<?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 2010, unless where otherwise noted.</dc:rights>
		<dc:date>2009-09-30T12:49:00-08:00</dc:date>
		

		
		<item>
			<title> DOC to ICANN: Time to End Double-Weighted Voting of Registries and Registrars (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090930_doc_to_icann_end_double_weighted_voting_registries_registrar</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090930_doc_to_icann_end_double_weighted_voting_registries_registrar</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The US Department of Commerce and ICANN announced today an <em>Affirmation of Commitments</em>. One of the important elements of that document was in section 4, namely that "ICANN and DOC recognize that there is a group of participants that engage in ICANN's processes to a greater extent than Internet users generally." <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090930_doc_to_icann_end_double_weighted_voting_registries_registrar">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2009-09-30T12:49:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Most Popular Invalid TLDs Should Be Reserved (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090618_most_popular_invalid_tlds_should_be_reserved</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090618_most_popular_invalid_tlds_should_be_reserved</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Some of the root server operators post public statistics for their domain name traffic at the top-level. For example, the graph (which can take a bit of time to generate, given ICANN's slow servers) for the L-root server's most popular Top-Level Domain (TLD) queries demonstrates, to no one's surprise, that .com is king. What's more interesting, though, especially given the new generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) debate, is to look at the most popular invalid (non-existent) TLDs. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090618_most_popular_invalid_tlds_should_be_reserved">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2009-06-18T13:38:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> How is ICANN Spending Your Money? (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/how_is_icann_spending_your_money</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/how_is_icann_spending_your_money</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ICANN has released their IRS Form 990 statements for the year ending June 30, 2008... ICANN says they use for-profit companies as comparables when determining employee compensation. However, even in the middle of a great recession, salaries have been going up, up, and up! <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/how_is_icann_spending_your_money">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2009-06-17T17:11:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Deeply, Deeply Flawed Economic Report and Analysis of New gTLDs Posted by ICANN (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090304_flawed_economic_report_gtlds_icann</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090304_flawed_economic_report_gtlds_icann</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-04mar09-en.htm">reports and analysis by Dr. Dennis Carlton</a> are deeply, deeply flawed. I will prepare a long rebuttal to it in the coming weeks, but wanted to go on the record early as to its weaknesses. The analysis appears to be based on a very limited review of the market for domain names, and utilizes little actual data. It fails to even consider how nuanced the market for domain names has become, and how registry operators can exploit those nuances, including tiered-pricing... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090304_flawed_economic_report_gtlds_icann">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2009-03-04T20:54:01-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Threat of Tiered Pricing Continues in New gTLD Guidebook Version 2 (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090219_tiered_pricing_continues_in_new_gtld_guidebook</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090219_tiered_pricing_continues_in_new_gtld_guidebook</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The draft New gTLD Applicant Guidebook (version 2) has been released along with an analysis of the comments to the prior version. The documents are voluminous. I glanced at the revised draft Base Agreement, and it's clearly unacceptable as there continue to be no price caps in place to protect domain name registrants... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090219_tiered_pricing_continues_in_new_gtld_guidebook">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2009-02-19T08:06:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> PIR's Anti-Abuse Policy for .ORG Offers No Due Process for Innocent Domain Registrants (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090108_pir_anti_abuse_policy_domain_names</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090108_pir_anti_abuse_policy_domain_names</link>
			<description><![CDATA[PIR, the registry operator for .org, has sent notices to registrars that it is implementing an anti-abuse policy that offers no due process for innocent domain registrants... While it's good intentioned, there is great potential for innocent domain registrants to suffer harm, given the lack of appropriate safeguards, the lack of precision and open-ended definition of "abuse", the sole discretion of the registry operator to delete domains, and the general lack of due process. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090108_pir_anti_abuse_policy_domain_names">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2009-01-08T13:20:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> WIPO Proposal for Paperless UDRP (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090108_wipo_proposal_paperless_udrp</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090108_wipo_proposal_paperless_udrp</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The <a href="http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/">World Intellectual Property Organization</a> (WIPO) has sent to ICANN a <a href="http://www.icann.org/correspondence/wilbers-to-jeffrey-08oct08.pdf">letter proposing Paperless Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)</a>... This would save considerable amounts of paper, reduce courier charges (as the notice weighs far less than the full complaint), and thus would be good for the environment. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090108_wipo_proposal_paperless_udrp">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2009-01-08T10:50:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> ICANN Uses For-Profit Companies as "Comparables" in Its Employee Compensation (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090105_icann_for_profit_companies_comparables</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090105_icann_for_profit_companies_comparables</link>
			<description><![CDATA[According to page 123 of ICANN's annual report: "...Commitment to continued payment in the salary span of 50th to 75th percentile of for-profit market place of companies of a similar size and complexity to ICANN..." Note that the comparables have been "for-profit". This is obviously ridiculous, given the purported non-profit nature of ICANN, with its inherent job security... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090105_icann_for_profit_companies_comparables">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2009-01-05T15:34:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<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>2008-10-24T07:12:00-08:00</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>2008-06-21T17:07:00-08:00</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>2007-10-01T19:29:00-08:00</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>2007-09-13T15:58:00-08:00</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>2007-08-29T09:23:01-08:00</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>2007-08-07T09:43:00-08:00</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>2007-07-31T14:18:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
	</channel>
</rss>