Hi Everyone, We are just about a week from Dublin, so far we have 2 particular topics that have been brought up for discussion: 1. Expanding diversity of participation in GNSO from Asia Pacific Region As mentioned earlier in the thread, this would be a follow up of our discussion from Buenos Aires and subsequent submission to public comments. At the time, we found we ran out of time to provide concrete suggestions to actually ensure a meaningful expansion of diversity and balance of participation in GNSO from Asia Pacific. Since the topic was brought forward by Pam and Jian Chuang was quite active in the discussions as well, perhaps one or both of you could help put together a framework for further discussion at our Dublin session? 2. China Regulations This topic has implication on policy as well as market, and seems to be a topic of interest from the discussions in Buenos Aires as well. Simon, since you brought it up, perhaps you could help us frame the issue better for discussion in Dublin? I think it may be more interesting this time round not only to talk about the regulations themselves but to explore the market implications of which, leading perhaps towards what the APAC community at ICANN should / could collectively work together on. In addition to the above 2, may I suggest we also talk about the impending issue of Universal Acceptance, especially for IDN. I think this topic dove tails into 1. Above as well. This should be one of the issues that our region would be most concerned about. This was also one of the top concerns at the GDD summit earlier as I understand (though I was not there). So: 3. Universal Acceptance of TLDs & IDNs What the APAC community can and should do together to further this cause. I wonder if anyone else have further suggestions on topics we should cover? Edmon From: tld_discuss-bounces@tld.asia [mailto:tld_discuss-bounces@tld.asia] On Behalf Of Jian Chang Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 5:02 PM To: Simon Cousins; 'Yannis Li' Cc: Discuss@tld.asia Subject: Re: [Tld_discuss] APAC Space in ICANN Dublin 53 (22 Oct - 10am UTC+2) I heard that He Jia has left CATR (CAICT). She is now working for UBER. Jian KNET _____ From: Simon Cousins <mailto:simon@allegravita.com> Date: 2015-09-24 00:44 To: Yannis Li <mailto:yannis@registry.asia> CC: discuss <mailto:discuss@tld.asia> Subject: Re: [Tld_discuss] APAC Space in ICANN Dublin 53 (22 Oct - 10am UTC+2) On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Yannis Li <yannis@registry.asia <mailto:yannis@registry.asia> > wrote: Just would like to note that thanks to Jia-Rong, we have secured a meeting slot in ICANN Dublin for our APAC Space meeting on 22 Oct (Thursday) from 10:00am - 11:30am (UTC+2). Thanks Yannis, noted.

From the last meeting, there were discussion about ensuring diversity in participation and the voice from the APAC region. With that, there was an action to submit our comments on the GNSO review report which you could find our submission at below with comments collected during the meeting as well as over the mailing list: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00007.html

To prepare for the Dublin meeting, hope to kick start the discussion and get everyone’s input on formulating the agenda. Yannis, with the Chinese MIIT's deadline for foreign registries to submit applications for approval fast approaching (Sept 30 -- one week from now), I would think that the new MIIT TLD certification regime is a strong contender for the agenda. An update, perhaps, from a CAICT delegate would be interesting (perhaps He Jia?). Best regards, Simon. -- Simon Cousins, CEO Allegravita LLC & Allegravita HK Limited Email me: s <mailto:simon.cousins@illuminantpartners.com> imon@allegravita.com <mailto:imon@allegravita.com> . Skype me: simoncousins . Web: <http://allegravita.com/> allegravita.com USA mobile: +1 347 850-3360 . China mobile: +86 156 2502-6287 Hong Kong mobile: +852 5195-1085 . Macau mobile: +853 6540-3747 <https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B4TI3gAmC9OETVdUbWVObHJRSkE&revid=0B4TI3gAmC9OEYWJsQkFIdVR4elBWN0tBZTdEMWQzUWZoWG5BPQ>

