<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
	xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
	<channel>
		<title>George Kirikos &#45; CircleID</title>
		<link>http://www.circleid.com/</link>
		<description>Postings from George Kirikos on CircleID</description>
		<dc:language>en</dc:language>
		<dc:rights>Copyright 2008, unless where otherwise noted.</dc:rights>
		<dc:date>2008-10-24T06:12:00-08:00</dc:date>
		

		
		<item>
			<title> Will VeriSign Be Able to Engage in Tiered Pricing for .com Soon? (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20081024_verisign_tiered_domain_pricing_soon</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20081024_verisign_tiered_domain_pricing_soon</link>
			<description><![CDATA[According to the draft of new Generic Top-level Domains (gTLD) contracts for Section 7.3, "Price controls have been removed for 2008 in favor of the transparent pricing model outlined above." Section 3.2.b) of the .com registry agreement states: "ICANN shall not apply standards, policies, procedures or practices arbitrarily, unjustifiably, or inequitably and shall not single out Registry Operator for disparate treatment unless justified by substantial and reasonable cause." In my opinion, VeriSign (and other existing gTLD operators) are almost being invited to ask for their contracts to be amended... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20081024_verisign_tiered_domain_pricing_soon">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-10-24T06:12:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Potential Danger Ahead for Registrants: dot-info Abusive Domain Use Policy (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/86215_potential_danger_ahead_dot_info_policy</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/86215_potential_danger_ahead_dot_info_policy</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.icann.org/">ICANN</a> has <a href="http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/index.html#2008007">posted</a> a <a href="http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/afilias-request-20jun08.pdf">request</a> by Afilias for a new registry service in relation to "abusive" domains in dot-info. While in general the proposal is motivated by good intentions, the devil is in the details. While most folks (including myself) probably care very little about the .info TLD, my concern is that any bad implementation in .info might be copied or used as a precedent in other more important TLDs, in particular .com run by VeriSign. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/86215_potential_danger_ahead_dot_info_policy">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-06-21T16:07:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Short Domain Names Threatened by Proposed Policy on IGO Dispute Resolution Procedure (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/710118_short_domain_names_igo_udrp</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/710118_short_domain_names_igo_udrp</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ICANN staff has published a <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03920.html">draft report</a> on dispute resolution procedures for IGO (inter-governmental organization) domain names. This proposal has deep flaws and should be rejected by the community, as it does not have the balance and protection of registrant rights present in the existing <a href="http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp.htm">UDRP</a>. Initially, the proposed policy would apply to new Top-Level Domains (TLDs), but via a Policy Development Process (PDP) it could be extended to existing TLDs. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/710118_short_domain_names_igo_udrp">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2007-10-01T18:29:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Microsoft Files Three More Cybersquatting Cases (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/79133_microsoft_files_cybersquatting_cases</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/79133_microsoft_files_cybersquatting_cases</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Microsoft has filed 3 cybersquatting cases at the beginning of September 2007, as reported in an <a href="http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/newsitem.asp?ID=25423">Inside Indiana Business article</a>. I took the liberty of accessing the cases via the PACER system, and <a href="http://www.loffs.org/microsoft-cases/">posted the major documents</a>... It looks like they're stepping up efforts to defend their trademarks, and seeking big damages in court, rather than go the way of the UDRP. These cases demonstrate that new TLDs should not be a priority with ICANN until the problems in existing TLDs are addressed. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/79133_microsoft_files_cybersquatting_cases">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2007-09-13T14:58:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> iREIT Drops TM-Typo Domains? (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/78298_ireit_drops_typo_domains</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/78298_ireit_drops_typo_domains</link>
