Hi John

> 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 
>> proposal;
>> 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 
requirement to 
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 
of RDAP.>>


Jay Daley
Chief Executive
desk: +64 4 931 6977
mobile: +64 21 678840
linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/jaydaley

regext mailing list

Reply via email to