<?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> Should Barclays Lose the .Barclays Top-Level Domain? (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/posts20150520_should_barclays_lose_the_barclays_top_level_domain</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/posts20150520_should_barclays_lose_the_barclays_top_level_domain</link>
		<description><![CDATA[According to Reuters, Barclays has plead guilty to trying to manipulate foreign exchange rates, and has agreed to pay substantial fines, along with other major banks. Barclays is also the operator of the .Barclays new top-level domain name. This is not a case where it's a single rogue employee or officer has been found guilty of a financial crime. Here, it is the entire bank (and registry operator) that has plead guilty. <a href="https://circleid.com/posts20150520_should_barclays_lose_the_barclays_top_level_domain">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-03-31T14:29:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	
	<item>
		<title> Loopholes and Ambiguities in Contracts that ICANN Oversees (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/posts20130109_loopholes_and_ambiguities_in_contracts_that_icann_oversees</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/posts20130109_loopholes_and_ambiguities_in_contracts_that_icann_oversees</link>
		<description><![CDATA[ICANN oversees the creation of many contracts. Its highest paid contractor has historically been the law firm of Jones Day, and of course ICANN has many lawyers on staff. In the past I've identified loopholes in proposed contracts, and those were corrected before they were exploited. However, are there other loopholes sitting in existing contracts waiting to be exploited, or ambiguities with major financial consequences depending on their interpretation? <a href="https://circleid.com/posts20130109_loopholes_and_ambiguities_in_contracts_that_icann_oversees">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-03-31T14:29:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	
	<item>
		<title> Google's Free Public DNS Load Tops VeriSign, Raising Dot-Com Contract Tender Question (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/postsgoogle_free_public_dns_load_tops_verisign_raising_dot_com_contract_question</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/postsgoogle_free_public_dns_load_tops_verisign_raising_dot_com_contract_question</link>
		<description><![CDATA[Google revealed on its official blog today that it is handling an average of more than 70 billion requests per day on its free Public DNS service. According to VeriSign's latest public statistics, it is handling only an average of 59 billion DNS requests per day, less than that handled by Google. <a href="https://circleid.com/postsgoogle_free_public_dns_load_tops_verisign_raising_dot_com_contract_question">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-03-31T14:29:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	
	<item>
		<title> Is ICANN Opening up Public Comment Periods in Bad Faith? (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/postsis_icann_opening_up_public_comment_periods_in_bad_faith</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/postsis_icann_opening_up_public_comment_periods_in_bad_faith</link>
		<description><![CDATA[I read with interest that ICANN opened up yet another comment period on new TLDs. I believe that I speak for many when I question whether ICANN is opening up these comment periods in good faith, or instead whether these are smokescreens, mere distractions to pretend that ICANN is "listening" to the public while staff and insiders proceed with predetermined outcomes. <a href="https://circleid.com/postsis_icann_opening_up_public_comment_periods_in_bad_faith">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-03-31T14:29:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	
	<item>
		<title> Rod Beckstrom, Twiki and the Foswiki fork - ICANN Must "Get Things Right" on New TLDs (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/postsrod_beckstrom_twiki_and_the_foswiki_fork_icann_must_get_things_right</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/postsrod_beckstrom_twiki_and_the_foswiki_fork_icann_must_get_things_right</link>
		<description><![CDATA[One of the most disastrous things that could happen to the DNS would be for the root to "split", as it would mean that identifiers would no longer be universal. Instead, "Example.com" would have totally different meanings for different users, substantially reducing the benefits of domain names. Can this happen? Important lessons for ICANN can be learned by studying the history of Rod Beckstrom, Twiki and Foswiki. <a href="https://circleid.com/postsrod_beckstrom_twiki_and_the_foswiki_fork_icann_must_get_things_right">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-03-31T14:29:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	
	<item>
		<title> NAF Caught Revising Past UDRP Decisions? (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/postsnaf_caught_revising_past_udrp_decisions</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/postsnaf_caught_revising_past_udrp_decisions</link>
		<description><![CDATA[In a previous CircleID article, it was discovered and documented that NAF Panelists and Complainants were systematically copying/pasting nonsense into UDRP decisions. It has been a couple of months with no action by ICANN, and no public statement by NAF. In a shocking new development, though, it turns out that NAF has quietly edited a past UDRP decision! <a href="https://circleid.com/postsnaf_caught_revising_past_udrp_decisions">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-03-31T14:29:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	
	<item>
		<title> NAF Panelists and Complainants Caught Systematically Copying/Pasting Nonsense Into UDRP Decisions (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/posts20100423_naf_copying_pasting_nonsense_into_udrp_decisions</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/posts20100423_naf_copying_pasting_nonsense_into_udrp_decisions</link>
		<description><![CDATA[In a recent article at DomainNameWire.com, CitizenHawk was called out by a National Arbitration Forum (NAF) panelist for the submission of automated complaints which contained complete nonsense. Through the discussion in the comments to that article, the community discovered that the problem is far deeper. It turns out that UDRP panelists at NAF have been churning out boilerplate cut/paste decisions of their own, with utter nonsense of their own, and that this has been going on for years. <a href="https://circleid.com/posts20100423_naf_copying_pasting_nonsense_into_udrp_decisions">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-03-31T14:29:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	
	<item>
		<title> DOC to ICANN: Time to End Double-Weighted Voting of Registries and Registrars (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/posts20090930_doc_to_icann_end_double_weighted_voting_registries_registrar</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/posts20090930_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="https://circleid.com/posts20090930_doc_to_icann_end_double_weighted_voting_registries_registrar">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-03-31T14:29:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	
	<item>
		<title> Most Popular Invalid TLDs Should Be Reserved (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/posts20090618_most_popular_invalid_tlds_should_be_reserved</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/posts20090618_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="https://circleid.com/posts20090618_most_popular_invalid_tlds_should_be_reserved">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-03-31T14:29:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	
	<item>
		<title> How is ICANN Spending Your Money? (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/postshow_is_icann_spending_your_money</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/postshow_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="https://circleid.com/postshow_is_icann_spending_your_money">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-03-31T14:29:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	
	<item>
		<title> Deeply, Deeply Flawed Economic Report and Analysis of New gTLDs Posted by ICANN (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/posts20090304_flawed_economic_report_gtlds_icann</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/posts20090304_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="https://circleid.com/posts20090304_flawed_economic_report_gtlds_icann">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-03-31T14:29:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	
	<item>
		<title> Threat of Tiered Pricing Continues in New gTLD Guidebook Version 2 (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/posts20090219_tiered_pricing_continues_in_new_gtld_guidebook</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/posts20090219_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="https://circleid.com/posts20090219_tiered_pricing_continues_in_new_gtld_guidebook">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-03-31T14:29:00-07:00</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">https://circleid.com/posts20090108_pir_anti_abuse_policy_domain_names</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/posts20090108_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="https://circleid.com/posts20090108_pir_anti_abuse_policy_domain_names">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-03-31T14:29:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	
	<item>
		<title> WIPO Proposal for Paperless UDRP (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/posts20090108_wipo_proposal_paperless_udrp</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/posts20090108_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="https://circleid.com/posts20090108_wipo_proposal_paperless_udrp">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-03-31T14:29:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	
	<item>
		<title> ICANN Uses For-Profit Companies as "Comparables" in Its Employee Compensation (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/posts20090105_icann_for_profit_companies_comparables</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/posts20090105_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="https://circleid.com/posts20090105_icann_for_profit_companies_comparables">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-03-31T14:29:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	

	</channel>
</rss>