<?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>&#45; CircleID</title>
	<link>https://www.circleid.com/blogs/</link>
	<description>Postings from  on CircleID</description>
	<dc:language>en</dc:language>
	<dc:rights>Copyright 2026, unless where otherwise noted.</dc:rights>
	<dc:date>2026-03-31T21:29:00+00:00</dc:date>

	
	<item>
		<title> New Top-Level Domains and Software Implications (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/posts20090625_new_top_level_domains_software_implications</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/posts20090625_new_top_level_domains_software_implications</link>
		<description><![CDATA[Many software applications rely on validation routines to check the validity of domain names. By validation, I mean here to test the string submitted by the user and see if it matches a pre-defined pattern. A typical example are web forms that need to validate e-mail addresses. This is by new means a new issue. It first appeared with the introduction of the .info Top-Level Domain (TLD). <a href="https://circleid.com/posts20090625_new_top_level_domains_software_implications">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-03-31T14:29:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	
	<item>
		<title> IRT Final Report on Trademark Protection in New Top-Level Domains - Part 1: Uniform Rapid Suspension (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/posts20090603_irt_final_report_icann_uniform_rapid_suspension</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/posts20090603_irt_final_report_icann_uniform_rapid_suspension</link>
		<description><![CDATA[The ICANN <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-29may09-en.htm">Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) working group has published its final report</a>, which I decided to analyze a bit further. I already made a few comments last month, both in the <a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-draft-report/msg00061.html">At-Large Advisory Council framework</a> and on <a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-draft-report/msg00003.html">my own</a>. There are several issues raised by the recommendations of this report. The Uniform Rapid Suspension system (URS) is one. <a href="https://circleid.com/posts20090603_irt_final_report_icann_uniform_rapid_suspension">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-03-31T14:29:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	
	<item>
		<title> Belgian Incumbent ISP Not Dominant Operator Says Appeals Court (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/posts20090515_belgian_isp_not_dominant_says_court</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/posts20090515_belgian_isp_not_dominant_says_court</link>
		<description><![CDATA[Picture this: the still state-owned (51% of shares) Belgian incumbent telecom and Internet operator, Belgacom, is not a dominant player on the ISP market, according to the Brussels appeals court... It is obvious to every inhabitant of Belgium that the incumbent is everywhere. It owns all the copper pairs to homes and a good deal of the fibre. No single Internet or telephony operator can get into the business without transiting through the Belgacom network at some stage. <a href="https://circleid.com/posts20090515_belgian_isp_not_dominant_says_court">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-03-31T14:29:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	
	<item>
		<title> .vla TLD: Not So Fast, Says Flemish Government (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/posts20090325_vla_tld_flemish_government</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/posts20090325_vla_tld_flemish_government</link>
		<description><![CDATA[As reported last July, there is a proposal from some Flemish politicians to create a .vla top level domain under the new gTLD process launched by ICANN. The proposal further elaborated that the Flemish government would have to cover the costs. Not so fast, says the Flemish government... <a href="https://circleid.com/posts20090325_vla_tld_flemish_government">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-03-31T14:29:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	
	<item>
		<title> The ICANN New Generic TLD Process (Las Vegas Edition) (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/posts20081216_icann_new_generic_tld_process</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/posts20081216_icann_new_generic_tld_process</link>
		<description><![CDATA[I have not submitted any comments on <a href="http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-23oct08-en.htm">ICANN's new gTLD process</a>, mostly because many other people have said more diplomatically what I think, but I thought I could blog about it. My main concern from the beginning was that the process should allow any serious candidate to run with a reasonable chance to be able to actually start running a gTLD. This includes small and medium sized communities and startup companies with little seed money. This also includes registry models that may not favour mass registrations. For all these, the current model is flawed. <a href="https://circleid.com/posts20081216_icann_new_generic_tld_process">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-03-31T14:29:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	
	<item>
		<title> European Commission on the Future of the Internet (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/posts20080930_european_commission_internet</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/posts20080930_european_commission_internet</link>
		<description><![CDATA[The European Commission has just published a communication which describes the broad lines of its Internet policy in the coming years. Vint Cerf, on the Google Public Policy blog sees this as a very interesting vision. Indeed, it closely links the issue of openness of the Internet to several obvious and not-so-obvious factors. <a href="https://circleid.com/posts20080930_european_commission_internet">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-03-31T14:29:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	
	<item>
		<title> IGF Meeting Blacklisted (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/postsigf_meeting_blacklisted</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/postsigf_meeting_blacklisted</link>
		<description><![CDATA[I got an e-mail from someone currently attending the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) meeting in Geneva. The e-mail ended up in my spam folder because the IP address used for the wireless LAN at the meeting is on a spambot/virusbot blacklist, namely cbl.abuseat.org. Apparently some guy there has his computer infected by a spambot or a virusbot... <a href="https://circleid.com/postsigf_meeting_blacklisted">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-03-31T14:29:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	
	<item>
		<title> Soon in a Mail Box Near You: Internationalized Email Addresses (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/posts89810_internationalized_email_addresses</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/posts89810_internationalized_email_addresses</link>
		<description><![CDATA[The <a href="http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/eai-charter.html">EAI working group</a> of the <a href="http://www.ietf.org">IETF</a> has finished (part of) its work on the interationalization of email addresses. This, together with Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) will make it possible to send email messages to non-7 bit ASCII addresses... There are 3 RFCs, covering changes to the SMTP protocol, e-mail message format and delivery Status Notifications. <a href="https://circleid.com/posts89810_internationalized_email_addresses">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-03-31T14:29:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	
