<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="WordPress/2.9.2" -->
<rss version="0.92">
<channel>
	<title>Kieren McCarthy [dotcom] &#187; ICANN</title>
	<link>http://kierenmccarthy.com</link>
	<description>News and views on domain names, the Internet and life in general</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 29 Apr 2012 23:45:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss092</docs>
	<language>en</language>
	
	<item>
		<title>Is the dark side of new gTLDs starting to emerge?</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Last week, I received a highly unusual email claiming that an article on my personal website was libellous and insisting I take it down within a week.
Even more unusually, the article was from 2002 &#8211; yes nearly a decade ago &#8211; it is called &#8220;Domain scam merchants get legs sucked by toothless OFT&#8221; and it [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://kierenmccarthy.com/2012/04/18/is-the-dark-side-of-new-gtlds-starting-to-emerge/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Who should control the Internet?</title>
		<description><![CDATA[It is going to be a particularly crazy year in terms of Internet policy and governance, maybe even more than so than 2005, when the World Summit on the Information Society happened. 
NPR used the launch of the new gTLD program last week to cover the other big issue &#8211; actual governance of the Internet. [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://kierenmccarthy.com/2012/01/15/who-should-control-the-internet/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>My analysis of the broken ICANN culture</title>
		<description><![CDATA[I wrote an extensive review of the dot-jobs saga earlier this week on .Nxt called: The case study that could kill ICANN.
This afternoon, I saw the Stephane van Gelder had referenced it in a blog post: What ICANN is doing wrong.
I wrote a lengthy response to Stephane&#8217;s post, but for some reason it repeatedly could [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://kierenmccarthy.com/2012/01/13/my-analysis-of-the-broken-icann-culture/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>ICANN public comments: a glacier moving in the wrong direction</title>
		<description><![CDATA[I am both happy and depressed to see a public comment period open at ICANN talking about making changes to ICANN&#8217;s public comment period process.
With appalling inevitability, everything about the comment period highlights the problems that exist with the public comment period process. No one really knows about it, and it&#8217;s not being promoted anywhere. [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://kierenmccarthy.com/2011/09/06/icann-public-comments-a-glacier-moving-in-the-wrong-direction/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Threatening faxes, dot-xxx and an angry Vint Cerf</title>
		<description><![CDATA[One of the more bizarre situations I have found myself in while covering domain name system overseer ICANN, both outside and inside the organization, was at the Vancouver meeting in December 2005. 
It was a particularly difficult meeting. For one, ICANN was under intense scrutiny because it was about to sign an extension to the [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://kierenmccarthy.com/2011/05/14/threatening-faxes-dot-xxx-and-an-angry-vint-cerf/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>I wish [bang!] ICANN would [bang!] read its own [bang!] papers</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Sorry to always be harping on about ICANN; it&#8217;s the not exactly the most important organisation in the world. But it is the one bureaucracy I have come to know really well and so just can&#8217;t help but rail against all the things that infuriate people the world over when they come up against unthinking [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://kierenmccarthy.com/2011/02/25/i-wish-bang-icann-would-bang-read-its-own-bang-papers/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Broken deadlines, broken bylaws, broken ICANN?</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Where is ICANN&#8217;s 2010 Annual Report?
It is typically produced at the end of the calendar year. The 2009 Report was published on 24 December 2009, and the 2008 Report on 31 December 2008. It is currently 23 February 2011 and so far no 2010 Annual Report. 
Two months late is sloppy by any measure, and [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://kierenmccarthy.com/2011/02/23/broken-deadlines-broken-bylaws-broken-icann/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>USG Submission to the GAC Scorecard re New gTLDs</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Background: At a meeting in December, the ICANN Board and GAC agreed to a special session to be held in February that would be dedicated to trying to find a way to deal with GAC concerns over the new gTLD process and the dot-xxx application. The GAC has been preparing documents for the meeting &#8211; [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://kierenmccarthy.com/2011/01/31/usg-submission-to-the-gac-scorecard-re-new-gtlds/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>So what does that weird GAC wording actually mean?</title>
		<description><![CDATA[UPDATE: The ICANN Board just published the minutes from its meeting on Tuesday and intriguingly it has formally &#8220;triggered&#8221; the GAC-Board consultation that is explained in greater depth below. 
That means the Board is prepared to say it disagrees with the GAC on 17 March and then, presumably, will approve the Applicant Guidebook at its [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://kierenmccarthy.com/2011/01/27/so-what-does-that-weird-gac-wording-actually-mean/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>A damaged process and a damaged community</title>
		<description><![CDATA[I haven&#8217;t written for a while. There&#8217;s usually two reasons for that: either I have been horribly over-worked, or I need a break from the strange, incestuous and often bitter world of Internet policy and governance. In this case, unusually, it is both. 
Here&#8217;s the big news from the world of Internet governance: some vague [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://kierenmccarthy.com/2011/01/25/a-damaged-process-and-a-damaged-community/</link>
			</item>
</channel>
</rss>