			<description><![CDATA[As faithful CircleID readers will know, <a href="http://www.ireit.com/">iREIT</a> (Internet REIT, Inc.), a Texas domain name portfolio investment corporation, has been <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/verizon_ireit_court_lawsuit/">sued</a> <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/ireit_answer_verizon_case/">by</a> Verizon and by <a href="http://www.domainstate.com/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=78752&highlight=ireit">Vulcan Golf</a> for cybersquatting. It appears iREIT is taking steps to clean up its portfolio by deleting obvious typos of famous trademarks... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/78298_ireit_drops_typo_domains">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2007-08-29T08:23:01-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Greater Transparency in Domain Name Pricing (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/070807_transparency_domain_name_pricing</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/070807_transparency_domain_name_pricing</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://services.tucows.com/">Tucows</a> issued a <a href="http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-07-2007/0004640536&EDATE=">press release</a> today wherein they announced lower domain name pricing and enhanced services. The bigger change, which might set a trend for other registrars, is the greater transparency of the registry and ICANN fees relative to the fees charged by Tucows... If all registrars were to quote domain name prices in this manner (I had called it "Asterisk Prices" when I had suggested the idea to various registrars last December, for lack of a better term), it would shift the blame to ICANN and the monopoly registry operators (e.g. VeriSign) every time they raised their fees. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/070807_transparency_domain_name_pricing">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2007-08-07T08:43:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Neustar Losing .us Could Be Good for .com Registrants (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/neustar_losing_us_domain_name</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/neustar_losing_us_domain_name</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.neustar.com/">Neustar</a> is facing a potential loss of the Dot-US franchise as <a href="http://www.dnalliance.us/archives/000032.html">competitors</a> bid against them. Why might this be of interest to .com registrants? ...The issue of antitrust with regards to the .com agreement has never really been properly settled, as a well-funded complainant hasn't brought forward a case to full fruition in the courts. ICANN sold out the public by agreeing to a settlement that would see its own coffers swell, at the expense of registrants, so they do not count. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/neustar_losing_us_domain_name">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2007-07-31T13:18:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> BMW Goes After BMW.cat (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/bmw_goes_after_bmwcat</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/bmw_goes_after_bmwcat</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In one of the first (if not the first) UDRP cases for .cat, the auto giant BMW appears to have <a href="http://www.wipo.int/cgi-bin/domains/search/CaseCatReport?lang=en&case_id=11212">filed a WIPO case</a> over the BMW.cat domain name. Other prospective new TLD operators have tried to suggest in ICANN meetings that these new TLDs do not cause problems with cybersquatting or defensive registrations... Obviously, given the above WIPO case, that statement is false. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/bmw_goes_after_bmwcat">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2007-06-28T16:40:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Defendant iREIT's Answer in the Verizon Case (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/ireit_answer_verizon_case</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/ireit_answer_verizon_case</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Defendant <a href="http://www.ireit.com/">iREIT</a> filed its <a href="http://www.loffs.org/verizon-vs-ireit/">answer on May 25, 2007</a>, to the recent complaint by <a href="http://www.verizon.com/">Verizon</a> alleging cybersquatting. As in the <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/verizon_ireit_court_lawsuit/">prior article</a>, these are the public court documents and nothing has been proven by either side in a court of law. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/ireit_answer_verizon_case">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2007-05-28T15:56:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> WIPO Snafu Over britishmuseum.org Case? (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/wipo_britishmuseum_org_case</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/wipo_britishmuseum_org_case</link>
			<description><![CDATA[WIPO just published a [url=http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-0142.html]decision[/url] regarding the domain dispute over the britishmuseum.org domain name. At first glance, everything seems alright. The world famous British Museum won in a default judgment as the current registrant (the respondent) never replied). However, drill a little deeper and something is amiss. The "parties" section of the case lists the respondent as "[i]British Museum Resources, Limited, West Bay, George Town, Kentucky, United States of America[/i]." <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/wipo_britishmuseum_org_case">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2007-04-26T07:59:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Verizon vs. iREIT et al Court Documents: What Can We Learn? (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/verizon_ireit_court_lawsuit</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/verizon_ireit_court_lawsuit</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Verizon filed sued against iREIT and Domain