Changes

==Initial Issues==

==Initial Issues==

ICANN was immediately faced with two pressing, and competing issues; that is, the task of reigning in [[cybersquatting]] by creating policies necessary to protect recognized trademarks, and conversely the need to expand the number of entities accredited to function as [[registrars]]. Following the release of the [[White Paper]], [[WIPO]] began its own research into how to protect trademarks and intellectual property within the changing [[DNS]]. A congressional hearing some 7 months after the empowerment of ICANN recognized the steps that the new entity had already taken to protect intellectual property, recognized the headway WIPO had made in creating further proposals, and called on intellectual property owners to become involved in ICANN. <ref>[http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju63594.000/hju63594_0f.htm Congressional Hearing, July 1999]</ref>

ICANN was immediately faced with two pressing, and opposing issues; that is, the task of reigning in [[cybersquatting]] by creating policies necessary to protect recognized trademarks, and conversely the need to expand the number of entities accredited to function as [[registrars]]. Following the release of the [[White Paper]], [[WIPO]] began its own research into how to protect trademarks and intellectual property within the changing [[DNS]]. A congressional hearing some 7 months after the empowerment of ICANN recognized the steps that the new entity had already taken to protect intellectual property, recognized the headway WIPO had made in creating further proposals, and called on intellectual property owners to become involved in ICANN. <ref>[http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju63594.000/hju63594_0f.htm Congressional Hearing, July 1999]</ref>

WIPO's report, submitted to ICANN at their 1999 meeting in Berlin, supported the [[Whois]] system, but also recommended that, should the [[Whois]] system fail to provide adequate contact information for the trademark holder to contact the domain name holder, the [[registrar]] should be obliged to rectify the situation by canceling the domain name holder's rights to the name. ICANN immediately took steps to develop the nascent [[Whois]] system.

WIPO's report, submitted to ICANN at their 1999 meeting in Berlin, supported the [[Whois]] system, but also recommended that, should the [[Whois]] system fail to provide adequate contact information for the trademark holder to contact the domain name holder, the [[registrar]] should be obliged to rectify the situation by canceling the domain name holder's rights to the name. ICANN immediately took steps to develop the nascent [[Whois]] system.

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 [[|Registrar Accreditation Agreement|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 required. Application fees for those applying to be included in the Phase 1 testbed cost $2,500, the general application fee was $1,000. Annual accreditation fees, amounting to $5,000, would also be assessed.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/policy_statement.html Statement of Registrar Accreditation Policy]</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 required. Application fees for those applying to be included in the Phase 1 testbed cost $2,500, the general application fee was $1,000. Annual accreditation fees, amounting to $5,000, would also be assessed.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/policy_statement.html Statement of Registrar Accreditation Policy]</ref>

====The Testbed Period====

====The Testbed Period====

Numerous technical problems plagued the testbed period of the [[SRS]].<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/update-14jun99.htm Andrew McLaughlin Memorandum]</ref> The aforementioned Amendment 12 established the testbed period as phase 1 of the deployment of the SRS, and set a start date of April 26th, 1999, and an end date of June 25th, 1999.<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/amend12.htm Amendment 12]</ref> [[Register.com]] finally became the first competitive registrar to successfully implement its interface with the SRS, this happened 6 weeks into the 2 month testbed period. The technical difficulties also extended to the deployment of the required [[Whois]] system.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/update-14jun99.htm Andrew McLaughlin Memorandum]</ref> Throughout the testbed period general applications for the later phases were being accepted.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accreditation-history.htm ICANN Accreditation History]</ref> The [[DOC|Department of Commerce]] and the [[NSI]] extended the testbed period until November 5th, 1999, in order to provide adequate time for [[Registrar|registrars]]  and ICANN to address the problems with implementing the [[SRS]].<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/nsi/factsheet.htm Fact Sheet on Tentative Agreements among ICANN, the U.S. Department of Commerce, and Network Solutions, Inc.]</ref>

Numerous technical problems plagued the testbed period of the [[SRS]].<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/update-14jun99.htm Andrew McLaughlin Memorandum]</ref> The aforementioned Amendment 12 established the testbed period as phase 1 of the deployment of the SRS, and set a start date of April 26th, 1999, and an end date of June 25th, 1999.<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/amend12.htm Amendment 12]</ref> [[Register.com]] finally became the first competitive registrar to successfully implement its interface with the SRS, this happened 6 weeks into the 2 month testbed period. The technical difficulties also extended to the deployment of the required [[Whois]] system.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/update-14jun99.htm Andrew McLaughlin Memorandum]</ref> Throughout the testbed period general applications for the later phases were being accepted.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accreditation-history.htm ICANN Accreditation History]</ref> The [[DOC|Department of Commerce]] and the [[NSI]] extended the testbed period until November 5th, 1999, in order to provide adequate time for [[Registrar|registrars]]  and ICANN to address the problems with implementing the [[SRS]].<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/nsi/factsheet.htm Fact Sheet on Tentative Agreements among ICANN, the U.S. Department of Commerce, and Network Solutions, Inc.]</ref>