The results for八卦 (gossip) and 集团 (conglomerate) were announced on March 23, 2013 and 网店 (online shop), 商城 (mall), 我爱你 (i-love-you) and 娱乐 (entertainment) were announced on March 30, 2013.

"Applications that pass Initial Evaluation may be eligible to proceed to contracting with the execution of the Registry Agreement as early as 23 April 2013.", according to ICANN. Zodiac looks forward to signing the Registry Agreement with ICANN and to offer these new gTLDs to the market as soon as possible.

In January 2013, renowned industry veteran Wang Jian (Mack), former General Manager of Xinnet, joined Zodiac as COO. Mr Wang was the Vice President of HiChina and General Manager of Xinnet — the two largest registrars in China today. During his tenure at Xinnet, he led the commercialization of virtual private server (VPS) leasing services. At HiChina, Mr Wang was entrusted to set up the cloud solution Business Division, with the solution entering the market within 4 months.

Another domain name industry veteran, Tang Li Hong, has joined Zodiac as Vice President of Operation. Mdm Tang spent the last 10 years at HiChina. During her tenure at HiChina, Mdm Tang led the effort in standardization and automation of the back-end operation of HiChina. Her team of nearly 200 staff has won numerous company awards for efficiency and customer support. Mdm Tang will be responsible for Zodiac's service operation.

In addition, Zodiac recently appointed Allan Ma as the group's General Counsel. Formerly with Cadwaladar, Wickersham & Taft LLP (Beijing) and King & Wood Mallesons (Hong Kong), Mr Ma has in-depth experience in cross-border transactions and is specialized in venture capital, private equity, corporate finance and corporate structuring

These new additions, joining the existing team of former CNNIC staffs including ex-Deputy Director of CNNIC Eugene Li, bring impressive domain name industry experience and will further bolster the Zodiac team and readiness to market."

"With the release of the Initial Evaluation Results, Zodiac will continue to rapidly expand our team in China.", Mr. James Seng, the CEO of Zodiac commented. "There is tremendous excitement and anticipation for our new gTLDs in China so we would like to be the first to market."

Zodiac is also announcing its "China Advisory Services" for new gTLD applicants who are interested in entering China domain name market.

China has the largest Internet population in the world, estimated to be around 560 million. China is also the second largest world economy with a GDP of US$8300 billion and over 50 million registered companies. According to Verisign's December 2012 Domain Name Market brief, the ccTLD for China (.CN) has the highest quarter-to-quarter growth of 43%.

On 7th April 2013 during ICANN 46th meeting in Beijing, Zodiac will be hosting a seminar titled "A New Beginning - Domain Name Market in China”. Speakers are well-known experts in China domain name industry from the Internet Society of China, the China Domain Name Promotion Alliance, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology and others.

While China offers tremendous opportunities, it also presents many challenges for a foreign company. Founded in 2008, Zodiac has accumulated unique experiences and broad contacts in China. Zodiac's China Advisory Services look forward to work with new gTLD applicants to exploit the China domain name market.

For more information, please contact advisory@zodiacregistry.com

Adding the names .QatarTelecom and .Mozaic in Arabic script into the domain name system as substitutes for TLDs such as "dot com" and "dot net" represents the biggest change to the Internet since its inception, according to Ben Crawford, CEO of CentralNic, the technology company whose "DotBrand Solutions" division was tasked with obtaining and powering these new TLDs.

"Not only are these the first generic TLDs in Arabic script, but they are also among the world's first "DotBrand" domains. The Ooredoo Group is one of the first companies in the world to have their own brand names approved for use as TLDs. We will see this revolutionary trend continue with the approval of other DotBrand TLDs like .google, .apple and .sony in months to come," said Crawford.

ICANN followed a rigorous due diligence process in assessing the TLD applications prepared for The Ooredoo Group by DotBrand Solutions, and evaluated the applications and CentralNic's technology as surpassing ICANN's requirements.

The domains which were approved are as follows:

Meaning "Qatar Telecom"
Brand of the Qatar-headquartered telecommunications provider.
Meaning "Mozaic
The Ooredoo Group's pay TV service brand.

"The Ooredoo Group is a visionary company and a leader in innovation not only in the Arabic-speaking world, but globally," Mr. Crawford said. "We are delighted to congratulate them on taking a leadership position in the next developmental stage of the internet."

Zodiac Holdings Limited ("Zodiac") is hosting a seminar on "Domain Name Market in China” during ICANN 46th meeting in Beijing:

When: Sunday April 7, 2013, 09:00 - 12:00
Where: Beijing International Hotel, Grand BallRoom
Who should attend: new gTLD applicants, ICANN accredited registrars, general ICANN participants interested in China domain name market

China has the largest Internet population in the world, estimated to be around 560 million. China is also the second largest world economy with a GDP of US$8,300 billion. Over 50 million companies are registered in China. In contrast, there are merely 13 million domain names.

According to Verisign's Dec 2012 Domain Name Market brief, the ccTLD for China (.CN) has the highest quarter-to-quarter growth of 43%, much higher than the average of 4%. It is not surprising that China has the most number of new gTLD applications in Asia.

Regardless whether you are a registry or a registrar, one cannot ignore the potential market opportunities China has to offer. We invite you to join us to hear from experts and learn more about the general landscape, regulations as well as opportunities and challenges of the domain name industry in China.

Agenda:

1. 09:00 – 09:15  Opening, Welcome Speech, by James Seng, Zodiac Holdings Limited
2. 09:15 – 09:45  General landscape and recent development in China, by Sun Yong Ge, Internet Society of China
3. 09:45 – 10:00  Introduction to the Chinese domain name eco-system by Cao Hua Ping, China Domain Name Promotion Alliance
4. 10:00 – 10:30  Analysis of the Chinese domain name market by Liu Yue, China Academy of Telecom Research (CATR) of Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT)
5. 10:30 – 11:00  Coffee break
6. 11:00 – 11:30  China's legal framework and regulations for domain name industry by Prof Hong Xue, Beijing Normal University
7. 11:30 – 12:00  Chinese domain name dispute resolution practice by Dr. Li Hu, China Internatonal Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission

Please register early! You may also RSVP via email to event@zodiacregistry.com.

