Fagyal Csongor wrote:
>
> Sue,
>
> I am not an expert, but I think after the introduction of the new TLDs there
> will be a big "gold-rush" for new names under the new TLDs. However, there
You don't have to worry too much as ICANN won't allow any registry to
monopolize
any single, Unsponsored, and Unrestricted gTLD. Such gTLDs
(Unsponsored/Unrestricted)
I believe shall operate in a shared manner similar to com/net/org. There
will
be some kind of SRS based on the NSI RRP protocol.
I quote from ICANN site :-
----[http://www.icann.org/nsi/nsi-agreements.htm]-----------
On September 28, 1999, the United States Department of Commerce, Network
Solutions, Inc. (NSI), and ICANN announced a series of
agreements they had tentatively reached to resolve outstanding
differences among the three parties. On November 4, 1999, based on
public
comment in writing and at a public forum held at the 1999 ICANN annual
meeting, the ICANN Board approved revised versions of these
agreements. The agreements were signed by the three parties on November
10, 1999.
The approved agreements are as follows:
NSI/ICANN Registry Agreement
Revised Registrar Accreditation Agreement (between ICANN and
registrars)
ICANN/NSI Registrar Transition Agreement (between ICANN and NSI
regarding transition from legacy registration business)
Revised Registrar License and Agreement (between NSI and
registrars)
Amendment 19 to the DOC/NSI Cooperative Agreement
Amendment 1 to the DOC/ICANN Memorandum of Understanding
NSI has also provided a letter announcing its intent to publish the SRS
RRP as an informational RFC.
The revised Registrar Accreditation Agreement makes "consensus policies"
applicable to registrars even though they are adopted after the
date the registrar accreditation agreement is entered. See
http://www.icann.org/consensus-policies.htm.
----end---------------------------------
Common sense will tell you that there is no point of ICANN forcing NSI
to publish **PUBLICLY** the SRS RRP specs unless
ICANN planed earlier to make all gTLDs shared like com/net/org. If this
is the case, you, Open SRS RSPs will be happy,
I guess :-)
I hope that helped.
