International uproar over China's internet curbs

Among the key changes is a local registration requirement. Currently, a company can register a dotcom domain name with any provider—Chinese, U.S. or EU—and be granted network access by China's internet service providers (ISPs). The draft, however, states that websites must now be signed up with a PRC domain name registrar and operated by a domestic organization in order to be granted internet access. ISPs, which are all more or less state-run, will refuse connection to those that do not meet this criteria.

Another issue is that the proposed Measures fail to clearly define “access” and don't identify the sequence of network connections.

The language isn't clear on how the domain name links to network access, Yang said, while Kevin Guo, a TMT partner at TransAsia Lawyers, said that whether intentional or not, the definition of network access service could be interpreted broadly to include any meaningful telecom resource.

What lawyers in China say

Despite the international uproar, practitioners on the ground provide a different perspective.

The Provisions only target service providers with servers in China. “If we're talking about a foreign company with servers offshore, these rules change nothing,” said Eugene Low, partner at Hogan Lovells in Hong Kong.

He and his team wrote about the Measures on domain names in an April 14 client alert, saying that the “conclusion that all foreign websites (or even all websites with foreign top level domain (TLD) names) would be blocked in China is—for now—incorrect.”

The new rules have no real impact for foreign investors because publishing has never been open to them anyway, said Yang. “Both joint ventures and WFOEs [wholly foreign-owned enterprises] have never been permitted,” he added.

As for foreign companies with actual established business models in the PRC, Guo emphasized that this development doesn't mean that China plans to just shut them out completely.

The government will evaluate business models, and if a greater good is achieved by the service despite having a foreign element, it will be willing to hear them out, he said. This cooperation is what the Provisions most likely mean by approval on a project-by-project basis.

It's certainly not the end of the world, and there really is no dramatic change from the earlier situation, Guo said.

“That the Western media is always reading these moves as the government trying to squeeze foreign players out is quite frankly unhelpful—that's not at all the intention here,” he said.

Low pointed out that before the Provisions, the term “internet” was generally used in regulations rather than “network” or “online”. But the new series of legislations all avoid “internet” and use the latter two to ensure new technology can be captured, he said.

The authorities are using more vague and tech-neutral words to cater for all possibilities, Low added.

“That has always been the case in China—the government issues laws that are broad enough to for it to have a legal basis to regulate the market,” said Guo.

Online publishing: A closer look

One key aspect worth noting about the new publishing Provisions is that the focus has shifted to capturing the actual content of the services.

So, while in theory companies outside China running global business platforms should not be targeted, regulators are going to pay more attention to those that have set up websites accessible by—and targeted at—PRC customers, price products in renminbi, use simplified Chinese characters and clearly market their goods or services to a domestic Chinese audience, said Simmons & Simmons' Yang.

“This is an area where the government will look to somehow increase control as it realizes many companies bypass regulations by using offshore servers,” he said.

Amazon's Kindle, for instance, has a significant content business in China, as does Apple, which offers its App Store and iTunes services to PRC customers (lawyers said that the iTunes Movie and iBooks shutdown in May was unrelated to the Provisions, but due to cultural reasons).

“Regulators have largely tolerated Apple in China because the company has behaved well and maintains a good reputation and relations with the government,” said Yang.

Low also said that it does depend on whether the content—whether app stores or online games—is targeting the Chinese audience. If the services are onshore, they'll need to comply. But if they are wholly offshore services, then nothing changes.

“Getting this license is only part of the problem—foreign companies need to give the regulator cause to believe that their entire business is in line with PRC laws,” Guo said.

Companies will need to comply with all relevant regulations, such as those regarding structural arrangements and business models, licenses and personal data protection.

Online publishing entities subject to the Provisions are required to undergo an annual verification system and record the contents of all published works, including details of the upload time, URL and domain name.

“On paper, this will be an onerous burden, but the real question is how strictly the authorities will enforce these rules,” said Low.

Major domestic-based online media platforms like Youku, WeChat and Weibo will definitely be subject to the Provisions and their license requirements, he said.

In an interview with China Law & Practice, Di Yao, the APAC legal counsel of U.S. action camera maker GoPro Inc., mentioned that the publishing rules could have an impact—though “nothing devastating”—on the company as it works with local internet firms to share video content. “Our partner platforms like Youku will perhaps need to notify the authorities and seek approval, and we will definitely assist them with that,” Yao said.

