Applicant Information

Does or will this RSP have a publicly verifiable, 3rd party certification (e.g. ISO 27001) held directly by the organization and relevant to the registry services under application?

Yes

Does or will this RSP have processes and controls to manage physical access to infrastructure and systems, including building access controls, security cameras and/or other sensors, physical environmental monitoring and safety equipment, and alarm systems related to the physical infrastructure?

Yes

Does or will this RSP have processes and controls to manage non-physical access to infrastructure, including network access from both internal systems and external Internet systems, intrusion detection systems, security information and event management systems, network firewalls, network segmentation and isolation, user identification and authentication, and authorization schemes?

Yes

Does or will this RSP have processes and controls pertaining to the selection of vendors and equipment suppliers, management and maintenance of assets while in use, procurement of assets, and safe disposal of assets?

Yes

Does or will this RSP routinely renew and keep safe all cryptographic material necessary for the operation of the RSP?

Yes

Does or will this RSP secure (e.g. encryption, tamper detection, etc…) at-rest data relevant to the operation of the RSP, including but not limited to DNSSEC if applicable?

Yes

Does or will this RSP secure (e.g. encryption, tamper detection, etc…) in-transit data relevant to the operation of the RSP, including but not limited to DNSSEC if applicable?

Yes

If applicable, does or will this RSP have security controls for data in virtualized environments, including controls relevant to both on-premises or private virtualization environments as well as public clouds, network isolation, memory isolation, process isolation, and hypervisor access controls?

Yes

Does or will this RSP have a senior executive primarily in charge of and responsible for security?

Yes

Does or will this RSP conduct background checks, both initial and on-going, of personnel and vendors relevant to the registry services under application?

Yes

Does or will this RSP implement BCP 38?

Yes

Does or will this RSP implement routing security of some nature, such as automated route filters, RPKI route origin validation, or other operational practices defined by the Internet Society and Global Cyber Alliance’s Mutually Agreed Norms for Routing Security (MANRS)?

Yes

Does or will this RSP have documented, regular, and active practices for the maintenance of hardware relevant to the registry services under application?

Yes

Does or will this RSP have documented, regular, and active practices for the maintenance, upgrading, and patching of software relevant to the registry services under application?

Yes

Does or will this RSP have documented, regular, and active practices for the lifecycle of hardware relevant to the registry services under application?

Yes

Does or will this RSP have documented, regular, and active practices for the secure development of software?

Yes

Does or will this RSP have documented contingency plans for extraordinary scenarios regarding the maintenance of hardware relevant to the registry services under application?

Yes

Does or will this RSP have documented contingency plans for extraordinary scenarios regarding the maintenance, upgrading, and patching of software relevant to the registry services under application?

Yes

Does or will this RSP have documented contingency plans for extraordinary scenarios regarding the lifecycle of hardware relevant to the registry services under application?

Yes

Does or will this RSP have documented contingency plans for extraordinary scenarios regarding the development of software?

Yes

Does or will this RSP use Infrastructure-as-Code (IaC) to manage all systems relevant to operation of the registry services under application?

No - Currently, although we have not introduced IaC into the field of operation and maintenance management, we have implemented numerous measures and processes aimed at reducing the potential security and stability risks arising from manual operations in operation and maintenance management. Firstly, through service process management, we strictly regulate every aspect of the service delivery, service launch, service change, and service decommissioning processes, involving multi-level approval processes. These processes are executed after being approved by the technical supervisor. For major operations involving the overall stability of the system, they must be reported to senior management for final confirmation before implementation, and we ensure that every delivery and change of the service deployment package is traceable and reversible. The service deployment package undergoes unit testing, integration testing, security testing, and other stages in the R&D department to ensure that the code deployment does not affect system stability. After being delivered to the operation and maintenance management department, the operation and maintenance management department verifies the functions of the service deployment after launch through gray release, and can perform rollback operations at any time if there are issues. In addition, for operations involving changes to database metadata or business data, the DBA strictly controls the change statements, performs change and deployment verification in the OT&E environment, and then deploys and upgrades in the production environment. Secondly, a log audit system is deployed on the execution operation terminal and server to record all manual operations in their entirety and ensure they cannot be tampered with. And through real-time monitoring, core indicators related to manual operations (such as DNS resolution success rate, system response time, key status, etc.) are monitored in real-time, with multi-level alarm thresholds set. In the event of operational anomalies (such as resolution failure due to configuration errors), the system alarm is immediately triggered to ensure that operation and maintenance personnel respond promptly.

