China will block .com's for a competive edge.

[Chris Rice]

The above statement is just a prediction of mine. Blocking .com's for an unfair advantage over US company's would not be beyond them and it is definitely doable. Verisign does not even have a license to use or sell .com's in China, it was only tolerated. But that might change very soon (effective March 1, 2016)

Research MIIT, the Chinese government organization that regulates the internet and domain names in China. This has all been talked about for quite sometime, long before Google re-organized under abc.xyz (do some research for once). It was also well understood that .xyz and .club would be two of the first foreign registrars to get a license in China.

According to Daniel Negari, XYZ is the only U.S. registrar to apply for a license in China AND coordinate with ICANN about it. While a lot of .com loyalists have been bashing new GTLD's a lot of people have been in the background hand registering cheap domain names. A lot of large .COM portfolio holders already sold out and domain name news outlets are slowly easing on their criticism.

TheDomains was right, it will take an intense marketing campaign by at least 2 to 3 major brands. He mentions the Super Bowl as a good example and if you do some research, that is exactly what's happening.

ChrisRice.xyz

 

[JB Lions]

It's March 1, 4:17 am in China.

Are .coms blocked? If not, maybe after a hearty breakfast after they wake up?

 

[Chris Rice]

It's March 1, 4:17 am in China.

Are .coms blocked? If not, maybe after a hearty breakfast after they wake up?

Once China pulls the trigger on their written regulations, I will be ready.

OFF TOPIC - (but it's worth reading)

Nokia CEO ended his speech saying this “we didn’t do anything wrong, but somehow, we lost”. By: Ziyad Jawabra
November 13, 2015

During the press conference to announce NOKIA being acquired by Microsoft, Nokia CEO ended his speech saying this “we didn’t do anything wrong, but somehow, we lost”. Upon saying that, all his management team, himself included, teared sadly.

Nokia has been a respectable company. They didn’t do anything wrong in their business, however, the world changed too fast. Their opponents were too powerful.

They missed out on learning, they missed out on changing, and thus they lost the opportunity at hand to make it big. Not only did they miss the opportunity to earn big money, they lost their chance of survival.

The message of this story is, if you don’t change, you shall be removed from the competition.

It’s not wrong if you don’t want to learn new things. However, if your thoughts and mindset cannot catch up with time, you will be eliminated.

 

[4pm]

if you don’t change, you shall be removed from the competition.

...and if you change in the wrong direction it's even more painful

another strong month for com - 993 reported $1K+ sales in Feb
2 in .xyz...

 

[JB Lions]

Once China pulls the trigger on their written regulations, I will be ready.

OFF TOPIC - (but it's worth reading)

Nokia CEO ended his speech saying this “we didn’t do anything wrong, but somehow, we lost”. By: Ziyad Jawabra
November 13, 2015

During the press conference to announce NOKIA being acquired by Microsoft, Nokia CEO ended his speech saying this “we didn’t do anything wrong, but somehow, we lost”. Upon saying that, all his management team, himself included, teared sadly.

Nokia has been a respectable company. They didn’t do anything wrong in their business, however, the world changed too fast. Their opponents were too powerful.

They missed out on learning, they missed out on changing, and thus they lost the opportunity at hand to make it big. Not only did they miss the opportunity to earn big money, they lost their chance of survival.

The message of this story is, if you don’t change, you shall be removed from the competition.

It’s not wrong if you don’t want to learn new things. However, if your thoughts and mindset cannot catch up with time, you will be eliminated.

"Once China pulls the trigger on their written regulations, I will be ready."

It's March 2, nothing happened. Your thread did numbers but in the end, nada. You were wrong.

The post I just quoted here and some prior ones, have absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the thread. You're just finding random stuff to quote. Let me give you better reading material.

Yesterday, actually got an email from Internet Retailer titled - What's happening with China cross-border e-commerce

And they have a lot of good articles on China - http://ecommerce-news.internetretailer.com/search?w=china

Don't see any talking about what you're talking about. Sort that page by date. It would be on that site if something like that were to happen. Too much commerce is happening on those .coms.

 

[Chris Rice]

"Once China pulls the trigger on their written regulations, I will be ready."

It's March 2, nothing happened. Your thread did numbers but in the end, nada. You were wrong.