DCA Registry Servs & CentralNic Partnership-Empowering ccTLDS with Tech Transfer

ICANN participated in this meeting that saw regional leaders from government, the private sector and civil society. Some of the attendees included the Ugandan and Burundian ICT ministers. The foreign Registry firms that attended the conference were AFNIC the French Registry and the UK based CentralNic, who has partnered with DCA registry services to set up an African Registry based in Nairobi, Kenya.

This open public meeting was aimed at fostering engagement among Internet organizations and all stakeholder groups in the African world and therefore offered the opportunity to share best practices of successful multi-stakeholder models and discuss means to enhance effective participation in global Internet Governance.

DCA Registry Services delegates included Chief Executive officer Ms. Bekele, who had an opportunity as a panelist to relay part of how the African DNS business can achieve its goals. Ms. Bekele specifically identified the fact that the clear responsibilities must be defined in the multi-stakeholder model in order to ensure thriving of the DNS business in the new dispensation especially now that new gTLD's are entering the market.

While speaking implementing the Africa strategy, Ms. Bekele was also able to further present and elaborate on The Internet Business Council for Africa (IBCA), an initiative that was unveiled during ICANN Toronto public forum, a consortium that will seek to work purely with the private sector in energizing ICT with business, and setting up means for African businesses to work with the global entities and thus improve their stakes and reach universally.

In his remarks, the ICANN CEO, Fadi Chehadé, emphasized the openness that ICANN wants to have with the global market and especially the African sector. "Partnering together all of us is central to our success," Said Chehadé. He also pointed out that the world is waiting for Africa to rise, and that it's our responsibility to transfer ICANN to the world. The CEO also emphasized the need to synchronize the work and policies of African initiatives with the global ICANN program for any initiatives to have legitimacy, which mirrors the core of DCA's voice and its own initiatives at ICANN.

In intervention, Mr. Gideon Rop the Project Support engineer for DCA Registry Services while speaking about the DNS business noted the Registry Business challenges/opportunities that are facing the African market and the need to put action into the strategies that have been put on paper that will focus on improving the DNS services so that the domain name business can be lucrative and attractive. Such include improvement of the DNSSEC, IPV6 implementation and Especially the EPP services to make it easier for the registrants. Mr. Rop also elaborated on how the involvement of youth at ICANN would be strategic in increasing its activity in the African continent. This is in line with DCA's trust program which has offered to use resources from the registry to empower the youth.

The presentation by DCA Registry services highlighted some of the problems that are currently facing the DNS market in Africa, including the lack of sound registry back end solutions, no advantageous pricing promotion and marketing, lack of favorable and flexible registration policies professional management. There also is a missing registry/registrar/reseller model that would allow for competition and innovation in the DNS business and the ICANN position in the African context, which ICANN is making efforts to increase African presence as promised to close gap.

Voices from the ICANN Board members including Mike Silber and Sébastien Bachollet who were present, affirmed the various business model that can be adapted by ccTLDs and gTLDs and that there is no one model that should be considered as successful.

DCA registry services and CentralNic who was represented by Mr. Mohammed AL-Ammouri, Business Development Manager, (Middle East Africa) also lauded the opportunity to meet the African ccTLD's that were present and understand their views, challenges and the registry models they have adopted. DCA Registry Services plans to provide the required technology transfer for African ccTLDs through its partner CentralNic. The delegation noted the urgent need for the improvement of services to make the market viable and profitable and these findings strengthen its promise to work with the ccTLD's.

There was also some room to iron out objections that were purportedly placed on DCA application by ccTLD or other Governmental representatives present, said Ms. Bekele in her statement to this press release.

Overall this was a successful meeting for DotConnectAfrica and its partners. DCA registry services looks forward to participating in more events that are key in improving the African DNS market. DCA thanks the organizers for their support and for participation.

CENTR Paper – Fifth World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum (Download PDF)

Introduction

Many nations, particularly from the developing world, look to the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) for advice on telecommunications issues and, increasingly, Internet governance issues. The ITU's Fifth World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum (WTPF-13), 14-16 May 2013, Geneva, Switzerland, will be the first WTPF to focus exclusively on Internet issues. Positions agreed to by ITU Member States on the management of Internet resources — including ccTLDs — and the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in Internet governance are of particular importance to ccTLD operators due to the close association of ccTLDs to the territorial boundaries of sovereign nations.

WTPF-13

WTPF-13 has been convened to discuss the issues raised in ITU's three key Internet-related resolutions:¹

• Resolution 101:"Internet Protocol (IP)-based Networks" (Rev. Guadalajara, 2010)²
• Resolution 102: "ITU's role with regard to international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and the management of Internet resources, including domain names and addresses" (Rev. Guadalajara, 2010)³
• Resolution 133: "Roles of administrations of Member States in the management of Internationalized (multilingual) domain names" (Rev. Guadalajara, 2010)⁴

The main policy outcomes of WTPF-13 will be the "Opinion" documents, which are non-binding on ITU's membership. However, the Opinions and final meeting report will be a good indicator of the Internet issues that may become the focus of ITU discussions, and in turn, more formal resolutions and recommendations, in the near future. In particular, WTPF-13 outcomes will inform the discussions at the Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet), the ITU Plenipotentiary 2014 and the WSIS+10 review process.

In preparation for WTPF-13, two meetings of the Informal Experts Group (IEG)⁵ have already been held to fine-tune the Secretary- General's report.⁶ The report's summary of issues, which includes ccTLD processes, will form the basis of WTPF-13 discussions in May. Draft Opinions have been made available in the fourth, and latest, version of the Secretary-General's report. It is possible that more Draft Opinions will appear in the next and final version of the Secretary General's report, which will be published 1 March 2013.

WTPF-13 Draft Opinions

There are six Draft Opinions in the January 2013 version of the Secretary-General's report. The final WTPF-13 Opinions will be based on these drafts and onsite discussion of the contents of the Secretariat-General's report.

Overall model of Internet governance and development

There are three Draft Opinions on this topic. Two of the three drafts, submitted by Saudi Arabia, focus on the need for "immediate operationalization of the enhanced cooperation process" via an existing or new intergovernmental organization, in consultation with other stakeholders. The third draft, submitted by the United Kingdom, focuses on open, transparent and accountable Internet development, freedom of expression, universal access, and invites all stakeholders — not only Member States and Sector Members — to collaborate towards the ongoing expansion of the Internet.