	<item>
		<title> ICANN to Auction New Generic Top Level Domains (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/posts88984_icann_auction_new_top_level_domains</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/posts88984_icann_auction_new_top_level_domains</link>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.icann.org">ICANN</a> has just <a href="http://icann.org/en/topics/economic-case-auctions-08aug08-en.pdf" >published a paper</a> from its contractor PowerAuctions LLC, regarding the use of auctions to award new Top Level Domains (TLD) strings in case of contention. I can understand what ICANN wants to avoid. In the past, it has been criticized for using the "beauty contest" model with the redelegation of the .net TLD... However, the auction model is based on the idea that whoever wins the auction will be able to recoup its investment on the sale... <a href="https://circleid.com/posts88984_icann_auction_new_top_level_domains">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-03-31T14:29:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	
	<item>
		<title> IPv6 Considered a Problem by Some Users (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/postsipv6_considered_a_problem</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/postsipv6_considered_a_problem</link>
		<description><![CDATA[I have a <a href="http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch_feeds?hl=en&q=IPv6&ie=utf-8&num=10&output=atom">Google Blog Search Alert</a> looking for posts over IPv6 in my RSS reader. What strikes me is the number of posts explaining how to disable IPv6 in Windows Vista, MacOSX, <a href="http://www.ubuntu.com/">Ubuntu</a> and other flavours of Linux. It looks like disabling IPv6 makes web browsing faster for a lot of people, independently of which operating system is being used. <a href="https://circleid.com/postsipv6_considered_a_problem">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-03-31T14:29:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	
	<item>
		<title> Gartner on New Generic Top Level Domains (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/posts87111_gartner_new_top_level_domains</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/posts87111_gartner_new_top_level_domains</link>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.gartner.com/">Gartner</a>, the well known IT consulting company, <a href="http://gartner.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd=159489">has published a report on the new top level domains</a> that will appear some time next year. The report totally misses the mark. In a pure US centric vision, it focuses on ".com" as the must-have TLD, totally overlooking the fact that a ".com" is mostly worthless e.g. in Germany, where ".de" is the TLD one must have to succeed locally... <a href="https://circleid.com/posts87111_gartner_new_top_level_domains">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-03-31T14:29:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	
	<item>
		<title> New Generic Top-Level Domains and Internet Standards (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/postsnew_top_level_domains_internet_standards</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/postsnew_top_level_domains_internet_standards</link>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-26jun08-en.htm">The recent decision</a> by ICANN to start a new round of applications for new generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs) is launching a <a href="http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/maillist.html">round of questions</a> on the <a href="http://www.ietf.org">IETF</a> side about its consequences. One possible issue may be with vanity gTLDs like apple, ebay etc. Some expect that every Fortune 1,000,000 company will apply for its own TLD. My guess is rather the Fortune 1,000 for a start, but this does not change the nature of the issue, i.e. those companies may want to use email addresses like user@tld. <a href="https://circleid.com/postsnew_top_level_domains_internet_standards">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-03-31T14:29:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	
	<item>
		<title> Proposal for .sport, a New Top-Level Domain (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/postsicann_sport_top_level_domain</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/postsicann_sport_top_level_domain</link>
		<description><![CDATA[OK. Now my lawyer has <a href="http://domainernews.net/?p=452">given me the green light</a>, I can officially announce I am working on a proposal for a <a href="http://www.dotsport.info/">.sport TLD</a>, to be submitted to <a href="http://www.icann.org/">ICANN</a> for consideration as a new TLD next year. There is still a long way to go in terms of getting the proposal ready, but I this this one is a winner... <a href="https://circleid.com/postsicann_sport_top_level_domain">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-03-31T14:29:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	
	<item>
		<title> Domain Names Users vs Domain Names Registrants (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/postsdomain_names_users_vs_registrants</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/postsdomain_names_users_vs_registrants</link>
		<description><![CDATA[Antony Van Couvering from <a href="http://www.namesatwork.com/about/nameswork-team/antony-van-couvering/">names@work</a> writes that <a href="http://www.icann.org/">ICANN</a>'s constituencies are a "<a href="http://www.namesatwork.com/blog/2008/06/08/icann-constituencies-bad-idea-whose-time-has-gone">bad idea</a>". While I am not sure to agree with him on the general principle, he makes some interesting remarks. Among others, he points out that the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) includes groups that seem to be redundant (the Business and Intellectual Property constituencies) and others like domainers which are not represented in the ICANN arena, yet are an integral part of the domain name business... <a href="https://circleid.com/postsdomain_names_users_vs_registrants">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-03-31T14:29:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	
	<item>
		<title> European Commission Pushes IPv6 Forward (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/posts85288_european_commission_pushes_ipv6</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/posts85288_european_commission_pushes_ipv6</link>
		<description><![CDATA[The European Commission has released a <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/ipv6/docs/european_day/communication_final_27052008_en.pdf">communication on IPv6</a>, in time for the <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/ipv6/events/index_en.htm">IPv6 Day</a> in Brussels next 30th May. It goes in the same direction as the<a href="http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/7/1/40605942.pdf"> report presented at the OECD Ministerial meeting</a> on "Future of the Internet Economy", that was held in Seoul, Korea earlier this month. At the same time, the <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/doc/factsheets/066-ipv6-en.pdf">Commission committed to make its own web services available on IPv6</a> by 2010. It is good to see that intergovermental organizations take the lead on this, after 10 years of failure of the private sector to actually deploy IPv6... <a href="https://circleid.com/posts85288_european_commission_pushes_ipv6">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-03-31T14:29:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	

	</channel>
</rss>