The post I just quoted here and some prior ones, have absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the thread. You're just finding random stuff to quote. Let me give you better reading material.

Yesterday, actually got an email from Internet Retailer titled - What's happening with China cross-border e-commerce

And they have a lot of good articles on China - http://ecommerce-news.internetretailer.com/search?w=china

Don't see any talking about what you're talking about. Sort that page by date. It would be on that site if something like that were to happen. Too much commerce is happening on those .coms.

China’s New Online Publishing Rules: Another Nail in the VIE Coffin?

On March 10, 2016, the PRC government will impose new rules to govern online publishing in China. These are the Online Publishing Service Administration Rules (OPS Rules), promulgated by the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television (SAPPRFT) and the Ministry of Industry, Administration and Technology.

Under the rules, all entities that intend to publish online in China must first obtain an Online Publishing Service Permit from SAPPRFT. The OPS Rules set out the conditions for obtaining the required permit. The Chinese government strictly regulates both traditional print publication and online publication in China and any publication done without the required permit or in violation of the terms of the permit is subject to severe sanctions.

The OPES Rules are primarily directed at controlling Chinese entities that publish online in China and it only indirectly addresses the activities of foreign entities. The reason for this is that foreign entities are already absolutely prohibited from any publication activities in China. I repeat: WFOEs, JVs and foreign entities are absolutely prohibited from carrying out any publication in China. Since this prohibition with respect to foreign publication in China is absolute, the only role of the OPS Rules is to prohibit schemes designed to evade this absolute prohibition.

Foreign commentators have consistently misunderstood the OPS Rules and the consequences that flow from those rules. The purpose of this post is to make clear the current status of foreign publication in China.

1. The new OPS Rules do not change the basic prohibition against publication in China by foreign owned entities. The OPS Rules merely confirm the prohibition that has always existed by making absolutely clear that “publishing” includes publishing “online.” Our China lawyers never doubted this.

2. The OPS Rules are primarily focused on regulating control of Chinese entities. The treatment of foreign entities is limited to measures intended to eliminate various schemes that have been used by foreign owned entities to evade application of the prohibition. The basic scheme that foreign entities have used has been to split ownership of the publishing license (held by the Chinese entity) and ownership and control of the technology and infrastructure required to carry out the publishing work (held by the foreign entity). These are the well known schemes of VIE structures and contract partner models. The new rules prohibit these evasive schemes. The OPS rules do this by imposing the following two new requirements:

a. The entity that holds the publishing license must have complete ownership and control of the publishing platform and technology.

b. Any cooperation agreement between a Chinese entity and a foreign entity must first be report to and approved by SAPPRFT.

The effect of these rules will be that VIE/Contracting Partner schemes will be illegal going forward unless it has prior SAPRFT approval. How this will affectexisting entities using this sort of structure is not clear. By the term of the new rules, existing online publishing entities must apply for a new license under the terms of the new rules. It is doubtful any existing VIE structures will survive this process.

3. The rules vaguely broaden the definition of online publishing content, making it unclear how far the new rules will extend. However, the intent of the new rules is clear. Any material that would traditionally be published in print form is clearly intended to be included. The unclear area applies only to new forms of publishing developed solely for the Internet and with no traditional print analog. It is also unclear whether the new rules will be applied to publication online that is little more than the standard company brochure and promotional materials. Simply because these publications are far more commercial than informational, we think they will survive.

The main issue with the new rules is the clear prohibition of VIE and contract partner schemes designed to evade the foreign investment requirement. Though the new rules apply only to online publication, we see them as further demonstrating the PRC government’s dislike of VIE and contract partner structures everywhere, including other online businesses in China.

For example, the OPS Rules are notdirected at online media publication such as film, TV and music because they are limited to the online provision of what traditionally would have been offered in print form. Though similar prohibitions on foreign investment already exist in film, TV and music, the target of these newest rules is The New York Times, not CBS or Metal Blade Records.

It appears VIEs like as Taobao and Tencent will not be directly impacted by these rules. On the other hand, Baidu and Sina may be since they publish news and other content that would traditionally be offered in print by newspaper or magazine. If Baidu and Sina are somehow exempted from the new rule, that would raise international trade rule concerns about the intent of the new program.

