> On 23/09/2016, at 7:52 AM, John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote:
> In article <83c4fe76-52e8-48ed-b6c2-0691555d3...@icann.org> you write:
>> I think there are two parts to your question. First, the Registry
>> Stakeholder Group (RySG) request for reconsideration that triggered this
>> perhaps someone else in this list (from the RySG) can speak to that.
> I took a look at the request and I read it as saying that RDAP would
> cost money, and if it turns out that the final RDAP spec is different,
> they'll have to spend even more money. I didn't see any compelling
> technical issues. Needless to say, registries deeply resent anything
> that requires them to spend money, particularly the new gTLDs whose
> business plans are imploding.
It’s not about the money, that’s a red-herring as is the subsequent thread on
this point. The reasons given are clearly stated:
<<This policy implementation improperly conflates the Consistent Labeling and
(CL&D) Policy with ICANN’s request for registry operators to implement a new
standard for registration data display.
In addition, ICANN’s request to implement the new standard includes a
adopt a staff-developed operational profile and an additional requirement that
operators update their reporting to ICANN;
neither of these requirements are permitted by ICANN’s agreements with
affected registry operators.
We therefore seek the following relief:
● All references to the implementation of the Registration Data Access Protocol
(RDAP) be removed from the CL&D Policy; and
● The requirements for registry operators to adopt ICANN’s operational profile
and update their reporting be removed from ICANN’s request for implementation
desk: +64 4 931 6977
mobile: +64 21 678840
regext mailing list