Internet domain names: Come back home

The CNNIC [China Internet Network Information Center] is the core authority that oversees the .cn and .中国 domains. Private-owned Chinese companies like Alibaba also run some.

Foreign companies have been concerned about whether they are affected by these regulations, but the government responded that they aren't the real target—China's intention is to get the domestic sites and online forums that operate in the country, but have their domains registered abroad, to move back onshore, said Yang.

Big names like Alibaba, Tencent and Baidu—all PRC entities—are reportedly all hosted offshore.

There are many smaller local platforms operating in China but are hosted overseas, and when the government blocks their server, they just switch to another and redirect traffic to a new domain without much hassle, he explained. This can be troublesome for the authorities.

There may be a transitional agreement between foreign and PRC providers to ensure a smooth transfer of existing domain names to China—this would be the most user-friendly way for companies to work under the new rules, Low said. He added that what'll be interesting to see is how the Provisions affect new gTLDs.

By Katherine Jo

今年出台的中国新规则加强了国家对互联网服务的控制，进一步限制外国参与网络出版，并要求在国内可访问的所有域名和网站在中国注册。

尽管一些内地执业人士表示该指引对位于境外的网站几乎没有影响，这一动向引发了海外的许多反对。《纽约时报》引用美国贸易代表办公室的话说，中国的互联网审查和网络限制损害了美国公司的商业利益。西蒙斯律师事务所上海代表处的IP和技术顾问律师杨迅表示，中国政府明显旨在对面向中国受众的外国公司施加更大的控制。

工业和信息化部与国家新闻出版广电总局在2016年2月4日出台的《网络出版服务管理规定》（《规定》）引起批评。

《规定》禁止任何类型的外国所有权，并要求任何寻求在中国参与网络出版服务的实体在中国取得许可，或与获得许可的中国公司就个别的项目开展合作。在此之前，工信部在3月25日发布了《互联网域名管理办法（修订征求意见稿）》（《办法》）。

其中一个主要变化是本地注册要求。目前，公司可与中国、美国或欧盟的任何提供商注册dotcom 域名，并获得中国互联网服务提供商（ISP）授予的网络访问权。 但草案规定 ，网站现在必须与中国域名注册机构注册，并由国内机构运营，才能获授互联网访问权。所有ISP差不多都为国营，所以对于不符合这项标准的公司，ISP会拒绝给予网络连接。

另一个问题是，拟议的《办法》没有明确定义“访问权”，而且未明确网络连接的顺序。

杨迅认为，域名与网络访问权的联系并不明确，而权亚律师事务所的TMT业务合伙人郭烨律师指出，无论是否有意为之，网络连接服务的定义可以广泛解释，包括任何有意义的电信资源。

中国律师的观点

尽管国际反响强烈， 中国的执业人员表达了不同观点。

《规定》仅针对在中国有服务器的服务提供商。“如果我们讨论的是一家服务器位于境外的外国公司，这些规则并未带来改变，”霍金路伟律师事务所香港办事处合伙人刘耀慈律师指出。

刘律师及其团队在4月14日的客户简讯中就互联网域名对《办法》加以阐述，指出“所有外国网站（或者甚至拥有外国最高域(TLD)名的所有网站）将在中国被封锁的结论并不准确，至少就目前而言并不准确。”

杨迅说，新规则对外国投资者没有实质影响，因为出版根本从未向外国投资者开放。“合资企业和外资企业都从没有获得允许，”他补充道。

对于在中国建立实质性业务模式的外国公司，郭烨强调，这一发展并不意味着中国有意将他们完全排除在外。

郭律师表示，政府将评估业务的模式，如果服务可以带来更大的收益，那么即使其中涉及外国因素，政府也会愿意听取外方的意见。这种合作很可能是《规定》真正的用意，即按个别项目进行审批。

郭烨认为，这显然不是世界末日，而且与之前的情况并没有较大的变化。

“西方媒体总是将这些动态解读为政府试图将外方排挤出中国市场，这种解读没有太大意义，这完全不代表政府的意图，”他说。

刘耀慈指出，在《规定》出台之前，法规中一般使用“互联网”一词，而非“网络”或“网上”。但是，新系列的立法都避免使用“互联网”一词，而是使用了后两种词，确保将新技术涵盖在内。