Why these Opinions matter: These three Draft Opinions reflect fundamentally different views on how the Internet should be governed. On one side are States who believe it is important to have a government-only platform to discuss international Internet governance matters (this does not exclude other venues for Internet governance discussions). In many cases, these governments focus on the security risks the Internet can pose and seek an intergovernmental venue that can address these risks. On the other side are States who prefer to maintain the current multi-stakeholder environment, believing that governments already have enough opportunities to participate in Internet governance processes. These States often prefer to focus on the opportunities the Internet offers, such as freedom of expression and the development of an information society for all.

IPv6 deployment Both Draft Opinions on IPv6 encourage Member States to develop policies and incentives for IPv6 deployment within their territories. The Saudi Arabian draft also proposes ITU to develop policies to manage IPv4 address transfers in the wake of the exhaustion of the unallocated IPv4 pool. The United Kingdom's draft emphasizes the need to build human capacity in developing countries to enable IPv6 deployment.

Why these Opinions matter: If ITU Member States recommend the ITU should actively develop policy for IP address space management — an area already served by Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) — it may open the door for ITU to consider policy development in other areas of Internet resource management. In many cases, such policy development already has a home within existing organizations, such as the ICANN.

IXPs as the long-term solution to better and more robust Internet connectivity

The final draft opinion, from the United Kingdom, invites Member States and Sector Members to work collaboratively with developing countries in promoting IXPs.

Why this Opinion matters: In contrast to the other Draft Opinions, where views on the same topic are the result of ideological differences, this Draft Opinion is an example of practical ways to develop Internet capacity in developing countries. In addition, an improved Internet quality for regions served by new IXPs, will create new useful locations to host anycasted Root DNS Servers and secondary ccTLDs nameservers.

Internet issues contained in the Secretary-General's WTPF-13 report

Any of the topics included in the Secretary-General's report may be included in the final Opinions and meeting report. In particular, the broad scope of the three Draft Opinions on the overall model of Internet governance and development leaves room to add text on a variety of Internet issues summarized in the Secretary-General's report. The issues of most relevance to the ccTLD community in the report are:

1. Roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in Internet management

While the WSIS Tunis Agenda⁷ recognized the multi-stakeholder model as the appropriate global model for Internet governance, the Secretary-General's report summarizes debates on whether the model has been fully implemented. One view maintains that the current Internet governance framework is sufficiently multi-stakeholder and that intergovernmental forums that discuss the Internet, such as the ITU, also need to adopt a multi-stakeholder approach. The ITU has itself been keen to change the world's perceptions of its working methods, publicizing that the WTPF IEG process is open to all stakeholders.⁸

The other view is that the role of governments in Internet governance has not been allowed to evolve according to the "enhanced cooperation" text in the Tunis Agenda, which states:

"We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues."

According to this second view, the failure to operationalize an intergovernmental mechanism for enhanced cooperation has contributed to the world's failure to adequately address ongoing Internet challenges, including spam and cybercrime. States holding this view often also question the adequacy of the ICANN Government Advisory Committee (GAC).

2. Management of Internet resources

The Secretary-General's report notes concerns with the current Internet infrastructure's ability to support the Internet's continued growth — in particular, the ability to support security, identity management and multilingualism. Under the topic of Internet resource management are the following topics of interest:

• Internet connectivity – The high cost of international Internet connectivity for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) is seen to be particularly problematic, with IXPs reported as a long-term solution to the problem. Included in the report are descriptions of some of the main challenges LCDs face in closing the digital divide.
• IP addresses – The ITU has a long history discussing IP address management, which is reflected in the Secretary-General's report. The slow rate of IPv6 deployment, in particular, is a concern, with continued debate about whether today's "first come, first served" IPv6 allocation policies could penalize late adopters. The ITU has issued a number of IP address-related resolutions⁹, so it is a certainty that WTPF 2013 will result in an IP address-related Opinion.
• Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) – RPKI is still in its infancy but it is hoped it will make the Internet's IP routing system more secure. Given the security implications, RPKI is a topic of interest to ITU Member States and therefore is included in the Secretary-General's report. In particular, the report notes that questions have been raised about whether the operation of the RPKI certifi cate chain by ICANN and RIRs fundamentally changes their role in Internet governance.

3. gTLDs

The new gTLD process is detailed in the report, with the Secretary-General noting discussions about new gTLDs' impact on gTLD market competition and trademark or rights holders, particularly those in developing countries. The report also notes that concerns have been raised about the potential misuse of acronyms reserved for use by intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), geographic names, and cultural and language descriptors.

4. ccTLDs

The report notes that there is not a one-to-one relationship between a ccTLD string for a "territory" as defined in the ISO-3166 list and the name of a sovereign nation, with some nations having more than one ccTLD string reserved for their use (for example, Finland has both .fi and .ax). The ccTLD re-delegation process is also described in depth, including the need for the US government to evaluate IANA's report on the ccTLD request. The report includes a reference to ITU's role in requesting the re-delegation of .so in 2009 and notes that the Tunis Agenda states that countries should not be involved in decisions regarding another country's ccTLD. It is not clear whether this reference is meant to be compared directly with the earlier reference to the US government's role in overseeing re-delegation. The effect, however, is to highlight the US government's role in the re-delegation process of other nations' ccTLDs.

5. DNS security

The report describes how DNSSEC works and notes concerns about the processes that create the DNSSEC "chain of trust". However, given the sources of such concerns have not attended IEG meetings, the majority of the text reflects the views of those who support the current DNSSEC trust chain.

6. Multilingualism and IDNs

The report states that internationalized domain names (IDNs) are seen as an important step in overcoming linguistic barriers to Internet access, while also highlighting views that there are a number of challenges regarding intellectual property and the IDN deployment. The report notes some countries believe the current Unicode-based IDN implementation is "effectively a patch on an ASCII-based system and that the DNS will properly refl ect multilingualism when support is native to the system".

7. Regional distribution of Root DNS Servers

The report notes that there is a disparity between the geographical distribution of Root DNS Servers and the global distribution of Internet users but does bust the myth that there are only 13 Root Servers by explaining the concept of anycasting. However, the report also points out that only three of the Root Server operators have administrative headquarters outside the USA.