Thanks Edmon and Simon, As agreed at the last APAC Space, we'll be sending out a mailer to our APAC community mailing list about APAC Space, so that those not in Dublin can also join remotely. I know that we might be getting more inputs on the discussion topics closer to the date, but for the mailer I'll just list the 3 topics that Edmon had put down, noting that we'll update it closer to the date. Essentially: 1. Expanding diversity of participation in GNSO from Asia Pacific Region 2. Updates on China Regulations – policy and market implications 3. Universal Acceptance of TLDs & IDNs 4. Any other topics to be raised by APAC Community. If you would like for a certain to topic to be included in the agenda in advance, please email yannis@registry.asia to give your input. If anyone would like me to add anything to the topics before we send out to our mailing list, just let me know. We're looking to send the mailer out this Thursday. Thank you. Regards, Jia-Rong From: <tld_discuss-bounces@tld.asia> on behalf of Simon Cousins <simon@allegravita.com> Date: Friday, 9 October, 2015 9:54 PM To: Edmon Chung <edmon@registry.asia> Cc: "Discuss@tld.asia" <discuss@tld.asia> Subject: Re: [Tld_discuss] APAC Space in ICANN Dublin 53 (22 Oct - 10am UTC+2) On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 5:13 AM, Edmon Chung <edmon@registry.asia> wrote:

2. China Regulations This topic has implication on policy as well as market, and seems to be a topic of interest from the discussions in Buenos Aires as well.

Simon, since you brought it up, perhaps you could help us frame the issue better for discussion in Dublin? I think it may be more interesting this time round not only to talk about the regulations themselves but to explore the market implications of which, leading perhaps towards what the APAC community at ICANN should / could collectively work together on.

Hi Edmon, colleagues, Speaking from the perspective my team and I have -- that is, supporting multiple (~12) registries in their China compliance and go-to-market planning and execution, I think the biggest policy issue facing the registry side right now is whether, or not, RSEPs will be needed for registries to integrate with the new China "gateway" services (such as the ZDNS/KNET service). It was .XYZ which initially lodged RSEP to ICANN (without prompting by ICANN, as far as I know) and then, a week or so later, withdrew it. Those who were at the recent GDD meeting in LA will have noted that ICANN did raise the issue of registries integrating with new China backends could cause security and stability problems. Naturally, this would trigger RSTEP review, introducing an interesting new layer of uncertainty and delay for long-suffering registry operators. So, this is the major policy issue from where my colleagues and I sit. Registries are asking themselves "to RSEP or not to RSEP?". Many (most?) we work with have the informal position that RSEP is not necessary, one reason being the new Gateway integrations are not dissimilar from the kinds of integrations that huge numbers of resellers have with registrars such as Hexonet, Open SRS, etc; another reason being that the Gateways won't be causing upstream impacts at all. So now we have uncertainty from the MIIT side as well as from the ICANN side, with the registry ops in the middle, and registrars and registrants all being impacted in ways that are arguably more disruptive than stewards of the DNS probably should be allowing. Clarity is, as is usually the case with new Gs into China, the rarest of commodities. Is this framing adequate, Edmon? Best regards, S. -- Simon Cousins, CEO 夏明 Allegravita LLC & Allegravita HK Limited Email me: s <mailto:simon.cousins@illuminantpartners.com> imon@allegravita.com . Skype me: simoncousins . Web: allegravita.com <http://allegravita.com/> USA mobile: +1 347 850-3360 . China mobile: +86 156 2502-6287 Hong Kong mobile: +852 5195-1085 . Macau mobile: +853 6540-3747

Edmon, All- have just checked my schedule and was horrified to find out my return flight is at 11:20 on 22 Oct. I am really sorry but will not be to make it for the meeting. Best, L. Leonid Todorov GM l.todorov@aptld.org Skype: leonid.todorov On 16 October 2015 at 15:39, Edmon Chung <edmon@registry.asia> wrote:

In addition to the 3 identified topics earlier, also had a chat with Leonid from APTLD and thought it might be interesting to add a topic on ccTLD market in the region. So an updated brief agenda:

1. Expanding diversity of participation in GNSO from Asia Pacific Region (Pam Little & Jian Chang)

2. Updates on China Regulations – policy and market implications (Simon Cousins)

3. Universal Acceptance of TLDs & IDNs (Don Hollander & Edmon Chung)

4. ccTLD Market in Asia Pacific (Leonid Todorov)

5. Any other topics to be raised by APAC Community.

Safe travels. See you all in Dublin soon.

