<?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>CircleID: Internet Governance</title>
		<link>http://www.circleid.com/</link>
		<description>Latest Internet Governance related postings on CircleID</description>
		<dc:language>en</dc:language>
		<dc:rights>Copyright 2008, unless where otherwise noted.</dc:rights>
		<dc:date>2008-09-05T13:18:00-08:00</dc:date>
		
		
		<item>
			<title>Unreasonable ccTLD Registry Price Increases!</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/unreasonable_cctld_registry_price_increases/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/unreasonable_cctld_registry_price_increases/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[It highly concerns me when domain registries controlling a certain Top-Level Domain (TLD) raise the wholesale prices they charge to registrars (domain retailers) without consultation to domain registrants (domain buyers). When this happens, all the registrars will need to pay more to the registry for every domain which they register or renew for a customer. They will in turn raise their prices to cover the additional cost to them. Transferring the domains to a different registrar will not help, as all the registrars for that TLD will be forced to raise prices as they all have to pay more to the registry. Don't think it hasn't happened before? <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/unreasonable_cctld_registry_price_increases/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-09-05T10:17:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>domain_names</category><category>domain_registries</category><category>internet_governance</category><category>policy_regulation</category><category>top_level_domains</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>New gTLDs Questions Not Answered: Which Kind of Auction?</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/89342_new_gtld_question_auction/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/89342_new_gtld_question_auction/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I was expecting something that would discuss the unique properties, if any, of the domain name market, and the types of inventory theoretically available to allocate, and the expected outcomes for the various types of auctions, and some showing that for some desired policy goals, whether greatest gain to seller or lowest loss to buyer, or something entirely different, the expected outcomes. This would assist the better informed, bottom-up, stakeholder-driven, consensus policy making. Is the domain name market indistinguishable from the spectrum market? If name spaces are distinguishable from units of spectrum... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/89342_new_gtld_question_auction/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-09-03T16:32:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>domain_registries</category><category>internet_governance</category><category>policy_regulation</category><category>top_level_domains</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>The Internet as a Democratic Utility</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/the_internet_as_a_democratic_utility/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/the_internet_as_a_democratic_utility/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In the wake of our recent news that .ORG has officially registered 7 million domains, some comments made to CNN by Craigslist founder Craig Newmark this week really resonated with me. The article, entitled "Internet Can Strengthen Democracy" discusses many of the same issues we have found to be the driving forces behind .ORG's consistent year-over-year growth -- community building, interaction, and inclusivity. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/the_internet_as_a_democratic_utility/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-08-29T11:01:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>domain_registries</category><category>internet_governance</category><category>policy_regulation</category><category>top_level_domains</category><category>web</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>Global Survey of Internet Activists Hears Calls for Online Bill of Rights</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/internet_activists_online_bill_of_rights/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/internet_activists_online_bill_of_rights/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Kenneth Corbin reporting on InterneNews: "On the eve of what could be a seismic shift in government, talk has been heating up about tech policy in the United States. But it's worthwhile to remember that it is the World Wide Web, and in that spirit researchers from Elon University and the Pew Internet and American Life Project canvassed the world's leading Internet activists to get an idea of what a global tech policy should look like. Pew today released the responses from the attendees of the second annual Internet Governance Forum (IGF), held November in Rio de Janeiro. A solid majority (66 percent) of respondents said there should be some form of global Internet bill of rights...." <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/internet_activists_online_bill_of_rights/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-08-28T11:04:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>internet_governance</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>How Rise in Nationalism and Industry&apos;s Lack of Foresight Could Mean a Fragmented and Isolated Web</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/88267_nationalism_internationalized_domain_names/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/88267_nationalism_internationalized_domain_names/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I have been thinking a lot lately on the topic of the free flow of information on the internet -- what kinds of tools are available now and in the future for governments (especially repressive ones) to control content, isolate their people and keep any contrary viewpoints censored. I had an interesting conversation with a Practice Lead from IFTF.org. <a href="http://iftf.org/">The Institute for the Future</a> (IFTF) is a California based independent, nonprofit research group with 40 years of experience in identifying emerging trends that will transform global society... Turns out they are quite concerned about the fragmentation and control of the Internet as well. But will it be an inevitability? <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/88267_nationalism_internationalized_domain_names/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-08-26T07:07:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>censorship</category><category>domain_names</category><category>internet_governance</category><category>multilinguism</category><category>policy_regulation</category><category>top_level_domains</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>Did We Miss ICANN&apos;s Reply?</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/idn_org_did_we_miss_icann_reply/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/idn_org_did_we_miss_icann_reply/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[On July 29, the Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) and Public Interest Registry (PIR) sent out a joint letter to <a href="http://www.icann.org">ICANN</a> asking it to consider the interests of the end-users as core to its policies in Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) implementation... As of today's date, August 21, 2008, we have yet to receive even an acknowledgement of receipt of our letter... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/idn_org_did_we_miss_icann_reply/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-08-21T12:56:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>domain_names</category><category>internet_governance</category><category>multilinguism</category><category>top_level_domains</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>Cyber Security Commission Compiling Recommendations for the Next U.S. Presidency</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/csis_cyber_security_commission/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/csis_cyber_security_commission/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[During a panel discussion at the Black Hat conference, four members from a U.S. private organization called "<a href="http://www.csis.org/tech/cyber/">Commission on Cyber Security for the 44th Presidency</a>," established by Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), sought input from the security community as part of their <a href="http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_progj/task,view/id,1154/">mandate</a> to "develop recommendations for a comprehensive strategy to improve cyber security in federal systems and in critical infrastructure". <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/csis_cyber_security_commission/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-08-07T15:14:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>cyberattack</category><category>internet_governance</category><category>security</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>Can ICANN Manage the DNS Root Zone by Itself? &quot;No!