WTPF-13 and other Internet-related discussions at the ITU

The ITU has held many Internet-related discussions in its meetings and Study Groups. Discussion at WTPF-13 will both be informed by these previous discussions as well as inform future discussions on the Internet at the ITU. The key interactions are described below.

World Conference on International Telecommunications

Many of the proposals submitted during the two-year preparatory process of WCIT¹⁰ contained explicit Internet-related content, including:

• Adding principles for Internet governance
• Asserting that "Member States have equal rights to manage the Internet, including in regard to the allotment, assignment and reclamation of Internet numbering, naming, addressing and identification resources"

Ultimately, the final set of International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs)¹¹ produced in Dubai in 2012 did not include the word "Internet" anywhere. However, there are still many traces of Internet-related issues visible in the ITRs. For example, the ITRs' recognition of States' rights to access to international telecommunication services was added in response to trade blockades that prevent Internet-based services, such as electronic payments, being available in some countries. In addition, a new ITR article on accessibility to international telecommunication services is most applicable to Internet-based services (such as web services). There were strong disagreements on Internet-related issues at WCIT, and, following the intergovernmental practice of discarding proposals that cannot reach consensus amongst States, all direct references to the Internet were removed. A number of States, however, chose not to sign the ITRs — amongst them, the US government. Given the US government provides IANA with the authority to global coordinate the DNS Root and IP addressing systems, the refusal of the USA to sign the ITRs may be seen by a number of States as a sign that the USA "continues" to "control" the Internet. Many of the ideas expressed in Internet-related WCIT proposals have previously appeared in submissions to other ITU meetings, reflecting the fact that some Member States continue to feel strongly that current Internet governance arrangements — particularly the relationship between the US government and IANA — are unsatisfactory. Given the "unsatisfactory" Internet governance arrangements were not addressed in the WCIT outcomes, it is highly probable that many of the same issues will be create equally strong discussion at WTPF-13.

Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues

Since 2010, the Member States-only CWG-Internet¹² — previously known as the Dedicated Group (DG) on International Internet- Related Public Policy Issues — has discussed ccTLDs, gTLDs, IDNs, IP addresses, DNSSEC, and RPKI under the banner of "critical Internet infrastructure". It has also discussed how ICANN and the ICANN GAC work. Although the group discusses many Internet issues that are currently managed under the open multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance, the CWG's documents are available only to Member States. One of the key documents produced by the group, "Internet Governance: Background Information on Mechanisms, Arrangements, Organizations and some Current Topics" is the source of much of the Secretary-General's report for WTPF-13, including information on ccTLD operations and re-delegation procedures. The Opinions produced by WTPF-13 are likely to affect future discussions within the CWG.

WSIS, the Tunis Agenda and WSIS+10

The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)¹³ produced the Tunis Agenda, which has become one of the key documents informing intergovernmental discussions on Internet governance. While it clearly stated that the multi-stakeholder model was the appropriate model for global Internet governance, its text on the need for "enhanced cooperation" between governments in relation to Internet governance remains the subject of debate to this day. WTPF-13 discussions on the appropriate way to further implement, if necessary, governments' roles in Internet governance result directly from differing interpretations of this Tunis Agenda text. To mark the tenth anniversary of the WSIS process ("WSIS+10"), there will be a high level event in 2014 or 2015 that will assess the implementation of WSIS goals. As the tenth anniversary of WSIS is only two years ago, governments that have been pushing for an intergovernmental organization to enhance their role in Internet governance are beginning to express their frustration at the lack of progress to date. With the WCIT outcomes not meeting their goals, the WTPF is the next major ITU event at which governments can continue this debate.

Plenipotentiary 2014

WTPF-13 is based on the Internet-related resolutions that were updated at Plenipotentiary 2010 and will, in turn, influence the Internet-related resolutions developed at the next Plenipotentiary¹⁴. Resolutions passed at Plenipotentiaries are particularly important as these meetings set the agenda for the following four years of ITU's work.

How to participate in WTPF-13

The final version of the Secretary-General will be published 1 March 2013. The WTPF-13 will be held 14-16 May 2013, in parallel with ITU's WSIS Forum, in Geneva, Switzerland. Anyone can attend the WTPF and ask for the floor to make statements.

Nominet, responsible for .uk, has already made a submission to the IEG process.¹⁵ Stakeholders can also contact their government representatives at ITU to help their government develop positions on the issues under discussion at WTPF-13. Many governments who support the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance are also happy to place non-government stakeholders on their official delegation at meetings such as WTPF-13.

If you are unsure whom to contact within your government, a good place to start is the Participants List from WCIT:
http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S12-WCIT12-ADM-0004!!PDF-E.pdf

All information relating to WTPF-13 is posted at:
http://www.itu.int/wtpf

¹ Given the recent WCIT held in Dubai also adopted an Internet-related resolution, it is possible that the issues it raises will also be incorporated in the next version of the Secretary- General's report.

² http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/intgov/resoultions_2010/PP-10/RESOLUTION_101.pdf

³ http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/intgov/resoultions_2010/PP-10/RESOLUTION_102.pdf

⁴ http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/intgov/resoultions_2010/PP-10/RESOLUTION_133.pdf

⁵ http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Pages/ieg.aspx

⁶ http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Pages/report-sg.aspx

⁷ http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html

⁸ The recent WCIT Resolution 3 (see http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Documents/final-acts-wcit-12.pdf) also called on Member States to "to engage with all their stakeholders" on "international Internet-related technical, development and public-policy issues within the mandate of ITU" but stopped short of opening ITU meetings to the full participation of all stakeholders.

