<?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> Another Day in Court for CFIT vs. VeriSign and ICANN (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/postscourt_cfit_vs_verisign_icann</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/postscourt_cfit_vs_verisign_icann</link>
		<description><![CDATA[The CFIT vs. VeriSign et. al. lawsuit had another day in court today. ...The key point coming out of a hearing today (Friday, June 09, 2006) in front of U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Whyte in San Jose, California is that the arguments made by CFIT against the .com deal between ICANN and VeriSign will continue. ...There was one moment of some drama. After lawyers for VeriSign and ICANN both argued that the 7 percent price increases without the need for justification would not be a violation of anti-trust law, Judge Whyte asked the lawyer for ICANN if it would be an anti-trust violation if VeriSign had been granted an annual 100 percent increase. The lawyer said, "no." Other lawyers for other matters sitting in the audience seemed to shift uneasily... <a href="https://circleid.com/postscourt_cfit_vs_verisign_icann">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-03-31T14:29:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	

	</channel>
</rss>