Edmon

*From:* tld_discuss-bounces@tld.asia [mailto:tld_discuss-bounces@tld.asia] *On Behalf Of *Jia-Rong Low *Sent:* Tuesday, October 13, 2015 7:29 PM *To:* Simon Cousins; Edmon Chung *Cc:* Discuss@tld.asia

*Subject:* Re: [Tld_discuss] APAC Space in ICANN Dublin 53 (22 Oct - 10am UTC+2)

Thanks Edmon and Simon,

As agreed at the last APAC Space, we'll be sending out a mailer to our APAC community mailing list about APAC Space, so that those not in Dublin can also join remotely. I know that we might be getting more inputs on the discussion topics closer to the date, but for the mailer I'll just list the 3 topics that Edmon had put down, noting that we'll update it closer to the date.

Essentially:

1. Expanding diversity of participation in GNSO from Asia Pacific Region 2. Updates on China Regulations – policy and market implications 3. Universal Acceptance of TLDs & IDNs 4. Any other topics to be raised by APAC Community. If you would like for a certain to topic to be included in the agenda in advance, please email yannis@registry.asia to give your input.

If anyone would like me to add anything to the topics before we send out to our mailing list, just let me know. We're looking to send the mailer out this Thursday. Thank you.

Regards,

Jia-Rong

*From: *<tld_discuss-bounces@tld.asia> on behalf of Simon Cousins < simon@allegravita.com> *Date: *Friday, 9 October, 2015 9:54 PM *To: *Edmon Chung <edmon@registry.asia> *Cc: *"Discuss@tld.asia" <discuss@tld.asia> *Subject: *Re: [Tld_discuss] APAC Space in ICANN Dublin 53 (22 Oct - 10am UTC+2)

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 5:13 AM, Edmon Chung <edmon@registry.asia> wrote:

2. China Regulations

This topic has implication on policy as well as market, and seems to be a topic of interest from the discussions in Buenos Aires as well.

Simon, since you brought it up, perhaps you could help us frame the issue better for discussion in Dublin? I think it may be more interesting this time round not only to talk about the regulations themselves but to explore the market implications of which, leading perhaps towards what the APAC community at ICANN should / could collectively work together on.

Hi Edmon, colleagues,

Speaking from the perspective my team and I have -- that is, supporting multiple (~12) registries in their China compliance and go-to-market planning and execution, I think the biggest policy issue facing the registry side right now is whether, or not, RSEPs will be needed for registries to integrate with the new China "gateway" services (such as the ZDNS/KNET service). It was .XYZ which initially lodged RSEP to ICANN (without prompting by ICANN, as far as I know) and then, a week or so later, withdrew it. Those who were at the recent GDD meeting in LA will have noted that ICANN did raise the issue of registries integrating with new China backends could cause security and stability problems. Naturally, this would trigger RSTEP review, introducing an interesting new layer of uncertainty and delay for long-suffering registry operators.

So, this is the major policy issue from where my colleagues and I sit. Registries are asking themselves "to RSEP or not to RSEP?". Many (most?) we work with have the informal position that RSEP is not necessary, one reason being the new Gateway integrations are not dissimilar from the kinds of integrations that huge numbers of resellers have with registrars such as Hexonet, Open SRS, etc; another reason being that the Gateways won't be causing upstream impacts at all.

So now we have uncertainty from the MIIT side as well as from the ICANN side, with the registry ops in the middle, and registrars and registrants all being impacted in ways that are arguably more disruptive than stewards of the DNS probably should be allowing. Clarity is, as is usually the case with new Gs into China, the rarest of commodities.

Is this framing adequate, Edmon?

Best regards, S.

*--*

*Simon Cousins*, CEO 夏明

Allegravita LLC & Allegravita HK Limited

Email me: s <simon.cousins@illuminantpartners.com>imon@allegravita.com . Skype me: simoncousins . Web: allegravita.com

USA mobile: +1 347 850-3360 . China mobile: +86 156 2502-6287

Hong Kong mobile: +852 5195-1085 . Macau mobile: +853 6540-3747

_______________________________________________ Tld_discuss mailing list Tld_discuss@tld.asia https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/tld_discuss