⁹ For example: WTSA 2008 Resolution 64, http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/opb/res/T-RES-T.64-2008-PDF-E.pdf; WTDC 2010 Resolution 63, http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/intgov/ resoultions_2010/resolution63.pdf; Plenipotentiary 2010 Resolution 180 http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/intgov/resoultions_2010/PP-10/RESOLUTION_180.pdf

¹⁰ http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/default.aspx

¹¹ http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/itrs.aspx

¹² http://www.itu.int/council/groups/CWG-internet

¹³ http://www.itu.int/wsis

¹⁴ http://www.itu.int/en/plenipotentiary/Pages/default.aspx

¹⁵ http://www.itu.int/md/S12-WTPF13PREP-C-0024/en

Written by CircleID Reporter

Mr. Wang Jian has been in the IT industry for over 18 years. Prior to joining Zodiac, Mr Wang was the Vice President of HiChina and also previously General Manager of Xinnet — both the largest registrars in China today. During his tenure at Xinnet, he led the commercialisation of virtualized VPS leasing service. In HiChina, Mr. Wang was entrusted to set up the cloud solution Business Division, with the solution entering the market within 4 months. Mr. James Seng, the managing director and CEO of Zodiac commented, "With Mr Wang now on board the teamZodiac is now in full gear in our preparations to launch Chinese Domains in China. Mr. Wang's comprehensive understanding and insight of the Domain Names Industry and DNS services will raise the New gTLD business to a new level."

Speaking of his new appointment, Mr Wang says that in the information age Internet is the fundamental basis of growth. In fact, DNS industry in China began slowly in the early days, but observed skyrocketing development in recent years. Similarly, the new gTLD process is the biggest revolution in the 40 years history of the Internet, and Zodiac envisions and will strive for the successful launch of IDNs in China. For non-English speakers, IDN fosters multilingual and cross-cultural coexistent on the Internet, one which is not just culturally meaningful, but a 'blue-ocean' untapped market.

Mr. Wang is confident that launch of IDNs will greatly incentivise the Chinese Internet consumer markets.

Why IDNs for China? As compared against ASCII domain names, an average Chinese consumer will find Chinese domain names much easier to remember and culturally more meaningful. In fact, Chinese Internet user will be key in websites in Chinese language to visit intended websites directly without the difficulty of unfamiliar ASCII characters. For the Chinese businesses, IDN will be exceptionally suited as a branding tool for them to directly reach out to their Internet customers.

Keeping in mind that I am far from a usability expert (my ideal interface is a model 33 Teletype), there are a few things that I can describe without going into the details of exactly how they would look.

The first and most obvious is that users have to be able to enter the addresses. This is not as obvious as it might immediately appear. While I know how to configure my keyboard to type accented letters like the ones in josémartí@gob.cu, I haven't a clue how to type 毛泽东@政府.cn, if I wanted to send mail to someone who'd given me a business card with that address. Perhaps cards will add QR codes. Or perhaps internationalized addresses will mostly be used in communities that are sufficiently homogeneous that they'll all know each other's languages and it won't be enough of an issue to need a solution.

Typing the message shouldn't be a problem, since people will presumably write messages in languages they understand. The next issue is who gets what format of mail. With EAI mail, either a recipient can totally handle it, or not at all, with nothing in between. So if you send an EAI message to a non-EAI address, it won't be delivered. If someone's address includes non-ASCII characters, that means it has to be on an EAI mail system, but for ASCII addresses, you can't tell, unless you have a hint, such as an EAI message that they sent to you. (At some point, I'll upgrade my mail to handle EAI, but my address, which I've had since 1993, won't change.)

This suggests that the address books in mail programs will try and remember which addresses can accept EAI mail, much as a decade ago they remembered who accepted HTML mail. In principle this is a huge ugly hack, in practice I expect it'll work pretty well, send ASCII mail to ASCII addresses and EAI mail to EAI addresses, updating the address book whenever you get an EAI message from an ASCII address.

It's also likely that people with EAI addresses will continue to have ASCII addresses for a long time, so non-EAI mail users can continue to correspond with them. Hence address books are also likely to remember that maozedong@gov.cn is the same person as 毛泽东@政府.cn, so it should use the EAI address in EAI mail, but the ASCII address in messages also sent to non-EAI recipients. Again, a hack in principle, probably workable in practice.

I gather that some large mail systems in China are implementing EAI mail now, so we'll probably know soon how whether mail systems do all this. as opposed to just saying if you want to send me mail, find an EAI mail system.

Written by John Levine, Author, Consultant & Speaker

The new EAI RFCs define extensions to both POP and IMAP to handle EAI mail. Part of the extension simply lets a client (the user mail program) ask a server whether is has EAI capabilities, and if so enable them. This is the way a server can tell whether a client can handle EAI mail. Other extensions enable UTF-8 login names and passwords. For IMAP, they enable UTF-8 names for subfolders, and for POP, the server can provide the text part of responses in languages other than the default English.

If a mailbox contains EAI messages, and a client can handle EAI, the client just picks them up as usual. But if a client can't handle EAI, none of the options are great. One possibility is simply not to show the client the EAI messages, or to replace them with a placeholder that says something like to see this message, update your mail program. This may seem like a cruel joke (we're not going to show you your mail, neener neener), but in some environments, particularly ones where the local language isn't written in Roman characters and users are all expected to upgrade, it can make sense.

The softer alternative is to downgrade the messages, give the user an ASCII version of the message that more or less matches the original. The experimental predecessor to EAI tried valiantly to create downgraded messages that captured the complete original and failed. There are two remaining approaches to creating the downgrade at message retrieval time. The more complicated one encodes the non-ASCII material in a way that a suitably aware mail client could mostly reverse, adding Downgraded-whatever: headers for MIME-encoded versions of headers that don't allow MIME encoding, and a stylized way of representing non-ASCII addresses as MIME comments in address lines.

The less complicated one just makes the minumum changes required to get an ASCII message, without trying to preserve everything. I prefer the simpler approach; any effort spent making mail programs handle the more complex downgrades would better be spent making them handle EAI directly, and in either case, the most likely reaction by a human user is to go find an EAI mail client (web mail perhaps) if she wants to reply to an EAI address.

In the last part of this series, we'll see the surprisingly minor changes needed to make user mail programs handle EAI messages.

Written by John Levine, Author, Consultant & Speaker

EAI affects all of these pieces. In this article we'll look at some parts that don't directly interact with users, MSA, MTA, and MDA.

EAI Mail Submission

As I described in last year's articles, EAI creates a new parallel mail stream that can handle mail with UTF-8 characters in the mailbox name and other places that traditional SMTP mail doesn't. The MSA uses a new option code, SMTPUTF8, to tell MUAs that it can handle EAI mail. When an MUA submits a message that needs EAI features, it in turn uses the SMTPUTF8 option to say that this is an EAI message.