&quot; Says US Department of Commerce</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/88712_icann_manage_dns_root_zone/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/88712_icann_manage_dns_root_zone/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In a recent <a href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2008/ICANN_080730.html">letter</a>, the US Department of Commerce NTIA strongly denied being engaged in discussions about a "root zone transition" from VeriSign to ICANN. The community, ICANN President Strategic Committee (PSC), and perhaps ICANN and IANA staff are suddenly informed that no transition of root zone management is going to occur. What happened? With the touted ICANN transparency and accountability principles, why such a shift in (perceived) ICANN strategic directions coming from its overseeing government department? <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/88712_icann_manage_dns_root_zone/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-08-07T12:16:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>dns</category><category>internet_governance</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>Internet Companies in Negotiations for Agreement on Code of Conduct in China</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/88664_internet_companies_code_of_conduct_china/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/88664_internet_companies_code_of_conduct_china/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, in negotiations with other Internet companies and human rights organizations, have reached an agreement on a voluntary code of conduct for activities in China and other countries that censor the Internet. The participants are reviewing the agreement for final approval. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/88664_internet_companies_code_of_conduct_china/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-08-06T06:53:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>censorship</category><category>internet_governance</category><category>web</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>FCC&apos;s Comcast Ruling Inconsistent and Incoherent</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/88103_fcc_comcast_ruling_inconsistent_incoherent/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/88103_fcc_comcast_ruling_inconsistent_incoherent/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[After voting on the Comcast order today, Kevin Martin and his Democratic Party colleagues issued press releases telling us how they saved the Internet from Comcast's discriminatory practices, but they've failed to release the actual order they adopted and subsequently re-wrote. Commissioner McDowell wasn't allowed to see the revised order until 7:00 PM the night before the meeting. Rumor has it that high-level spin doctors are still trying to remove all the rough edges, inconsistencies, and factual errors. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/88103_fcc_comcast_ruling_inconsistent_incoherent/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-08-01T15:43:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>broadband</category><category>internet_governance</category><category>law</category><category>net_neutrality</category><category>p2p</category><category>policy_regulation</category><category>voip</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>U.S. Intends to Remain in Full Control of Internet Root Zone, Says Letter from NTIA</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/87315_us_in_control_of_internet_root_zone/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/87315_us_in_control_of_internet_root_zone/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In a letter sent by bureau of the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration (<a href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov">NTIA</a>) to <a href="http://www.icann.org/">ICANN</a>, the department has made it clear that despite recent discussions in Paris meetings, the U.S. department intends to remain in full authority over the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS_root_zone">Internet root zone</a>. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/87315_us_in_control_of_internet_root_zone/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-07-31T17:13:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>dns</category><category>internet_governance</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>Is This Only Sloppy Wording by ICANN?</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/is_this_only_sloppy_wording_by_icann/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/is_this_only_sloppy_wording_by_icann/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[So I wrote earlier that I though it was good stuff when ICANN released a paper on DNS Security. Yes, I think it was good this paper was released, and yes it points out correctly how important DNSSEC is. But, now when reading it in detail, I find two things that troubles me. And it has to do with management of .ARPA. A top level domain that is used for infrastructural purposes. Like IP-addresses and E.164 numbers... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/is_this_only_sloppy_wording_by_icann/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-07-25T08:47:01-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>dns</category><category>dnssec</category><category>internet_governance</category><category>law</category><category>security</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>ICANN Says It Is Not an Internet Enforcement Agency</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/icann_not_an_internet_enforcement_agency/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/icann_not_an_internet_enforcement_agency/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ICANN says domain name issues are not always a matter of contractual compliance... "There remain occasional misconceptions about ICANN's authority. Some appear to believe ICANN is an Internet enforcement agency, with broad power to shut down websites, restrict website content, and penalize Internet users for unethical behavior. This is not the case," says a section from ICANN's July magazine. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/icann_not_an_internet_enforcement_agency/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-07-24T10:35:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>domain_names</category><category>domain_registries</category><category>internet_governance</category><category>law</category><category>whois</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>Is It Time to Create a Market for IPv4 Addresses?</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/is_it_time_market_ipv4_addresses/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/is_it_time_market_ipv4_addresses/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[It's fascinating to watch the Internet technical community grapple with policy economics as they face the problems creating by the growing scarcity of IPv4 addresses. The Internet Governance Project (IGP) is analyzing the innovative policies that <a href="http://www.arin.net">ARIN</a>, <a href="http://www.ripe.net">RIPE</a> and <a href="http://www.apnic.net">APNIC</a> are considering as a response to the depletion of IPv4 addresses. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/is_it_time_market_ipv4_addresses/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-07-13T20:54:01-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>internet_governance</category><category>ip_addressing</category><category>ipv6</category><category>regional_registries</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>No Fines for Comcast</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/87113_no_fines_for_comcast/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/87113_no_fines_for_comcast/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Note: this is an update on my earlier story, which incorrectly said that the AP reported that Chairman Martin was seeking to impose "fines" on Comcast. In fact, the story used the word "punish" rather than "fine," and a headline writer at the New York Times added "penalty" to it <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/technology/11fcc.html">"F.C.C. Chairman Favors Penalty on Comcast"</a> (I won't quote the story because I'm a blogger and the AP is the AP, so click through.) Much of the initial reaction to the story was obviously colored by the headline. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/87113_no_fines_for_comcast/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-07-12T14:50:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>access_providers</category><category>broadband</category><category>internet_governance</category><category>law</category><category>net_neutrality</category><category>p2p</category><category>regional_registries</category>
		</item>
		
	</channel>
</rss>