Does or will this RSP use automated orchestration to manage all systems relevant to the operation of the registry services under application?

No - We have adopted Ansible for configuration management to enhance work efficiency, reduce the risks associated with manual operations, and ensure consistency, repeatability, and verifiability in executing large-scale operations and maintenance tasks. Some services utilize Docker containerization technology to simplify service deployment and launch processes, but we have not yet employed Kubernetes for container orchestration and management.

Does or will this RSP have at least two Tier III (as defined here: https://uptimeinstitute.com/tiers) or equivalent data centers having no inter-dependencies?

Yes

Does or will this RSP implement RFC 5730 (“Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)”)?

Yes

Does or will this RSP implement RFC 5731 (“Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Domain Name Mapping”)?

Yes

Does or will this RSP implement RFC 5734 (“Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Transport over TCP”)?

Yes

Does or will this RSP implement RFC 5910 (“Domain Name System (DNS) Security Extensions Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)”)?

Yes

If applicable, does or will this RSP implement RFC 5732 (“Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Host Mapping”)?

Yes

If applicable, does or will this RSP implement RFC 5733 (“Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Contact Mapping”)?

Yes

If applicable, does or will this RSP implement RFC 8334 (“Launch Phase Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)”)?

Yes

If RFC 8334 (“Launch Phase Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)”) is not applicable to this RSP, describe the mechanism to support sunrise and claims in EPP. Please answer with “Not Applicable” or “N/A” if this RSP does or will implement RFC 8334.

Yes we have already supported RFC 8334.

If applicable, does or will this RSP implement RFC 8748 (“Registry Fee Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)”)?

Yes

Provide a list of all EPP extensions to be used that are registered in the IANA EPP extensions registry, and an attestation that all EPP extensions to be used are registered with the IANA as per RFC 7451 (“Extension Registry for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol”).

Our EPP system currently supports RFC 3915, RFC 5910, and RFC 8334, all of which are registered in the IANA registry. No other extensions are supported at this time. Should additional extensions become necessary in the future, we will implement them and register them with IANA accordingly.

Does or will this RSP forgo the use of any EPP extensions which are not registered with the IANA as per RFC 7451 (“Extension Registry for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol”)?

Yes

Does or will this RSP implement and operate EPP according to the performance requirements defined in the standards established in Specification 10 of the ICANN Registry Agreement (version)?

Yes

Does or will this RSP have controls to prevent EPP misuse and ensure all registrars have fair and equal access to EPP per the standards established in Specification 9 of the ICANN Registry Agreement (version 2024)?

Yes

Does or will this RSP implement RFC 9325 (“Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)”) notwithstanding RFC 5734 (“Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Transport over TCP”)?

Yes

Does or will this RSP regularly and frequently renew the cryptographic material used to secure EPP communications in accordance with industry best common practices?

Yes

Does or will this RSP keep safe the cryptographic material used to secure EPP communication in accordance with industry best common practices?

Yes

Does or will this RSP the standards established in Specification 3 of the ICANN Registry Agreement (version 2024) with respect to EPP?

Yes

Does or will this RSP compartmentalize (e.g. virtualization) the EPP service in such a manner that each compartment (e.g. containers, virtual machines, physical machines) is dedicated to EPP (excluding system services such as monitoring, remote access and NTP)?

Yes

Does or will this RSP implement RFC 7480 (“HTTP Usage in the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)”)?

Yes

Does or will this RSP implement RFC 7481 (“Security Services for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)”)?

Yes

Does or will this RSP implement RFC 9082 (“Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Query Format”)?

Yes

Does or will this RSP implement RFC 9083 (“JSON Responses for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)”)?

Yes

Does or will this RSP implement the ICANN gTLD RDAP Technical Implementation Guide?

Yes

Does or will this RSP implement the ICANN gTLD RDAP Response Profile?

Yes

Provide a list of all RDAP extensions to be used.

According to the general requirements of the RSP program, our RDAP service has implemented the following extension protocol: 1.RFC 9537: “redacted” extension. 2.icann_rdap_response_profile_1. 3.icann_rdap_technical_implementation_guide_1.

