Data Escrow: Difference between revisions

m Reverted to stable version
Tag: Rollback
Applied modification ruleset: Corrections using AWB-ICW patterns
 
Line 12: Line 12:
[[Iron Mountain]] was selected in 2001 to serve as ICANN's preferred provider for registry data escrow.<ref>[http://www.ironmountain.com/Services/Technology-Escrow-Services/Domain-Name-Registry-Data-Escrow.aspx Domain Name Registry Data Escrow, icann.org]</ref>
[[Iron Mountain]] was selected in 2001 to serve as ICANN's preferred provider for registry data escrow.<ref>[http://www.ironmountain.com/Services/Technology-Escrow-Services/Domain-Name-Registry-Data-Escrow.aspx Domain Name Registry Data Escrow, icann.org]</ref>


There are currently 4 active versions of the Registry Escrow Agreement. Most gTLDs use Version 1, which is based off of the 2001 .com agreement; Version 2 is used by [[.travel]]; Version 3 by the [[.aero]], [[.coop]], and [[.museum]] [[sTLD|Sponsored TLDs]]; and Version 4 by [[.name]] and [[.pro]].
There are currently 4 active versions of the Registry Escrow Agreement. Most gTLDs use Version 1, which is based on the 2001 .com agreement; Version 2 is used by [[.travel]]; Version 3 by the [[.aero]], [[.coop]], and [[.museum]] [[sTLD|Sponsored TLDs]]; and Version 4 by [[.name]] and [[.pro]].


Several of the original [[ccTLD]] Sponsorship Agreements and [[MoU]]s also contained provisions for registry escrow. In 2004, however, ICANN moved away from the Sponsorship Agreement and MOU formats, opting for a lightweight Accountability Format, which does not contain detailed provisions for registry escrow, though it does encourage ccTLD managers to operate in a manner compliant to current [[IETF]] standards.<ref>[http://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/data-escrow-report05mar07.htm#Historical ICANN's gTLD Registry Data Escrow Requirements, icann.org]</ref>
Several of the original [[ccTLD]] Sponsorship Agreements and [[MoU]]s also contained provisions for registry escrow. In 2004, however, ICANN moved away from the Sponsorship Agreement and MOU formats, opting for a lightweight Accountability Format, which does not contain detailed provisions for registry escrow, though it does encourage ccTLD managers to operate in a manner compliant to current [[IETF]] standards.<ref>[http://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/data-escrow-report05mar07.htm#Historical ICANN's gTLD Registry Data Escrow Requirements, icann.org]</ref>