I do not see a point to ALAc to say anything. Local legislation is local legislation and users in China have choices using local or proxy services. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. On 1/10/16, 12:37 AM, "alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Alan Greenberg" <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I was asked to look at this public comment and see if the ALAC needed to do anything. Since the name included the terms "proxy" and "registration", it raised red flags that it might be related to the ongoing (and very controversial and complex) PDP on privacy and proxy registrations.
It is unrelated.
This is a registry request to set up a secondary entry into their normal interfaces to registrars to allow them to service registrars in China, presumably in compliance with certain Chinese regulations related to where data or services reside and to provide local service to these registrars and their registrants.
There does not appear to be anything that requires an ALAC comment.
You can find the ALAC Policy page at https://community.icann.org/x/ZIplAw and the Registry Service Evaluation Request at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rsep-2014159-xyz-et-al-request-0....
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)