刘耀慈补充说，主管部门使用了更含糊且技术上更中性的词语，来适应所有可能性。

“这始终是中国国情——政府出台的法律要足够宽泛，为市场监管提供法律依据，”郭烨表示。

网络出版: 近距离观察

新出版《规定》中值得注意的一个重要方面，是监管重点转向了服务的实际内容。

因此，西蒙斯律师事务所的杨迅指出，尽管从理论上来说，在境外运营全球业务平台的公司不应当成为目标，但如果公司已建立了定位于中国客户、并且可供中国客户访问的网站，提供人民币计价的产品，使用简体中文，明确向中国国内受众营销其产品或服务，那么监管部门将对这些公司更加关注。

他说，“这是政府希望以某种方式来加强控制的领域，因为政府意识到许多公司通过使用境外服务器来规避法规监管” 。

例如，亚马逊Kindle在中国经营重要的内容业务。同样地，苹果公司为中国客户提供App商店和iTunes 服务 （有律师指出， iTunes电影和iBooks在五月关闭是因为文化方面的原因，与《规定》无关）。

“监管部门对苹果公司在中国采取相当包容态度，这主要因为该公司表现良好，有较好的声誉，并维持较好的政府关系，”杨迅说。

刘耀慈也表示，这的确取决于内容是否针对中国受众，无论是应用商店还是网络游戏。如果服务在境内提供，就必须合规，但如果是完全位于境外的服务，就没有任何改变。

“取得这项许可只是问题的一部分，外国公司必须让监管部门有理由相信，他们的整个业务都遵守中国法律，”郭烨说。

公司必须遵守所有相关法规，例如有关结构安排、商业模式、许可和个人数据保护的法规。

受《规定》规限的网络出版实体必须通过年度核查体系，并记录所有出版作品的内容，包括上传时间、URL和域名的详情。

“字面意思上规定了很大的义务，但真正的问题是，主管部门执行这些规则的严格程度，”刘耀慈指出。

他说，优酷、微信和微博等国内主要网络媒体平台显然必须遵守《规定》及其许可要求。

在接受《China Law & Practice》的采访时，美国运动相机制造商 GoPro Inc. 亚太区法律顾问姚笛提到，出版规则对公司可能产生影响，但“不会有严重影响”，因公司与本地互联网公司合作来分享视频内容。“我们的合作平台（例如优酷）可能需要通知主管部门寻求批准，我们当然也会协助他们处理相关事项，”姚律师说。

互联网域名: 回归境内

中国互联网络信息中心（CNNIC）是监管.cn和.中国域名的主管部门。一些私人中国公司（如阿里巴巴）也运营一些域名。

杨迅指出，外国公司担心他们是否会受到这些法规的影响，但政府的回应是，外国公司并非真正的目标——中国方面的意图是让在国内运营、但在境外注册域名的本地网站和网络论坛返回境内。

据报道，一些知名的中国实体，如阿里巴巴、腾讯和百度都在海外托管主机。

他解释说，还有许多规模较小的在中国运营的本地平台在海外托管主机，如果政府封锁他们的服务器，他们只要转到另一台服务器，将流量引到新域名即可，并不费太大力气。但这对主管部门而言意味着麻烦。

刘耀慈表示，外国提供商可与中国提供商签订过渡协议，来确保现有互联网域名顺利转移到中国 ，这对在新规则下经营的公司而言，是最具有用户友好型的方式。他还补充说，《规定》对新的 gTLD的影响引人关注。

（作者：赵修敏）

New Chinese rules issued recently tighten the state's control on internet services, further restricting foreign participation in online publishing and requiring every domain name and website accessible in the country to be registered in the PRC.

While a number of mainland practitioners described the guidelines as having little effect on websites based abroad, the move prompted a chorus of protests from overseas. The New York Times cited the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative as saying that China's internet censorship and online restrictions damage the business interests of U.S. companies. Beijing clearly intends to exert more control on foreign companies that target the PRC audience, according to Xun Yang, Shanghai-based IP and technology counsel at Simmons & Simmons.