Since there will be parallel EAI and non-EAI mail streams for a long time, MSAs will have to support both, so for each submitted message, an MSA has to remember what kind of message it is, and a well-written MSA will try to verify whether an EAI message can actually be delivered. For example, if an EAI message is sent to an ASCII address, and the address happens to be handled by the same mail server as the MSA, it may be able to check whether that address is enabled for EAI mail, and if not immediately reject the message.

Since it is legal, albeit sloppy, to submit an ASCII message but set the UTFSMTP8 option, the MSA might check to see whether it's really an ASCII message, what I've called Deep Message Inspection, and if so treat it as one. Or if the recipient can't handle EAI, but the MSA happens to know that the submitting user also has an ASCII address and the message doesn't have other characteristics that require EAI, it is allowed (not required) to rewrite the message using ASCII addresses and turn it into an ASCII message.

EAI Mail Transfer

MTAs will also need to manage two mail streams, for ASCII and EAI mail. If an MTA receives an EAI message for an ASCII-only recipient, it will typically reject or bounce it. (The experimental predecessor of EAI tried to invent a general purpose EAI to ASCII downgrade scheme, but it turned out to be flaky and unworkable.) It could also do Deep Message Inspection to check whether EAI messages are in fact ASCII messages, and handle them as such. As mail is relayed to other MTAs, it needs to check that a recipient MTA for an EAI message supports UTFSMTP8 and if not, to bounce the message back to the sender.

EAI Mail Delivery

Some mail systems may make a "flash cut" so that all of their mailboxes handle EAI. Others may let users upgrade individually, as they upgrade their user mail software to handle EAI. In the latter case, the MDA needs to remember who handles EAI and who doesn't, so it can bounce EAI mail to non-EAI mailboxes. Alternatively, even if not all users have EAI software, a mail system can accept EAI mail to every mailbox, let the POP or IMAP server deal with the incompatibilities when the user tries to pick up the mail.

In our next installment, we'll look at what happens when there's EAI mail in an ASCII user's mailbox.

Written by John Levine, Author, Consultant & Speaker

The ICANN Africa Strategy will increase Africa's visibility in ICANN, and in turn, also project ICANN's visibility in Africa. Its implementation should lead to the mainstreaming of the principal issues of concern to Africa in ICANN's discourse.

It is therefore important that the ICANN Africa Strategy is not misrepresented in terms of its overall goals, and the type of strategic impact it is supposed to engender in the short to medium term.

However, just a few days after ICANN's meeting in Toronto, the Africa Strategy is now being spun by some pundits and self-styled Africa watchers into what it is not, thereby creating some general misconceptions. I believe that such mischaracterizations of the ICANN Africa Strategy could create widespread confusion and actually precipitate its failure. Such a ridiculous fiasco resulting as an unintended consequence must be avoided at all cost. It is therefore necessary at this early stage to set the records straight about what the ICANN Africa Strategy is not.

1. The "ICANN Africa Strategy" is different from the "African Agenda"

The Africa Agenda is a failed tactic that was employed by a group of so-called 'African Internet Experts' to impose their agenda on ICANN using the political and diplomatic machinery of the African Union Commission, whilst exploiting the auspices of the African Ministerial Round-Table that met in Dakar, Senegal in October 2011 during ICANN-42. It was essentially the work of chicanery that failed. Twelve (12-points) were outlined as an 'African Agenda' that had presumably received the blessings of an African Ministerial Round-Table and submitted to ICANN leaders in Dakar; with the hope that ICANN would approve the imperious demands that were contained in the 'African Agenda' as a fait accompli. One of the most impossible demands contained in the African Agenda was for ICANN to give special treatment to the African Union, and reserve the .Africa (DotAfrica) name and its representations in any other language in the List of Top-Level Domain names; with the added proviso that the African Union would then delegate the .Africa gTLD to a structure that it hoped to identify and select. It was a very ridiculous demand, against the backdrop that the Top-Level Names in the Reserved List (for example, AfriNIC, www, http, etc.) were already specified in the approved version of the new gTLD Applicant's Guidebook, and any extra-ordinary proposition to include .Africa in the List, would have required an amendment to the new gTLD Applicant's Guidebook.

The inchoate plan was therefore defeated in Dakar, and with it, the African Agenda. In ICANN's official response to the AUC and the African Ministerial Round-Table that came in March 2012, it was recommended to the AUC to use both GAC Early Warning Advice and Community Objection to influence the outcome of the .Africa new gTLD application process.

ICANN's response therefore made it clear that the only route to the delegation of .Africa gTLD was through the new gTLD program and not through the imperious imposition of an African Agenda. It must be emphasized that the Africa Agenda was not consensus-driven, lacked multi-stakeholder input and was never approved by ICANN. The Africa Agenda actually failed at Dakar.

2. The "ICANN African Strategy" is not related to the new gTLD Program

The ICANN African Strategy has nothing to do with the .Africa new gTLD. The objectives of the ICANN new gTLD program are quite clear as a global, fairly structured, rule-based, policy-driven, transparent and competitive process under which new gTLDs will emerge, with a view to expanding the Internet. The Africa Strategy on the other hand is simply a strategic planning process with multi-stakeholder inputs that is expected to guide ICANN's engagement with Africa during the implementation period of the ICANN Strategic Plan from July 2013 to June 2016. Therefore, any viewpoint that contrives to indicate that the ICANN African Strategy is somehow connected to .Africa gTLD or to ICANN's new gTLD program is completely fallacious, and should be debunked as incorrect and misleading.

As a matter of fact, during the comments collection process, the draft Assessment report assembled by the ASWG had contained a reference to .Africa new gTLD, based on some submission that was made by a respondent, but this was seen as irrelevant, out-of-context and removed.

3. An AUC-endorsed DotAfrica Application has nothing to with the Africa Strategy

A recent blog posting written by Andrew Mack, a self-styled Africa watcher, had tried to suggest that the DotAfrica application somehow has something to do with the ICANN Africa Strategy. In his article he stated inter alia: "You could also see it in the tremendous enthusiasm for the AUC-endorsed dotAfrica (.africa) application, which has become a real a (sic) focal point of an emerging "African Agenda". Again, this is a very wrong assertion which is very misleading. Andrew Mack's confusion is rather palpable, by mixing-up the new ICANN Africa Strategy with the previously failed African Agenda.