Hi, all, I chatted a little bit with Pam and we don't think there is a need to have a ppt. We will have some very concrete suggestions for the consideration of the participants. Jian 發件人： Jia-Rong Low 發送時間： 2015-10-19 15:12 收件人： Edmon Chung; 'Discuss@tld.asia' 抄送： Zheng Song; Valerie Heng 主題： Re: [Tld_discuss] APAC Space in ICANN Dublin 53 (22 Oct - 10am UTC+2) Thanks everyone, While I know the agenda will be adjusted even until just before the APAC space session, would like to encourage presenters to send us your PPT decks (if any) at least a day in advance – so that we can upload them onto the Adobe Connect platform (for remote participants to view only; download will not be available). Our technicians tend to struggle as they often get the presenters' PPT decks last minute, affecting the remote participants from participating in the session. Grateful if you could send your decks to Philadel.yeo@icann.org and yannis@registry.asia. On the ground, our remote participation managers will be Song Zheng and Valerie (copied here) who can also assist you as well. Thank you. Regards, Jia-Rong From: <tld_discuss-bounces@tld.asia> on behalf of Edmon Chung <edmon@registry.asia> Date: Friday, 16 October, 2015 8:39 PM To: "'Discuss@tld.asia'" <discuss@tld.asia> Subject: Re: [Tld_discuss] APAC Space in ICANN Dublin 53 (22 Oct - 10am UTC+2) In addition to the 3 identified topics earlier, also had a chat with Leonid from APTLD and thought it might be interesting to add a topic on ccTLD market in the region. So an updated brief agenda: 1. Expanding diversity of participation in GNSO from Asia Pacific Region (Pam Little & Jian Chang) 2. Updates on China Regulations – policy and market implications (Simon Cousins) 3. Universal Acceptance of TLDs & IDNs (Don Hollander & Edmon Chung) 4. ccTLD Market in Asia Pacific (Leonid Todorov) 5. Any other topics to be raised by APAC Community. Safe travels. See you all in Dublin soon. Edmon From: tld_discuss-bounces@tld.asia [mailto:tld_discuss-bounces@tld.asia] On Behalf Of Jia-Rong Low Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 7:29 PM To: Simon Cousins; Edmon Chung Cc: Discuss@tld.asia Subject: Re: [Tld_discuss] APAC Space in ICANN Dublin 53 (22 Oct - 10am UTC+2) Thanks Edmon and Simon, As agreed at the last APAC Space, we'll be sending out a mailer to our APAC community mailing list about APAC Space, so that those not in Dublin can also join remotely. I know that we might be getting more inputs on the discussion topics closer to the date, but for the mailer I'll just list the 3 topics that Edmon had put down, noting that we'll update it closer to the date. Essentially: Expanding diversity of participation in GNSO from Asia Pacific Region Updates on China Regulations – policy and market implications Universal Acceptance of TLDs & IDNs Any other topics to be raised by APAC Community. If you would like for a certain to topic to be included in the agenda in advance, please email yannis@registry.asia to give your input. If anyone would like me to add anything to the topics before we send out to our mailing list, just let me know. We're looking to send the mailer out this Thursday. Thank you. Regards, Jia-Rong From: <tld_discuss-bounces@tld.asia> on behalf of Simon Cousins <simon@allegravita.com> Date: Friday, 9 October, 2015 9:54 PM To: Edmon Chung <edmon@registry.asia> Cc: "Discuss@tld.asia" <discuss@tld.asia> Subject: Re: [Tld_discuss] APAC Space in ICANN Dublin 53 (22 Oct - 10am UTC+2) On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 5:13 AM, Edmon Chung <edmon@registry.asia> wrote: 2. China Regulations This topic has implication on policy as well as market, and seems to be a topic of interest from the discussions in Buenos Aires as well. Simon, since you brought it up, perhaps you could help us frame the issue better for discussion in Dublin? I think it may be more interesting this time round not only to talk about the regulations themselves but to explore the market implications of which, leading perhaps towards what the APAC community at ICANN should / could collectively work together on. Hi Edmon, colleagues, Speaking from the perspective my team and I have -- that is, supporting multiple (~12) registries in their China compliance and go-to-market planning and execution, I think the biggest policy issue facing the registry side right now is whether, or not, RSEPs will be needed for registries to integrate with the new China "gateway" services (such as the ZDNS/KNET service). It was .XYZ which initially lodged RSEP to ICANN (without prompting by ICANN, as far as I know) and then, a week or so later, withdrew it. Those who were at the recent GDD meeting in LA will have noted that ICANN did raise the issue of registries integrating with new China backends could cause security and stability problems. Naturally, this would trigger RSTEP review, introducing an interesting new layer of uncertainty and delay for long-suffering registry operators. So, this is the major policy issue from where my colleagues and I sit. Registries are asking themselves "to RSEP or not to RSEP?". Many (most?) we work with have the informal position that RSEP is not necessary, one reason being the new Gateway integrations are not dissimilar from the kinds of integrations that huge numbers of resellers have with registrars such as Hexonet, Open SRS, etc; another reason being that the Gateways won't be causing upstream impacts at all. So now we have uncertainty from the MIIT side as well as from the ICANN side, with the registry ops in the middle, and registrars and registrants all being impacted in ways that are arguably more disruptive than stewards of the DNS probably should be allowing. Clarity is, as is usually the case with new Gs into China, the rarest of commodities. Is this framing adequate, Edmon? Best regards, S. -- Simon Cousins, CEO 夏明 Allegravita LLC & Allegravita HK Limited Email me: simon@allegravita.com . Skype me: simoncousins . Web: allegravita.com USA mobile: +1 347 850-3360 . China mobile: +86 156 2502-6287 Hong Kong mobile: +852 5195-1085 . Macau mobile: +853 6540-3747

