Changes

A month before the [[MoU]] officially recognized ICANN, the [[DOC|Department of Commerce]] and [[NSI]] amended their cooperative agreement. The agreement had previously maintained the [[NSI]] as the only registrar for the [[.com]], [[.org]], and [[.net]] domains.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accreditation-history.htm accreditation history]</ref> The three amendments to the agreement removed the exclusive rights of NSI; amendment 11 called for the creation of a [[SRS|Shared Registry System]] whereby an unlimited number of competitive registrars would have access to one system managed by NSI.<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/docnsi100698.htm NTIA Amendment 11]</ref> Amendment 12 gave more time to NSI to complete important milestones in the liberalization of registry services; the final phase, which called for equal access to the [[SRS]] by all accredited [[Registrar|registrars]], was now given a deadline of  about one year, October 25th, 1999.<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/amend12.htm NTIA Amendment 12]</ref> Amendment 13 attached a $9 fee for each [[SLD|second level domain]] name registered, payable as $18 for new registrations and $9 per year on the anniversary of the original registration.<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/amendment13.htm NTIA Amendment 13]</ref>

A month before the [[MoU]] officially recognized ICANN, the [[DOC|Department of Commerce]] and [[NSI]] amended their cooperative agreement. The agreement had previously maintained the [[NSI]] as the only registrar for the [[.com]], [[.org]], and [[.net]] domains.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accreditation-history.htm accreditation history]</ref> The three amendments to the agreement removed the exclusive rights of NSI; amendment 11 called for the creation of a [[SRS|Shared Registry System]] whereby an unlimited number of competitive registrars would have access to one system managed by NSI.<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/docnsi100698.htm NTIA Amendment 11]</ref> Amendment 12 gave more time to NSI to complete important milestones in the liberalization of registry services; the final phase, which called for equal access to the [[SRS]] by all accredited [[Registrar|registrars]], was now given a deadline of  about one year, October 25th, 1999.<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/amend12.htm NTIA Amendment 12]</ref> Amendment 13 attached a $9 fee for each [[SLD|second level domain]] name registered, payable as $18 for new registrations and $9 per year on the anniversary of the original registration.<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/amendment13.htm NTIA Amendment 13]</ref>

On February 8th, 1999, ICANN posted its Draft Guidelines for [[Registrar]] Accreditation for public commentary.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accreditation-history.htm ICANN Accreditation History]</ref> The guidelines were formed through consultation with the [[DOC]] and [[NSI]], and further tailored after the session of public commentary.<ref>[http://www.mail-archive.com/list@ifwp.org/msg01253.html Mail Archive]</ref> Some issues raised during the period of public commentary include: concerns regarding the inherent bureaucracy, inadequate protections for intellectual property, and the reasoning behind accrediting registrars before the [[DNSO]] was constituted.<ref>[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/singapore-0399/archive/scribe.html Harvard Law Singapore Document]</ref> The ICANN board accepted the revised Statement of Registrar Accreditation Policy at their March, 1999 meeting in Singapore.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accreditation-history.htm ICANN Accreditation History]</ref>

On February 8th, 1999, ICANN posted its Draft Guidelines for [[Registrar]] Accreditation for public commentary.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accreditation-history.htm ICANN Accreditation History]</ref> The guidelines were formed through consultation with the [[DOC]] and [[NSI]], and further tailored after the session of public commentary.<ref>[http://www.mail-archive.com/list@ifwp.org/msg01253.html Mail Archive]</ref> Some issues raised during the period of public commentary include: concerns regarding the inherent bureaucracy, inadequate protections for intellectual property, and the reasoning behind accrediting registrars before the [[DNSO]] was constituted.<ref>[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/singapore-0399/archive/scribe.html Harvard Law Singapore Document]</ref> The ICANN board accepted the revised [[Statement of Registrar Accreditation Policy]] at their March, 1999 meeting in Singapore.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accreditation-history.htm ICANN Accreditation History]</ref>

 

The initial policy called for [[Registrar|registrars]] to provide secure access to the [[Registry|registry]], be operationally capable of handling significant registration volume, maintain electronic transaction records, handle and provide prompt service to [[SLD]] requests, provide security, handle seamless transfers of customers who desire to switch registrars, employ an adequately sized staff, and have measures in place to protect the interests of their customers should the registrar fail. The registrar would also have to demonstrate that it had a sufficient liability insurance policy and store of liquid assets. A concern over creating and maintaining a valid registry service is evidenced in the requirement that information regarding each registrant of a [[SLD]] would have to be submitted by the registrar to [[NSI]] for inclusion in its registry. Providing a searchable [[Whois]] service was also eequired.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/policy_statement.html ICANN]</ref>

==References==

==References==

{{reflist}}

{{reflist}}