The point has already been made that the "African Agenda" aimed to take the DotAfrica new gTLD outside the oversight of ICANN's new gTLD program under an opaque plan that would have enabled the African Union Commission (with the 'guidance' of its Task Force on DotAfrica) to separately delegate the .Africa gTLD to a structure that it had identified and selected based on a flawed 'special treatment process'. Andrew Mack's recent posting was therefore in grave error by assuming that the AUC-endorsed dotAfrica (.africa) application has become the focal point of an emerging "Africa Agenda". The African Agenda was generally seen as an illegitimate, stage-managed scheme which never received any approval from ICANN. The AUC had wanted to enjoy certain special legislative protections under the African agenda, but this was denied by ICANN.

Finally, it is important to clarify that the AUC is not part of the ICANN Africa Strategy. In truth, the AUC had tried to endorse a DotAfrica (.Africa) Community TLD application for the African Community, but the appointed applicant — UniForum did not submit any application on behalf of the African Community, and did not even acknowledge any 'African Community' in its application for .Africa.

Therefore the notion of an AUC-endorsed DotAfrica application remains nebulous and ill-defined. Following the revelation that the .Africa application by UniForum did not truthfully adhere to the terms of the purported AUC-endorsement that it had received; to wit, that of applying on behalf of the African Community, Mr. Neil Duncan Dundas had made an open admission on the AfrICANN Forum that he expects the AU, the African Internet Community and ICANN to hold UniForum accountable for its misleading application.

Therefore, until full accountability at the time of final reckoning, it is a rather fantastic notion for Andrew Mack or anybody for that matter to even remotely suggest that an AUC-endorsed dotAfrica (.africa) application, is becoming the focal point of an emerging "African Agenda".

Written by Sophia Bekele, CEO of DotConnectAfrica

DCA Trust used the opportunity afforded by the presence of the entire ICANN Global Community gathered at Toronto to also unveil the IBCA — Internet Business Council for Africa — initiative that it has independently developed as a component of the ICANN Africa Strategy. The objective of the IBCA is to increase and promote the participation of the African Private Sector, and the Africa/Global non-governmental constituency (involved in Africa) in the ICANN community and in Global Internet Governance.

ICANN's 45th International Meeting was held in Toronto, Ontario Province, Canada. Canada is a member of the influential 'G7', the world's pre-eminent group of the seven most industrialized economies, also a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), is also the centre of Canada's film industry.

DCA Represented by its Back-End Registry CentraNic, at ICANN 45 TorontoThe ICANN-45 Meeting in Toronto provided a landmark moment for the presentation of the initial draft of the ICANN Africa Strategy by the Africa Strategy Working Group (ASWG). It is hoped that the implementation of the ICANN Africa Strategy will constitute a new ICANN Approach to Africa; a centre-piece program that has been accorded top priority by the new ICANN CEO and Board Chair.

DCA intends that the IBCA initiative shall form a significant component of the new ICANN Africa Strategy with the objective of promoting multi-stakeholder diversity at ICANN. DCA's proposed implementation strategy is for the IBCA initiative to be implemented separately from the work of the ASWG. According to Ms. Sophia Bekele, Executive Director of DCA Trust: "The proposed IBCA initiative squarely and tangibly addresses an important issue regarding increased African private sector participation at ICANN in a rather straight-forward manner”. "This is what makes the IBCA proposal quite compelling”, she added.

The ICANN-45 Meeting provided a good opportunity for DCA Trust to meet with Dr. Tarek Kamel, the Senior Advisor to the ICANN President & CEO who also has the responsibility to lead the formulation of the ICANN Africa Strategy. The meeting with Dr. Kamel was utilized by DCA Trust to discuss the scope of the ICANN Africa Strategy, and after receiving the necessary reassurances that DCA Trust can participate in the Africa Strategy, formally submitted its IBCA proposal which would be considered as an input to be incorporated into the Final Africa Strategy Document that shall be readied in the period leading up to the next ICANN meeting in Beijing, China. Until the ICANN-46 Meeting in Beijing, DCA Trust intends to undertake considerable outreach and communication activities specially targeted at key private sector and non-governmental sector operatives in Africa who are expected to support and participate in the proposed IBCA initiative.

ICANN-45 is the first important gathering of the ICANN global community since the new ICANN President & CEO, Mr. Fadi Chehade took over as the helmsman of the Global Internet Governance body.

The opening presentation by the new ICANN CEO emphasized new management delivery goals and objectives that are pivoted on Affirmation of Purpose, Operations Excellence, Internationalization, and Multi-stakeholder Model Evolution; to be driven by a new global leadership that is operating based on a new management structure (see: "Fadi Charts the Course”). The new ICANN under Mr. Fadi Chehade promises to be an organization that works smarter. The new CEO unveiled some new season tools featuring 'MyICANN.org' — an interactive and highly personalized portal — which is aimed at better stakeholder collaboration.

Speaking on behalf of the Canadian government, Mr. Tony Clement, President of the Treasury Board of Canada, welcomed the delegates to Canada's scenic commercial city of Toronto. Mr Clement emphasized that the Internet is a resource with a vast potential that has transformed how the world communicates. He further outlined the efforts of the Canadian government to ensure an open Internet and the free flow of information which is key to stimulating innovation, growth and accountability.

DotConnectAfrica was represented by its back-end registry services partner, CentralNIC, who was a silver-level sponsor at the ICANN-45 International Meeting in Toronto. CentralNic is a leading registry operator that is active in the domain name industry, and selected by DCA Trust to implement a world-class registry services operations platform to be located in Nairobi, Kenya for the .Africa new gTLD.

The Toronto meeting was also used as the forum by ICANN to provide an update on the new gTLD program. The most recent activity concluded is the Public Comments Period which featured the submission of 8,956 comments for the Evaluation/Review Panels. In addition, 127 Change Requests were submitted by applicants, and 29 have so far been approved whilst 84 are in review, and 14 would require follow-up with applicants. So far, 7 applications have been withdrawn and no objections have been filed.

Overall, ICANN-45 in Toronto was a considerable success for DotConnectAfrica Trust as an active member of the ICANN Global Community.

