<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Mindaugas Mieldazys Weblog &#187; icann</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mieldazys.com/tag/icann/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mieldazys.com</link>
	<description>Online business and promotion blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:50:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>RegisterFly Update &#8211; March 2nd, 2007</title>
		<link>http://www.mieldazys.com/registerfly-update-march-2nd-2007</link>
		<comments>http://www.mieldazys.com/registerfly-update-march-2nd-2007#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Mar 2007 19:25:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mindaugas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Domain Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[icann]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Registerfly]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mieldazys.com/?p=14</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ICANN provides the following update: As is already known on 21 February 2007, ICANN issued a letter to RegisterFly [PDF, 101K] indicating a Notice of Breach of its Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) and demanding that RegisterFly act within 15 working days to cure the breaches outlined in the letter. Also on 21 February, ICANN sent [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ICANN provides the following update:</p>
<ul>
<li>As is already known on 21 February 2007, ICANN issued a <a href="http://www.icann.org/correspondence/registerfly-notice-of-breach-21feb07.pdf">letter to RegisterFly</a> [PDF, 101K] indicating a Notice of Breach of its Registrar 	Accreditation Agreement (RAA) and demanding that RegisterFly act within 	15 working days to cure the breaches outlined in the letter.</li>
<li>Also on 21 February, ICANN sent a <a href="http://www.icann.org/correspondence/pritz-to-stansbury21feb07.pdf">Notice of Audit</a> [PDF, 60K] that required RegisterFly to allow ICANN to inspect and copy 	records as well as a notice to submit data to ICANN or a reputable 	escrow agent regarding registration applications and Registered name 	holders.</li>
<li>On 27 February 2007, ICANN sent two employees to 	RegisterFly offices in New Jersey to audit them and obtain the 	registrant information.</li>
<li>RegisterFly has not complied. On 1 March 2007 RegisterFly&#8221;s lawyers forwarded a <a href="http://www.icann.org/correspondence/mirzaian-to-pritz-01mar07.pdf">letter</a> [PDF, 12K] to ICANN advising that refusal to comply with ICANN&#8221;s 	request &#8220;should not be construed as my client&#8221;s unwillingness to 	cooperate with ICANN but as evidence of their continuing efforts to 	service their customers.&#8221;</li>
<li>In response ICANN has issued a <a href="http://www.icann.org/correspondence/levee-to-mirzaian-02mar07.pdf">second letter</a> [PDF, 288K] dated 2 March 2007 setting out additional breaches of the 	Registrar Agreement. In that letter ICANN describes RegisterFly&#8221;s 	statement that refusal to comply is evidence of customer service as 	&#8220;preposterous.&#8221;</li>
<li>RegisterFly&#8221;s continuing breaches of the RAA are serious and will be pursued.</li>
<li>ICANN&#8221;s primary concern is to do what it can to protect registrant and related data.</li>
<li>ICANN has provided notice that it will file a suit against 	RegisterFly in the United States District Court for the Central 	District of California seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) 	requiring RegisterFly to turn over the data requested and to compel an 	emergency audit of its books and records.</li>
<li>In addition to this legal action, ICANN today convened a 	telephone conference among those needed to implement a plan that will 	help cease unintended deletions. The participants were registries 	holding RegisterFly names: Afilias (.info), Newstar (.biz), VeriSign 	(.com, .net), RegisterFly backend services provider Tucows and eNom 	(for which RegisterFly was a reseller) as well as representatives of 	RegisterFly.</li>
<li>The Registries involved have agreed to move any RegisterFly 	names in Redemption Grace Period* status into Server-Delete-Prohibited 	status. This will prevent them from being deleted from the registry and 	becoming available for re-registration by others. ICANN commends and 	encourages this example of cooperation to protect registrant data.</li>
<p>ICANN will provide further updates as new information is available and action taken.</p>
<p>Media Contacts:</p>
<p>Paul Levins</p>
<p>Executive Officer and Vice President Corporate Affairs ICANN<br />
Ph: +1 310 301 5804 E:   paul.levins &#8211; at &#8211; icann.org</p>
<p>International<br />
Andrew Robertson, Edelman ( London)<br />
Ph: +44 7921 588 770<br />
E:   andrew.robertson &#8211; at &#8211; edelman.com</p>
<p>* (Registration Grace Period is a period that allows the domain-name registrant, registrar, or registry operator time to detect and correct any mistaken deletions. During the grace period, the deleted name will be placed on REGISTRY-HOLD, which will prevent the name from functioning/resolving. This tends to call attention to the impending deletion).</ul>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mieldazys.com/registerfly-update-march-2nd-2007/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ICANN rejected .XXX proposal</title>
		<link>http://www.mieldazys.com/icann-rejected-xxx-proposal</link>
		<comments>http://www.mieldazys.com/icann-rejected-xxx-proposal#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 May 2006 19:19:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mindaugas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Domain Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[icann]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[xxx domains]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mieldazys.com/?p=9</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[After long delays and much debate the proposal for the .XXX top-level domain was voted on by the Internet&#8221;s top regulatory board, ICANN, on Wednesday. The ICANN body voted nine to five to reject the proposal which had been supported by the both adult content industry and child safety advocates. Opposing its creation were ICANN [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>After long delays and much debate the proposal for the .XXX top-level domain was voted on by the Internet&#8221;s top regulatory board, ICANN, on Wednesday.</p>
<p>The ICANN body voted nine to five to reject the proposal which had been supported by the both adult content industry and child safety advocates. Opposing its creation were ICANN Chairman Vint Cert and CEO Paul Twomey.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mieldazys.com/icann-rejected-xxx-proposal/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