The criticisms came after the February 4, 2016, release of the Provisions for the Administration of Online Publication Services (Provisions) by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) and the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television.

The rules ban foreign ownership of any kind and require any entities looking to engage in online publishing services in China to obtain a permit or work on individual projects, on a case-by-case basis, with licensed, purely Chinese companies. This was followed by the MIIT's issuance of the Measures for the Administration of Internet Domain Names (Draft for Comments on Amendments) (Measures) on March 25.

Among the key changes is a local registration requirement. Currently, a company can register a dotcom domain name with any provider—Chinese, U.S. or EU—and be granted network access by China's internet service providers (ISPs). The draft, however, states that websites must now be signed up with a PRC domain name registrar and operated by a domestic organization in order to be granted internet access. ISPs, which are all more or less state-run, will refuse connection to those that do not meet this criteria.

Another issue is that the proposed Measures fail to clearly define “access” and don't identify the sequence of network connections.

The language isn't clear on how the domain name links to network access, Yang said, while Kevin Guo, a TMT partner at TransAsia Lawyers, said that whether intentional or not, the definition of network access service could be interpreted broadly to include any meaningful telecom resource.

What lawyers in China say

Despite the international uproar, practitioners on the ground provide a different perspective.

The Provisions only target service providers with servers in China. “If we're talking about a foreign company with servers offshore, these rules change nothing,” said Eugene Low, partner at Hogan Lovells in Hong Kong.

He and his team wrote about the Measures on domain names in an April 14 client alert, saying that the “conclusion that all foreign websites (or even all websites with foreign top level domain (TLD) names) would be blocked in China is—for now—incorrect.”

The new rules have no real impact for foreign investors because publishing has never been open to them anyway, said Yang. “Both joint ventures and WFOEs [wholly foreign-owned enterprises] have never been permitted,” he added.

As for foreign companies with actual established business models in the PRC, Guo emphasized that this development doesn't mean that China plans to just shut them out completely.

The government will evaluate business models, and if a greater good is achieved by the service despite having a foreign element, it will be willing to hear them out, he said. This cooperation is what the Provisions most likely mean by approval on a project-by-project basis.

It's certainly not the end of the world, and there really is no dramatic change from the earlier situation, Guo said.

“That the Western media is always reading these moves as the government trying to squeeze foreign players out is quite frankly unhelpful—that's not at all the intention here,” he said.

Low pointed out that before the Provisions, the term “internet” was generally used in regulations rather than “network” or “online”. But the new series of legislations all avoid “internet” and use the latter two to ensure new technology can be captured, he said.

The authorities are using more vague and tech-neutral words to cater for all possibilities, Low added.

“That has always been the case in China—the government issues laws that are broad enough to for it to have a legal basis to regulate the market,” said Guo.

Online publishing: A closer look

One key aspect worth noting about the new publishing Provisions is that the focus has shifted to capturing the actual content of the services.

So, while in theory companies outside China running global business platforms should not be targeted, regulators are going to pay more attention to those that have set up websites accessible by—and targeted at—PRC customers, price products in renminbi, use simplified Chinese characters and clearly market their goods or services to a domestic Chinese audience, said Simmons & Simmons' Yang.

“This is an area where the government will look to somehow increase control as it realizes many companies bypass regulations by using offshore servers,” he said.

Amazon's Kindle, for instance, has a significant content business in China, as does Apple, which offers its App Store and iTunes services to PRC customers (lawyers said that the iTunes Movie and iBooks shutdown in May was unrelated to the Provisions, but due to cultural reasons).

“Regulators have largely tolerated Apple in China because the company has behaved well and maintains a good reputation and relations with the government,” said Yang.

Low also said that it does depend on whether the content—whether app stores or online games—is targeting the Chinese audience. If the services are onshore, they'll need to comply. But if they are wholly offshore services, then nothing changes.

“Getting this license is only part of the problem—foreign companies need to give the regulator cause to believe that their entire business is in line with PRC laws,” Guo said.

Companies will need to comply with all relevant regulations, such as those regarding structural arrangements and business models, licenses and personal data protection.