The evidence was everywhere… You could see it in the large number of African participants from all over the continent, and in active African engagement in the GAC. You could see it in the statements from the ICANN CEO, Board Chair and constituency leaders who came to the release of the new Africa strategy and praised both the strategy and the strategy process — inclusive, fast-moving and importantly, driven by African stakeholders at ICANN, not imposed from above. You could also see it in the tremendous enthusiasm for the AUC-endorsed dotAfrica (.africa) application, which has become a real a focal point of an emerging "African Agenda".

Of course, the hard work is yet to be done.

All sides need to follow through to turn the strategy into real impact, to make sure that ongoing outreach becomes a reality, not just happy talk. We need to make sure the .Africa application — which has support from more than 40 countries (and counting) isn't slowed down by the new batching process or any other noise. Nobody in the end was in favor of digital archery, but the system did have one thing right — a preference for geographic, community and IDN names. Prioritizing Latin American and African applications makes sense given the history of "outreach", the small number of applications from these regions and the reality of the internet's growth. We believe a new "draw" system without a focus on underserved regions would send the wrong signal to the international internet community. It wouldn't do justice to the good work already initiated with support from the CEO, and in the end, it would be bad for ICANN.

As a long time Africa watcher at ICANN, I saw much to celebrate in Toronto. And I'd like to especially compliment new CEO Fadi Chehadé for creating the space for (and what seems like genuine interest in) the needs of the continent that has been underserved for so long. But while words are important, we're just getting started. Africa is showing that it is serious about playing a real, sustained role at ICANN. Hopefully, ICANN is serious as well.

Written by Andrew Mack, Principal at AMGlobal Consulting

The chart also shows that at the end of the day only about 1,200 new gTLDs may go online, that means that we will likely see about 730 drop outs.

The links to the documents are here: PDF / JPG

Written by Dirk Krischenowski, Founder and CEO of dotBERLIN GmbH & Co. KG

In contrast to many comment periods we have participated in during the 7-year long policy development process for new gTLDs it seems that a clear opinion emerges from the applicants' community and other parties. 46 comments out of the 98 comments (47%) have been received with the clear message that applications for Geographical Names, Communities and/or Internationalized Domain Names (gacs) should be evaluated and delegated first, before all other applicants. Why this?

Public Interest is convincing

In the Applicant Guidebook ICANN has valued gTLD applications for Geographical Names, Communities and IDNs differently by attributing a higher weight to them than to Standard gTLDs, giving them special categories, while also adding restrictions and other requirements to them. This valuation has been agreed upon by a multi-stakeholder consensus within the global Internet community during the development of the policies for the new gTLD process. The goals of this special treatment are to protect the global public interest together with the all over goals of the new gTLD program in giving Internet users more choice, supporting their language and protecting communities' high semantic meaningful gTLDs on the Internet. The Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) stated in Feb 2011: "The GAC reiterates its strong belief that the new gTLD process should meet the global public interest in promoting a fully inclusive and diverse Internet community and infrastructure, consistent with the Affirmation of Commitments."

Based on these protections it would be highly inconsistent to value all applications the same in a batching/sequencing process. Processing all gTLD applications in the same manner would compromise these achievements and differences by valuing generic gTLDs such as .BET, .CLICK or .CASINO in the same way as public interest gTLDs such as .PARIS, .IEEE or .ORG in Chinese characters. This argument seems to have been the basis for the many comments in favour of prioritizing the Geographical Name, Community and IDN categories.

In addition to the vocal support of this position, at least a dozen national, city and regional governments have written to ICANN during the past months to make their voices heard. A message of all these letters was the request for priority of new gTLDs which are in the public interest. ICANN neither published these letters nor gave it any feedback to the senders.

ICANN needs good News

Additionally, after all the terrible technical glitches, procedural shortcomings and delays ICANN needs to find back to a path of vigor and reliability to regain trust in the global Internet community. And success stories in the new gTLD process are desperately needed as soon as possible as well.

Prioritizing Geographical Name, Community and IDN applications and having them delegated first offers the chance for ICANN to overcome its damaged image, gain new self-esteem and to silence ICANN's biggest adversaries.

To read all the comments please go to:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/newgtld-input/2012/thread.html

The GeoTLDs' comment is published here:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/newgtld-input/attachments/20120819/...

Written by Dirk Krischenowski, Founder and CEO of dotBERLIN GmbH & Co. KG

REG.RU is an accredited domain name registrar in the national .RU / .РФ / .SU domains and it is a leader among domain name registrars in Russia. Today every third domain in Russia is registered through REG.RU and the company currently serves more than 1,100,000 domain names. REG.RU offers domain registration in more than 180 international and national zones, hosting services and a wide range of related services containing unique products and designs, such as Stat.reg.ru statistics service, Reg.Choice — an intellectual service for domain name selection — and others.

"Thanks to our collaboration with CentralNic we are able to provide our clients with a brand new level of domain registration services and exclusive products based on innovative concepts", said Alexey Korolyuk, REG.RU CEO.

"We are very happy to have REG.RU as our main partner in Russia. The strength in the Russian market provided by REG.RU will greatly complement CentralNic's core strength as the world's number one registry of third level domains.", said Mar Perez, CentralNic Head of Business Development.

CentralNic is the world's oldest independent international registry with 16 years of experience operating a proven ICANN-compliant technical solution with a track record of 100% availability. CentralNic now has a portfolio of 26 short second-level domain extensions, including .EU.COM (Europe), .UK.COM (United Kingdom), .US.COM (USA), .CN.COM (China), .COM.DE (Germany), and the top-level domain .LA (Los-Angeles). Additional domain extensions are regularly added to this portfolio, and CentralNic is the Registry Backend Provider behind 60 new TLD applications — more than any other company in Europe.

REG.RU is the leading domain name registrar in Russia and the authorized registrar in the national .RU / .РФ / .SU domains. Today the company serves more than 1,100,000 domain names, offering domain registration in 180 zones, and providing hosting, mail and VPS/VDS services in addition to physical servers lease and many other services. REG.RU has over 15 offices in Moscow, Saint-Petersburg, Samara, Novosibirsk, Ekaterinburg, Kaliningrad, Ufa, Chelyabinsk, Rostov-on-Don, Vladimir, Tumen, Krasnoyarsk and Kiev (Ukraine).