Marketplace a couple of weeks ago in a Texas court, alleging cybersquatting. David Kesmodel's blog broke the <a href="http://kesmodel.wordpress.com/2007/04/05/verizon-sues-ireit-for-alleged-cybersquatting/">story</a>, and I used the PACER system to obtain the court filings, which are <a href="http://www.loffs.org/verizon-vs-ireit/">posted here</a>. Exhibit 5 makes fascinating reading, especially when point #43 in the main statement of claim says "Exhibit 5 details only one famous trademark for each letter of the alphabet." <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/verizon_ireit_court_lawsuit">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2007-04-10T15:54:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> An Alternative to .XXX: IANA Adult Port Assignments (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/alternative_to_xxx_iana_assignments</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/alternative_to_xxx_iana_assignments</link>
			<description><![CDATA[As an alternative to the creation of the .XXX TLD, ICANN/IANA can assign special port numbers that can be used to label adult content. IANA assigns port numbers as part of its duties. For example, port 80 is reserved for the HTTP protocol (i.e. the World Wide Web). Port 443 is reserved for the HTTPS protocol (SSL-secure version of HTTP). Port 23 is for Telnet, port 25 is for SMTP, and so on. One can see the full <a href="http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers">list at here</a>... In a real sense, the IANA port assignments are just suggestions to the world as to what to expect on certain ports, whether it be a mail server, WHOIS, FTP, POP email or any other service/protocol. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/alternative_to_xxx_iana_assignments">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2007-03-17T09:13:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Dot-XXX and Tiered/Differential Pricing: Permitted? (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/dot_xxx_tiered_differential_pricing_permitted</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/dot_xxx_tiered_differential_pricing_permitted</link>
			<description><![CDATA[As folks will recall, there was a <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/icann_tiered_pricing_tld_biz_info_org_domain/">big debate about tiered/differential pricing in the .biz/info/org contracts</a>. Eventually those contracts were amended to prevent that. However, if folks read the <a href="http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/xxx/proposed-xxx-agmt-05jan07.pdf">.XXX proposed contractv [PDF]</a>, Appendix S, Part 2, under "delegated authority" (page 66 of the PDF), appears to give the Registry Operator total control to make policy regarding pricing. Thus, it would appear they are in a position to re-price domains that later become successful... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/dot_xxx_tiered_differential_pricing_permitted">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2007-02-08T11:43:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> ICANN Confirms: Tiered Pricing Not Forbidden in New .BIZ, .INFO and .ORG Contracts (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/icann_tiered_pricing_tld_biz_info_org_domain</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/icann_tiered_pricing_tld_biz_info_org_domain</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I finally got the "official" word from Vint Cerf of ICANN, "on the record", who confirmed that my interpretation is correct, that differential/tiered pricing on a domain-by-domain basis would not be forbidden under the .biz/info/org proposed contracts. This means that the registries could charge $100,000/yr for sex.biz, $25,000/yr for movies.org, etc. if they wanted to -- it would not be forbidden the way the proposed contracts are currently written. This would represent a powerful pricing weapon for registries, and a fundamental shift in possible domain name pricing, that could lead them to emulate .tv-style price schedules. It doesn't mean they will necessarily do it, but it's not forbidden. When a contract doesn't forbid something bad, it implicitly allows it... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/icann_tiered_pricing_tld_biz_info_org_domain">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2006-08-23T16:23:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> VeriSign Director Charged with Securities Fraud (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/verisign_director_charged_with_securities_fraud</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/verisign_director_charged_with_securities_fraud</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Bloomberg is <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ag12rVboL69c&refer=home">reporting</a> that Gregory Reyes is facing criminal and civil charges in relation to securities fraud. <a href="http://today.reuters.com/stocks/QuoteCompanyNewsArticle.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2006-07-20T193548Z_01_WBT005682_RTRIDST_0_ACCOUNTING-OPTIONS-SEC-URGENT.XML&rpc=66">Reuters</a> and the <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/technology/15084417.htm">Mercury News</a> also have coverage. "Former Brocade Communications Systems Inc. Chief Executive Officer Gregory Reyes became the first CEO charged in the U.S. probe of the backdating of stock option grants to create lucrative employee pay packages." <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/verisign_director_charged_with_securities_fraud">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2006-07-20T13:00:01-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
	</channel>
</rss>