
    -andy
    
    On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Francisco Arias
    <francisco.ar...@icann.org> wrote:
    > 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