Does or will this RSP forgo the use of any RDAP extensions which are not registered with the IANA as per RFC 7480 (“HTTP Usage in the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)”)?

Yes

Does or will this RSP meet the standards established in the Service Level Agreements defined in Specification 10 of the ICANN Registry Agreement (version 2024) with regard to RDAP?

Yes

Does or will this RSP implement methods to prevent mining of registration data via RDAP?

Yes

Does or will this RSP implement RFC 9325 (“Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)”) with respect to RDAP?

Yes

Does or will this RSP regularly and frequently renew the cryptographic material used to secure RDAP communications in accordance with industry best common practices?

Yes

Does or will this RSP keep safe the cryptographic material used to secure RDAP communication in accordance with industry best common practices?

Yes

Does or will this RSP meet the standards established in Specification 3 of the ICANN Registry Agreement (version 2024) with respect to RDAP?

Yes

Does or will this RSP compartmentalize (e.g. virtualization) the RDAP service in such a manner that each compartment (e.g. containers, virtual machines, physical machines) is dedicated to RDAP (excluding system services such as monitoring, remote access and NTP)?

Yes

Does or will this RSP meet the standards established in Specification 10 of the ICANN Registry Agreement (version 2024) with regard to RDAP and IPv4?

Yes

Does or will this RSP meet the standards established in Specification 10 of the ICANN Registry Agreement (version 2024) with regard to EPP and IPv4?

Yes

Does or will this RSP meet the standards established in Specification 10 of the ICANN Registry Agreement (version 2024) with regard to RDAP and IPv6?

Yes

Will this RSP meet the standards established in Specification 10 of the ICANN Registry Agreement (version 2024) with regard to EPP and IPv6 if requested by a registrar?

Yes

Describe all potential registration lifecycle(s) of domain names supported in the system.

PROXY RSP is responsible for forwarding, and its lifecycle is managed by MAIN RSP.

Describe the registration lifecycle(s) of domain names with respect to EPP status values and RDAP status values.

PROXY RSP is responsible for forwarding, and its lifecycle is managed by MAIN RSP.

Describe the nameserver host lifecycle, including relevance to EPP and RDAP status values, with respect to the lifecycle of domain names. This should include a description of nameservers as either attributes of domains or as host objects.

The PROXY RSP is responsible for message forwarding, while the lifecycle of nameser host is managed by the MAIN RSP.

If applicable, describe the contact lifecycle, including relevance to EPP and RDAP status values, with respect to the lifecycle of domain names and nameservers. Include a description of the deletion of orphaned contacts.

The PROXY RSP is responsible for message forwarding, while the lifecycle of contacts is managed by the MAIN RSP.

Does or will this RSP be capable of removing orphaned glue in accordance with the standards established in Specification 6 of the ICANN Registry Agreement (version 2024)?

No - PROXY RSP is responsible for forwarding, and its lifecycle is managed by MAIN RSP.

Describe how this RSP will meet the standards established in Specification 2 of the ICANN Registry Agreement (version 2024), and describe any other data escrow processes. This includes escrow extensions for data related additional registry services.

PROXY RSP is responsible for forwarding, and its lifecycle is managed by MAIN RSP.

Does or will this RSP regularly exercise registry continuity actions?

Yes

Does or will this RSP monitor for faults inside its own network?

Yes

Does or will this RSP monitor for faults from a point outside any of its own networks?

Yes

Does or will this RSP have documented processes for aggregation and triage of faults?

Yes

Does or will this RSP have documented processes to mitigate faults once detected?

Yes

Does or will this RSP have processes to minimize faults during maintenance of systems, including both automated processes and manual change control processes?

Yes

Does or will this RSP have personnel capable of reacting to and mitigating faults 24 hours per day of every day of every year of service?

Yes

Provide documentation regarding any RSP functions currently being served for any gTLD, the domain names of the gTLDs, and all service disruptions for each gTLD in the past six months, where a service disruption is defined by Specification 10 of the Registry Agreement (version 2024).

CNNIC is currently providing Verisign with ProxyEPP services for .COM/.NET/.CC domain names in China, with no service interruptions reported in the past six months.