Public Comment on Registration Proxy Service for gTLDs Operated by XYZ.COM LLC
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
Indeed this is an issue related to China, although I don't know if any other countries have similar cases. According to China's current regulations, all registries providing service in China MUST be located in Chinese territory. However, there are also regulations forbiding foreign registries to register and operate in China. Thus, these regulations effectively ban all international registries to provide services in China. There are proposals to use proxies in China to comply with China's regulations while providing such services, and some of China's registries have applied to the government to act as this third-party proxy. However, the government has not replied to such application so far. This is one of the issues about how the international Internet community may best work within China's regulatory framework, which may not be the same in other nations. Kaili ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> To: "ALAC" <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2016 10:37 AM Subject: [ALAC] Public Comment on Registration Proxy Service for gTLDs Operated by XYZ.COM LLC
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...)
Hi Kaili Brazil’s solution was not to forbidden foreign registrar to sell here, but there is a high tax payment to buy from foreign registrars. Even so ,there are just 2 registrars here that are effectivelly operating as registrar.. This made this country a paradise not for any registrar, local or foreign , but for local ccTLD. Around 90% still under .br 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, 3:47 AM, "alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Kan Kaili" <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of kankaili@gmail.com> wrote:
Indeed this is an issue related to China, although I don't know if any other countries have similar cases.
According to China's current regulations, all registries providing service in China MUST be located in Chinese territory. However, there are also regulations forbiding foreign registries to register and operate in China. Thus, these regulations effectively ban all international registries to provide services in China.
There are proposals to use proxies in China to comply with China's regulations while providing such services, and some of China's registries have applied to the government to act as this third-party proxy. However, the government has not replied to such application so far.
This is one of the issues about how the international Internet community may best work within China's regulatory framework, which may not be the same in other nations.
Kaili
----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> To: "ALAC" <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2016 10:37 AM Subject: [ALAC] Public Comment on Registration Proxy Service for gTLDs Operated by XYZ.COM LLC
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...)
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...)
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...)
participants (3)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Kan Kaili -
Vanda Scartezini