Online publishing entities subject to the Provisions are required to undergo an annual verification system and record the contents of all published works, including details of the upload time, URL and domain name.

“On paper, this will be an onerous burden, but the real question is how strictly the authorities will enforce these rules,” said Low.

Major domestic-based online media platforms like Youku, WeChat and Weibo will definitely be subject to the Provisions and their license requirements, he said.

In an interview with China Law & Practice, Di Yao, the APAC legal counsel of U.S. action camera maker GoPro Inc., mentioned that the publishing rules could have an impact—though “nothing devastating”—on the company as it works with local internet firms to share video content. “Our partner platforms like Youku will perhaps need to notify the authorities and seek approval, and we will definitely assist them with that,” Yao said.

Internet domain names: Come back home

The CNNIC [China Internet Network Information Center] is the core authority that oversees the .cn and .中国 domains. Private-owned Chinese companies like Alibaba also run some.

Foreign companies have been concerned about whether they are affected by these regulations, but the government responded that they aren't the real target—China's intention is to get the domestic sites and online forums that operate in the country, but have their domains registered abroad, to move back onshore, said Yang.

Big names like Alibaba, Tencent and Baidu—all PRC entities—are reportedly all hosted offshore.

There are many smaller local platforms operating in China but are hosted overseas, and when the government blocks their server, they just switch to another and redirect traffic to a new domain without much hassle, he explained. This can be troublesome for the authorities.

There may be a transitional agreement between foreign and PRC providers to ensure a smooth transfer of existing domain names to China—this would be the most user-friendly way for companies to work under the new rules, Low said. He added that what'll be interesting to see is how the Provisions affect new gTLDs.

By Katherine Jo

今年出台的中国新规则加强了国家对互联网服务的控制，进一步限制外国参与网络出版，并要求在国内可访问的所有域名和网站在中国注册。

尽管一些内地执业人士表示该指引对位于境外的网站几乎没有影响，这一动向引发了海外的许多反对。《纽约时报》引用美国贸易代表办公室的话说，中国的互联网审查和网络限制损害了美国公司的商业利益。西蒙斯律师事务所上海代表处的IP和技术顾问律师杨迅表示，中国政府明显旨在对面向中国受众的外国公司施加更大的控制。

工业和信息化部与国家新闻出版广电总局在2016年2月4日出台的《网络出版服务管理规定》（《规定》）引起批评。

《规定》禁止任何类型的外国所有权，并要求任何寻求在中国参与网络出版服务的实体在中国取得许可，或与获得许可的中国公司就个别的项目开展合作。在此之前，工信部在3月25日发布了《互联网域名管理办法（修订征求意见稿）》（《办法》）。

其中一个主要变化是本地注册要求。目前，公司可与中国、美国或欧盟的任何提供商注册dotcom 域名，并获得中国互联网服务提供商（ISP）授予的网络访问权。 但草案规定 ，网站现在必须与中国域名注册机构注册，并由国内机构运营，才能获授互联网访问权。所有ISP差不多都为国营，所以对于不符合这项标准的公司，ISP会拒绝给予网络连接。

另一个问题是，拟议的《办法》没有明确定义“访问权”，而且未明确网络连接的顺序。

杨迅认为，域名与网络访问权的联系并不明确，而权亚律师事务所的TMT业务合伙人郭烨律师指出，无论是否有意为之，网络连接服务的定义可以广泛解释，包括任何有意义的电信资源。

中国律师的观点

尽管国际反响强烈， 中国的执业人员表达了不同观点。

《规定》仅针对在中国有服务器的服务提供商。“如果我们讨论的是一家服务器位于境外的外国公司，这些规则并未带来改变，”霍金路伟律师事务所香港办事处合伙人刘耀慈律师指出。

刘律师及其团队在4月14日的客户简讯中就互联网域名对《办法》加以阐述，指出“所有外国网站（或者甚至拥有外国最高域(TLD)名的所有网站）将在中国被封锁的结论并不准确，至少就目前而言并不准确。”

杨迅说，新规则对外国投资者没有实质影响，因为出版根本从未向外国投资者开放。“合资企业和外资企业都从没有获得允许，”他补充道。

对于在中国建立实质性业务模式的外国公司，郭烨强调，这一发展并不意味着中国有意将他们完全排除在外。

郭律师表示，政府将评估业务的模式，如果服务可以带来更大的收益，那么即使其中涉及外国因素，政府也会愿意听取外方的意见。这种合作很可能是《规定》真正的用意，即按个别项目进行审批。