The issuance of the OPS Rules shows the PRC government is serious about eliminating the influence of foreign entities in China’s publishing and online media. In assessing the impacts of these new rules, it is important to note that bulk of Internet businesses in China are foreign owned through VIE structures. If the Chinese regulators are now serious about eliminating the VIE structure, what will that mean?

In part 2 of this series, coming tomorrow, I discuss the impacts of the new OPS rules.

 

[Lionel Cohen]

This is about content (nothing new btw), nothing to do with .com being banned.

 

[TRY]

China’s New Online Publishing Rules: Another Nail in the VIE Coffin?

On March 10, 2016, the PRC government will impose new rules to govern online publishing in China. These are the Online Publishing Service Administration Rules (OPS Rules), promulgated by the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television (SAPPRFT) and the Ministry of Industry, Administration and Technology.

Under the rules, all entities that intend to publish online in China must first obtain an Online Publishing Service Permit from SAPPRFT. The OPS Rules set out the conditions for obtaining the required permit. The Chinese government strictly regulates both traditional print publication and online publication in China and any publication done without the required permit or in violation of the terms of the permit is subject to severe sanctions.

The OPES Rules are primarily directed at controlling Chinese entities that publish online in China and it only indirectly addresses the activities of foreign entities. The reason for this is that foreign entities are already absolutely prohibited from any publication activities in China. I repeat: WFOEs, JVs and foreign entities are absolutely prohibited from carrying out any publication in China. Since this prohibition with respect to foreign publication in China is absolute, the only role of the OPS Rules is to prohibit schemes designed to evade this absolute prohibition.

Foreign commentators have consistently misunderstood the OPS Rules and the consequences that flow from those rules. The purpose of this post is to make clear the current status of foreign publication in China.

1. The new OPS Rules do not change the basic prohibition against publication in China by foreign owned entities. The OPS Rules merely confirm the prohibition that has always existed by making absolutely clear that “publishing” includes publishing “online.” Our China lawyers never doubted this.

2. The OPS Rules are primarily focused on regulating control of Chinese entities. The treatment of foreign entities is limited to measures intended to eliminate various schemes that have been used by foreign owned entities to evade application of the prohibition. The basic scheme that foreign entities have used has been to split ownership of the publishing license (held by the Chinese entity) and ownership and control of the technology and infrastructure required to carry out the publishing work (held by the foreign entity). These are the well known schemes of VIE structures and contract partner models. The new rules prohibit these evasive schemes. The OPS rules do this by imposing the following two new requirements:

a. The entity that holds the publishing license must have complete ownership and control of the publishing platform and technology.

b. Any cooperation agreement between a Chinese entity and a foreign entity must first be report to and approved by SAPPRFT.

The effect of these rules will be that VIE/Contracting Partner schemes will be illegal going forward unless it has prior SAPRFT approval. How this will affectexisting entities using this sort of structure is not clear. By the term of the new rules, existing online publishing entities must apply for a new license under the terms of the new rules. It is doubtful any existing VIE structures will survive this process.

3. The rules vaguely broaden the definition of online publishing content, making it unclear how far the new rules will extend. However, the intent of the new rules is clear. Any material that would traditionally be published in print form is clearly intended to be included. The unclear area applies only to new forms of publishing developed solely for the Internet and with no traditional print analog. It is also unclear whether the new rules will be applied to publication online that is little more than the standard company brochure and promotional materials. Simply because these publications are far more commercial than informational, we think they will survive.

The main issue with the new rules is the clear prohibition of VIE and contract partner schemes designed to evade the foreign investment requirement. Though the new rules apply only to online publication, we see them as further demonstrating the PRC government’s dislike of VIE and contract partner structures everywhere, including other online businesses in China.

For example, the OPS Rules are notdirected at online media publication such as film, TV and music because they are limited to the online provision of what traditionally would have been offered in print form. Though similar prohibitions on foreign investment already exist in film, TV and music, the target of these newest rules is The New York Times, not CBS or Metal Blade Records.

It appears VIEs like as Taobao and Tencent will not be directly impacted by these rules. On the other hand, Baidu and Sina may be since they publish news and other content that would traditionally be offered in print by newspaper or magazine. If Baidu and Sina are somehow exempted from the new rule, that would raise international trade rule concerns about the intent of the new program.