Looks fine. Thanks for taking this up :-) Edmon From: Simon Cousins [mailto:simon@allegravita.com] Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 9:54 PM To: Edmon Chung Cc: Jian Chang; Yannis Li; Discuss@tld.asia Subject: Re: [Tld_discuss] APAC Space in ICANN Dublin 53 (22 Oct - 10am UTC+2) On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 5:13 AM, Edmon Chung <edmon@registry.asia <mailto:edmon@registry.asia> > wrote: 2. China Regulations This topic has implication on policy as well as market, and seems to be a topic of interest from the discussions in Buenos Aires as well. Simon, since you brought it up, perhaps you could help us frame the issue better for discussion in Dublin? I think it may be more interesting this time round not only to talk about the regulations themselves but to explore the market implications of which, leading perhaps towards what the APAC community at ICANN should / could collectively work together on. Hi Edmon, colleagues, Speaking from the perspective my team and I have -- that is, supporting multiple (~12) registries in their China compliance and go-to-market planning and execution, I think the biggest policy issue facing the registry side right now is whether, or not, RSEPs will be needed for registries to integrate with the new China "gateway" services (such as the ZDNS/KNET service). It was .XYZ which initially lodged RSEP to ICANN (without prompting by ICANN, as far as I know) and then, a week or so later, withdrew it. Those who were at the recent GDD meeting in LA will have noted that ICANN did raise the issue of registries integrating with new China backends could cause security and stability problems. Naturally, this would trigger RSTEP review, introducing an interesting new layer of uncertainty and delay for long-suffering registry operators. So, this is the major policy issue from where my colleagues and I sit. Registries are asking themselves "to RSEP or not to RSEP?". Many (most?) we work with have the informal position that RSEP is not necessary, one reason being the new Gateway integrations are not dissimilar from the kinds of integrations that huge numbers of resellers have with registrars such as Hexonet, Open SRS, etc; another reason being that the Gateways won't be causing upstream impacts at all. So now we have uncertainty from the MIIT side as well as from the ICANN side, with the registry ops in the middle, and registrars and registrants all being impacted in ways that are arguably more disruptive than stewards of the DNS probably should be allowing. Clarity is, as is usually the case with new Gs into China, the rarest of commodities. Is this framing adequate, Edmon? Best regards, S. -- Simon Cousins, CEO 夏明 Allegravita LLC & Allegravita HK Limited Email me: s <mailto:simon.cousins@illuminantpartners.com> imon@allegravita.com <mailto:imon@allegravita.com> . Skype me: simoncousins . Web: <http://allegravita.com/> allegravita.com USA mobile: +1 347 850-3360 . China mobile: +86 156 2502-6287 Hong Kong mobile: +852 5195-1085 . Macau mobile: +853 6540-3747 <https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B4TI3gAmC9OETVdUbWVObHJRSkE&revid=0B4TI3gAmC9OEYWJsQkFIdVR4elBWN0tBZTdEMWQzUWZoWG5BPQ>