郭烨认为，这显然不是世界末日，而且与之前的情况并没有较大的变化。

“西方媒体总是将这些动态解读为政府试图将外方排挤出中国市场，这种解读没有太大意义，这完全不代表政府的意图，”他说。

刘耀慈指出，在《规定》出台之前，法规中一般使用“互联网”一词，而非“网络”或“网上”。但是，新系列的立法都避免使用“互联网”一词，而是使用了后两种词，确保将新技术涵盖在内。

刘耀慈补充说，主管部门使用了更含糊且技术上更中性的词语，来适应所有可能性。

“这始终是中国国情——政府出台的法律要足够宽泛，为市场监管提供法律依据，”郭烨表示。

网络出版: 近距离观察

新出版《规定》中值得注意的一个重要方面，是监管重点转向了服务的实际内容。

因此，西蒙斯律师事务所的杨迅指出，尽管从理论上来说，在境外运营全球业务平台的公司不应当成为目标，但如果公司已建立了定位于中国客户、并且可供中国客户访问的网站，提供人民币计价的产品，使用简体中文，明确向中国国内受众营销其产品或服务，那么监管部门将对这些公司更加关注。

他说，“这是政府希望以某种方式来加强控制的领域，因为政府意识到许多公司通过使用境外服务器来规避法规监管” 。

例如，亚马逊Kindle在中国经营重要的内容业务。同样地，苹果公司为中国客户提供App商店和iTunes 服务 （有律师指出， iTunes电影和iBooks在五月关闭是因为文化方面的原因，与《规定》无关）。

“监管部门对苹果公司在中国采取相当包容态度，这主要因为该公司表现良好，有较好的声誉，并维持较好的政府关系，”杨迅说。

刘耀慈也表示，这的确取决于内容是否针对中国受众，无论是应用商店还是网络游戏。如果服务在境内提供，就必须合规，但如果是完全位于境外的服务，就没有任何改变。

“取得这项许可只是问题的一部分，外国公司必须让监管部门有理由相信，他们的整个业务都遵守中国法律，”郭烨说。

公司必须遵守所有相关法规，例如有关结构安排、商业模式、许可和个人数据保护的法规。

受《规定》规限的网络出版实体必须通过年度核查体系，并记录所有出版作品的内容，包括上传时间、URL和域名的详情。

“字面意思上规定了很大的义务，但真正的问题是，主管部门执行这些规则的严格程度，”刘耀慈指出。

他说，优酷、微信和微博等国内主要网络媒体平台显然必须遵守《规定》及其许可要求。

在接受《China Law & Practice》的采访时，美国运动相机制造商 GoPro Inc. 亚太区法律顾问姚笛提到，出版规则对公司可能产生影响，但“不会有严重影响”，因公司与本地互联网公司合作来分享视频内容。“我们的合作平台（例如优酷）可能需要通知主管部门寻求批准，我们当然也会协助他们处理相关事项，”姚律师说。

互联网域名: 回归境内

中国互联网络信息中心（CNNIC）是监管.cn和.中国域名的主管部门。一些私人中国公司（如阿里巴巴）也运营一些域名。

杨迅指出，外国公司担心他们是否会受到这些法规的影响，但政府的回应是，外国公司并非真正的目标——中国方面的意图是让在国内运营、但在境外注册域名的本地网站和网络论坛返回境内。

据报道，一些知名的中国实体，如阿里巴巴、腾讯和百度都在海外托管主机。

他解释说，还有许多规模较小的在中国运营的本地平台在海外托管主机，如果政府封锁他们的服务器，他们只要转到另一台服务器，将流量引到新域名即可，并不费太大力气。但这对主管部门而言意味着麻烦。

刘耀慈表示，外国提供商可与中国提供商签订过渡协议，来确保现有互联网域名顺利转移到中国 ，这对在新规则下经营的公司而言，是最具有用户友好型的方式。他还补充说，《规定》对新的 gTLD的影响引人关注。

（作者：赵修敏）