The issuance of the OPS Rules shows the PRC government is serious about eliminating the influence of foreign entities in China’s publishing and online media. In assessing the impacts of these new rules, it is important to note that bulk of Internet businesses in China are foreign owned through VIE structures. If the Chinese regulators are now serious about eliminating the VIE structure, what will that mean?

In part 2 of this series, coming tomorrow, I discuss the impacts of the new OPS rules.

State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television (SAPPRFT) and the Ministry of Industry, Administration and Technology.
"SAPPRFT.com and .cn is not registered!" Lol

 

[Chris Rice]

Michael Berkins resigned from Right of the Dot:
http://domainnamewire.com/2016/03/02/michael-berkens-resigns-right-dot/

 

[Kate]

Yes, Michael Berkens retiring a bit more. Again.
But he's still bidding in .com auctions (for fun certainly).
Is he investing in .xyz ? Don't think so...

 

[Chris Rice]

You should become an evangelist .Your drive to push this .xyz is pretty much the same as one spreading fairytales

OFF TOPIC:
I'm not an evangalist but I do think about life, society and human values.

The Bible is one of the most famous books ever to be written and it is talked about constantly around the world. But it is often used to divide people into groups, sects. and religions instead of providing the no-nonsense, common sense type of advice that Generations X, Y & Z are accustomed to.

I have used this website to publish my response to the book of Mathew, the first Gospel in the Bible. My ideas may not endorse every belief in the Christian faith but I believe I make sense and that Christians and Non-Christan's can agree.

Remember, truth can come from anyone, anything and anywhere. Instead of focusing on being in the right group, sect. or religion, let us focus on learning, understanding and doing more for ourselves, each other and society.

http://www.bookoflife.xyz

 

[Chris Rice]

@Cynthia

Recently, a Chinese domain registrar discloses a piece of news that it will host a premium .xyz reserved domain auction on Mar 16th and all the domains’ starting prices are CNY 1 which means all the investors have the opportunities to get a premium .xyz name at a low price.

The announcement causes many domainers’ concern. From all the feedback, many investors have started to prepare funds for this auction. Then, how could the .Xyz domain name cause such a big attention?

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...reserved-xyz-name-action.926448/#post-5365859

 

[gemstar]

OFF TOPIC:
I'm not an evangalist but I do think about life, society and human values.

The Bible is one of the most famous books ever to be written and it is talked about constantly around the world. But it is often used to divide people into groups, sects. and religions instead of providing the no-nonsense, common sense type of advice that Generations X, Y & Z are accustomed to.

I have used this website to publish my response to the book of Mathew, the first Gospel in the Bible. My ideas may not endorse every belief in the Christian faith but I believe I make sense and that Christians and Non-Christan's can agree.

Remember, truth can come from anyone, anything and anywhere. Instead of focusing on being in the right group, sect. or religion, let us focus on learning, understanding and doing more for ourselves, each other and society.

http://www.bookoflife.xyz

Stop trying to continue this old thread by digging up irellivant info just to further your own quest for fire...Yawn...

 

[dezinerite]

I'm not into.xyz at all, but I'm just traditional in that way, I like to stick to.coms (okay, I just regged a .co but still...). That said, anyone in this industry cannot disregard the Chinese market, especially it being where the largest number of internet users are from. China is also becoming increasingly wealthy, and online payment in local currency is now widespread, we now see large internet companies even accepting Alipay (Chinese version of Paypal) as a payment method. To disregard the Chinese market is to ignore a huge chunk of potential clients. That's just bad business in my personal opinion.

But living in China for a good number of years now, I only see .cn and .com.cn becoming really popular (lots of .coms redirecting to .cn), I haven't seen .xyz anywhere just yet.

 

[Chris Rice]

CHINA OUTLINES ITS LATEST FIVE YEAR PLAN, CALLED INTERNET PLUS
By Lulu Chang — March 6, 2016


China has been making Five Year Plans ever since Chairman Mao’s regime in the 1950s, but their latest promises to be the most tech-forward yet. On Saturday, Beijing unveiled its 13th such strategy to catapult China into the leading position in terms of “advanced industries,” including semiconductors, chip materials, robotics, aviation equipment, and satellites, Reuters reports. Named “Internet Plus,” the policy sets a series of goals for China to follow from this year through 2020, and depends heavily upon the power of theweb and technology as a whole to reinvigorate a slowing economy and turn the nation into a digital power house.

