<?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> ICANN: A Concrete "Thin Contract" Proposal (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/postsicann_a_concrete_thin_contract_proposal</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/postsicann_a_concrete_thin_contract_proposal</link>
		<description><![CDATA[It looks as if ICANN is going to require applicants for new TLDs to agree (in advance) not to negotiate a changed contract with ICANN. We agree that streamlining the process is in everyone's interest. Along those lines, we are proposing [url=http://www.icannwatch.org/essays/j-c-proposed-contract.htm]a substantially thinner contract[/url] that ICANN and new registries could use. Existing registries should also be allowed to sign up to this contract, if they wish. <a href="https://circleid.com/postsicann_a_concrete_thin_contract_proposal">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-03-31T14:29:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	

	</channel>
</rss>