Hi James,

> On Mar 16, 2016, at 10:57 PM, James Gannon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

[SNIP]

> The important that that we need to ensure on the technical/operational side, and as stated in the IABs comment, is to make sure that any technical decisions that ICANN takes at this point in allowing registrars/registries to utilised the RDAP profile is that it gives the broadest range of options to the PDP from a policy perspective, if we lock down the technical aspects at this early stage and do not implement the technical ability of RDAP to provide authenticated and differentiated access then we come to a quandary of implementation during the PDP on the policy side where arguments will be made that the technical implication doesn’t match with the policy.

Interesting that you raise this now. There is another open public comment period on a draft implementation plan for “thick” whois consistent labelling and display. The document under review states that implementation of RDAP is one of the consensus policies coming out of “thick” whois, and that it is necessary for all gTLD registries to “achieve consistent labeling and display in the replacement for (port-43) whois”.

I don’t remember any recommendations coming out of “thick” whois concerning RDAP at all, so not sure how it is a consensus policy now, but I wonder if this may prove problematic in the context you described — in terms of possibly locking down technical aspects before the next-gen. RDS PDP is done with its policy work.

The public comment period on the proposed implementation plan for “thick” whois for consistent labelling and display of data also ends tomorrow.

Thanks.

Amr