As part of Internet Plus, China plans to bolster its research and development spending to a total of 2.5 percent of gross domestic product through 2020. This represents an increase of 0.4 percent, as such spending accounted for 2.1 percent of GDP from 2011 to 2015. In a speech announcing the new way forward, Premier Li Keqiang called this growth a “remarkable achievement.”

China will also look to decrease its dependency on foreign imports and non-domestic tech innovations, instead investing more resources into homegrown companies. Needless to say, this has already drawn protests from countries like the U.S., for whom China’s relatively untapped market presents a huge opportunity.

Moreover, Internet Plus promises that families in “large cities” will have access to 100 megabyte-per-second Internet, and that broadband services will reach 98 percent of the population living in incorporated villages.

Doubtless, this new plan will also come with increased restrictions on the sort of content the Chinese government allows their citizenry access to. Part of the plan Li announced includes more “precise” Web management meant to “clean up illegal and bad information.” This, the government says, will “strengthen the struggle against enemies in online sovereign space and increase control of online public sentiment” by way of more “perfect cybersecurity laws and legislation.”

So look out, world. China is entering the 21st century like never before. And it’s doing it with what might be called something of a vengeance.

Read more: http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/china-internet-plus/#ixzz42AJxfI2m
Follow us: @digitaltrends on Twitter | digitaltrendsftw on Facebook

 

[Chris Rice]

How Google Play could fix the frustrating, impenetrable Chinese mobile gaming market
JEFF GRUBB MARCH 6, 2016 10:00 AM
TAGS: ANDROID, CHINA, GOOGLE, GOOGLE PLAY,TENCENT

Above: Google Play could change China.

Image Credit: Google
China has a massive mobile gaming market, but it’s not a viable option if you’re a Western developer. That could change if Google returns to the world’s most populous country.

Smartphone and tablet gaming generated $5.5 billion in spending from Chinese players last year, according to Asia market-intelligence firm Niko Partners, but only a tiny portion of that went to foreign developers. This is for a few reasons that (such as cultural differences), but many studios don’t even attempt to deal with those because it is too difficult to navigate the market’s splintered Android market. Google left China in 2011, so the country doesn’t have Google Play. Instead, between 200 and 400 independent Android stores have popped up in its place.

Android’s fragmentation has led to an ecosystem where developers from Europe, the United States, and elsewhere have no choice but to team up with local Chinese publishers that have established relationships with the various channels. This has many hoping that the rumor that Google Play will return to China is true, and that the people in charge of the official Android app market have the willingness to disrupt this valuable region.

GamesBeat interviewed several executives working in the Chinese mobile gaming space at the Casual Connect Europe event in Amsterdam earlier this month, and most of them think that Google has a chance to change some things — even if it will have to struggle to do so.

Gamers, developers, and publishers all want it
“As a developer, we really want Google Play to enter China as soon as possible,” Andrew Chang, vice president of Three Kingdoms Now developer RedAtoms, told GamesBeat.

He wants Google Play in China because Android is a mess there. It’s not just the hundreds of different app markets — it’s that developers often have to give up more than half their revenues between these Android channels and the publishers. And even though this benefits some publishers, Netease, one of China’s biggest publishers, wants Google Play in China as well.

One of the biggest factors here is that developers often have to split their revenues with far more partners in China than compared to other regions. After the publishers and Android channels get their cut, the studios frequently end up having to give up more than 50 percent of their revenues.

“[Android is in] a terrible situation,” Netease international business manager Gary Huang told GamesBeat. “From Netease’s perspective, we are happy if Google comes back. It’s good for publishers and developers. And the Chinese government probably knows this.”

The current rumor is that China is negotiating with Google to get the company back in the country. Google exited the region after fending off a cyberattack that originated with the Chinese government. Huang thinks that Chinese officials are feeling pressure from multiple sides to reconcile with Google.

“China is a member of the World Trade Organization, and the government is likely feeling pressure from other governments to let services like Google Play [operate more freely],” he said. “And China is also probably feeling pressure from the users. If I’m Chinese and well educated, I will always ask why I can’t access Google Play in China. They are trying to encourage the government to become more open.”

Why Google Play matters
Google Play would instantly make China easier for foreign developers, according to Yodo1 Games business development manager Matthew Leopold.

Almost no foreign game, Western or from other Asian countries, performs well in China. Supercell’s Clash of Clans has made some progress, but it’s not even in the top 10 highest grossing apps. And while this is partially due to Chinese players wanting games that fit their taste, it is also due to the difficulty of even testing games in China. With so many Android marketplaces and unfavorable publishing deals, most studios avoid the country completely.

“But the whole situation is going to change [with Google Play],” said Huang. “There will probably be fewer and fewer channels, and the remaining channels will likely lower their costs.”





Huang predicts that Google Play will end up as the go-to market for all foreign developers. That means it will attract a lot of exclusive content that other stores won’t have. That’ll make it a go-to source for enough gamers that many of the smaller channels will no longer have the room to compete. And those that remain will feel pressure to lower their prices since Google will only take 30 percent compared tot the 60 percent to 70 percent that publishers and Chinese distributors are taking now.

Some developers even have hopes that Google will make mobile advertising work in China, which is rare in China today.

“My biggest frustration is I talk to developers all over the world, and I have to say ‘no’ to great games because they are very ad-based,” he said. “And there are certain games that it’s not possible to turn into something that is more deeply monetized.”

Finally, Google Play could give developers a chance to fight copyright infringement.

“I think Google Play will also lend legitimacy to China,” 6Waves executive director Stephen Lee told GamesBeat. “The problem has been that when developers release a game in the West, they’ll often find clones in a marketplace in China the next day. To be able to enforce copyright protection and to track that down and communicate with the marketplace, that’s a real challenge right now. So Google Play could only be a good thing for that.”

Google Play will have it rough
But even if Google does return, it’s going to face a lot of competition.

“The market is really taken up by a couple of huge players,” said Leopold. “But the reality is that it is going to grow very slowly. It’s not going to have the market share that the others have.”

Tencent, China’s biggest Internet company, also runs its own app store, and it is by far the biggest publisher for mobile games. Most people have its channel installed thanks to its ubiquitous QQ/WeChat communication apps. WeChat is a portal where people in China talk with one another and find games and news and do a dozen other things. This has helped Tencent overtake its competitors like Qihoo 360 and Baidu, and Google Play is probably not going to overtake the WeChat platform any time soon if ever.

“This market is so mature,” said Chang. “So, at this stage, it’s going to be tough for Google.”

But even if Google Play doesn’t take the lead over the competition, the company is in a position to help shape the future of China as a center for gaming. It could provide a path for foreign developers into one of the most lucrative markets in the world. If that is successful, it could force the other players in this region to change how they do business to make it more friendly for outside studios.

 

[BrandChimp]

I'll admit, you know a lot of the facts. Consider you are inside the xyz box and I am outside. Examine facts, the most important being: China has said that they only registries based physically in China will get accreditation. XYZ is USA based. Knowing that, I assume it will be rejected unless a deal goes down.

Now, I can only guess at a motive here, and don't mean to accuse xyz of anything underhanded, but here is an assumption by me of what is going on here:

XYZ will sell out to China. XYZ has what I believe to be a temporary high number of registrations due to their liberal marketing strategy. I believe xyz is a bad extension. Go ahead, ask real people, explain to them cctlds like .co, .cn, .ws even, and see what they prefer. Keen Chinese are just as adept, they love the shorter extensions! No offense, but xyz lovers are following a baseless marketing ploy blindly. XYZ will go to china, become accredited, but it won't matter. It will fail there just as surely. End users are not going to adopt it. Spend some time reading about what is going on outside of xyz and re-evaluate.

We'll see. For now I am keeping my .XYZs

 

[Chris Rice]

TripAdvisor is now providing tourism boards the opportunity to publish more types of content in more sections of the review site to better engage consumers during the all-important travel research phase.

As of last week, destination marketing organizations (DMOs) can buy into a “Premium Destination Partnership” with TripAdvisor to add a tab marked “Official Resources provided by XYZ Tourism.”

https://skift.com/2016/03/07/tripadvisor-gives-tourism-boards-a-leg-up-on-consumer-engagement/

 

[Chris Rice]

Feed is an end-user + not a startup

http://feed.xyz

eBay appoints Feed as CRM agency
eBay has selected Feed as its CRM partner following a pan-European review.

The account extends across eBay's key European markets including UK, Germany, along with support for France, Italy and Spain.

We have been tasked with delivering CRM marketing across eBay's onsite and direct marketing channels.


We have been a partner to eBay for more than eight years and the account will be jointly led by our Berlin and London offices.

 

[gemstar]

Feed is an end-user + not a startup

http://feed.xyz

eBay appoints Feed as CRM agency
eBay has selected Feed as its CRM partner following a pan-European review.

The account extends across eBay's key European markets including UK, Germany, along with support for France, Italy and Spain.

We have been tasked with delivering CRM marketing across eBay's onsite and direct marketing channels.


We have been a partner to eBay for more than eight years and the account will be jointly led by our Berlin and London offices.

Feed.xyz
Has an email address listed at the bottom of their site.....it's a dot com. Well well lol..
Hello@feed-london.com

 

[Chris Rice]

Feed.xyz
Has an email address listed at the bottom of their site.....it's a dot com. Well well lol..
Hello@feed-london.com

They just switched from feed-london.com to feed.xyz

Here's another one for you.

Solutions to the digital trade imbalance

Susan Ariel Aaronson 07 March 2016

Cross-border information flows are the fastest growing component of global trade. But countries have struggled to develop a system of trade rules to govern these flows. This column discusses how governments use trade agreements and policies to address cross-border internet issues and to limit digital protectionism. It also provides recommendations on how to build coherent regulation in the near future.

The information superhighway is not limited to any one country. Thus, when we use messaging apps such as WeChat or Kik, download movies from Netflix, or seek a new friend at Ashley Madison or Tinder, our information travels from servers based in one country to computers or mobile devices located in another. Although money may never change hands in such transactions, we have participated in trade by moving information across borders.

Growing cross-border information flows
In fact, cross-border information flows are the fastest growing component of global trade. Using IMF data from 2008 to 2012, economist Michael Mandel (2013) found that such flows increased 49%, while trade in goods and services grew some 2.4%. Clearly digital trade (commerce in products and services delivered via the Internet through cross-border information flows) is booming. Growth in global markets for digital technologies is likely to continue because some 61% of the world’s population has yet to go online (World Bank 2016).

Digital trade has become increasingly important to the US. The US International Trade Commission (USITC) estimates that digital trade in certain digitally intensive industries resulted in a 3.4% to 4.8% increase in US GDP in 2011-2013, while online sales of products and services in ‘digitally intensive’ sectors were about $935.2 billion—or 6.3% of US GDP—in 2012. USITIC also asserts that the expansion of digital trade caused real wages to increase by 4.5 to 5.0% and increased US aggregate employment by up to 1.8% while reducing trade costs by some 26% on average (USITC 2014). Although many countries are gaining expertise and market share, the US continues to dominate both the global digital economy and digital trade. The US is home to 11 of the world’s 15 largest internet business (China is home to the other four). Companies such as Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Twitter dominate much of the web. Not surprisingly, the US is the key force behind efforts to develop a system of trade rules to govern cross-border information flows (Aaronson 2015b).

What rules can govern cross-border information flows?
But the US has long struggled to find common ground on these rules. Almost every country has adopted policies to encourage the development of digital technologies and firms, as well as steps to protect privacy, enforce intellectual property rights, protect national security, or thwart cyber-theft, hacking or spam. At times, these policies may discriminate against foreign market actors, and in so doing, distort trade. In May 2015 alone, France, Germany, and the UK asked Twitter, Facebook, and Google to pre-emptively remove content considered extremist (Fairless 2014, Hirst 2015). That same month, the Chinese Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) announced that domain name registrars in China would be forbidden from selling domain names in top-level domains (TLDs) not approved by the Chinese government.
http://www.voxeu.org/article/solutions-digital-trade-imbalance