THE CREATION OF THE .EU INTERNET TOP LEVEL
DOMAIN
(20982)
5971/00
COM(00) 153
|
Commission Working Document: The creation of the .EU internet top
level domain.
|
| Legal base: |
— |
| |
| Document originated:
| 2 February 2000 |
| Forwarded to the Council:
| 14 January 2000 (sic)
|
| Deposited in Parliament:
| 18 February 2000 |
| Department: |
Trade and Industry |
| Basis of consideration:
| Explanatory Memorandum of 10 March
|
| Previous Committee Report:
| None |
| To be discussed in Council:
| European Council in June
|
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision:
| Not cleared; further information requested
|
The Commission document
8.1 The paper is a consultation document
on the creation for the European Union of an Internet Top Level
Domain — ".eu".
8.2 In it, the Commission argues that the
creation of such a Top Level Domain (TLD) would strengthen the
image and infrastructure of the Internet in Europe. In particular,
it suggests that a .eu domain name would offer all businesses
across Europe a consistent European identity, which would fit
squarely with a number of other initiatives being taken forward
by the Commission and Member States at EU level. The Minister
for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt) says, in
her Explanatory Memorandum, that it is likely that the proposal
will be included as an action, with targets, in the eEurope
Action Plan to be adopted at the European Council in June 2000.[23]
8.3 The Minister explains that: "A
TLD is the final set of letters used in an Internet address. Taking
DTI's web address as an example (www.dti.gov.uk),
the .uk section is the TLD. The majority of TLDs are country-specific
like this (referred to as a ccTLD), but there are also three generic
TLDs (gTLD), .com, .net and .org. Generic TLDs are currently managed
by the NSI[24]
company under contract from the United States government."
8.4 The Internet Corporation for Assigned
Numbers and Names (ICANN ), is responsible for the technical management
of the Internet structure, including naming and addressing and
the reform and future expansion of the Internet Domain Name System
(DNS). For what the Commission describes as historical reasons,
ICANN's predecessor, IANA[25],
delegated ccTLD Registries to bodies outside the United States
on the basis of the international standard code representing geographical
entities, ISO 3166[26].
ICANN continues to accept this standard as an adequate and legitimate
basis for creating ccTLDs worldwide but virtually all the available
243 two- letter codes have been assigned. Ultimately ccTLD Registries
are considered by the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee to
be subject to the jurisdiction of the relevant public authority
or government, but 46 of the two-letter codes relate to territories,
usually small islands, that are not nation states. A .eu TLD would
be additional to, rather than a replacement for, existing European
ccTLDs.
8.5 Proposals to create new gTLDs were put
forward in 1996/97 but ICANN does not yet have an agreed policy
and the Commission does not expect that it will have one in the
near future. The Commission points out that, although the territorial
code "EU" has not yet been fully standardised and included
in the primary list of ISO 3166 two-letter codes, the code "EUR"has
been standardised and allocated for use in representing the euro
currency.[27]
8.6 The Commission says that, as the expansion
of the Internet Domain Name Space envisaged in 1996 has not taken
place, the limited alternatives available in Europe have caused
individuals, companies and organisations to seek registration
in the World Wide Web in existing US-based TLDs, such as .com
and in other TLDs elsewhere[28].
In these cases, it is difficult to ensure adherence to European
law on, for instance, competition, data protection, consumer protection
and intellectual property rights.
8.7 Since issues surrounding registration
policies are central to the creation of a new .eu TLD, the paper
invites opinions on who should manage it. The Commission proposes
a number of possible models. It suggests that:
- it could be done through the creation of a not-for-profit
organisation incorporated within the EU which would manage the
operation of the .eu Registry. This is the approach adopted in
the UK approach for .uk;
- there could be a commercial solution. This would
have the advantage of dissociating the .eu Registry from the public
authorities but it could give rise to competition policy problems.
Several branches of the European Internet Community are already
eager to see the .eu Registry created and the Commission says
that arbitrating to say who would get it might prove an impossible
task;
- an existing public or private organisation could
take on the task. The Commission doubts, however, that a single
entity that would be competent to carry out the task and enjoy
the consensus of all other interested parties can be identified;
or
- the competent departments of an existing public
administration, such as the Commission, could run the Registry.
The Commission says that all those Member States that have re-organised
their ccTLD Registry have put in place structures based on the
not-for-profit, co-operative model and it is not proposing
to manage the administrative and operational aspects of the proposed
Registry, except in so far as the Commission's own use of the
corresponding Second Level Domain is concerned.
It invites opinions on these proposals and further
suggestions for possible models.
8.8 The Commission poses a series of questions
on each of the key issues, as follows:
"Question 1: Please
comment on the above outline of the delegation of the .EU TLD
to a Registration organisation: the Registry. Are there alternative
models for the Registry organisation that should be considered?
"Question 2: What
should be the main criteria for the .EU Registry's registration
policies? How should the registration policy be developed and
implemented? By the Registry organisation, by a distinct consultative
body or by the European Commission itself?
"Question 3: Would
it be appropriate to apply the WIPO disputes and trademark policies
as reflected in their May 1999 Report to the .EU Domain, or are
there alternative solutions to these issues within the European
Union? Might there be a specific role for the Office for the Harmonisation
of the Internal Market in Alicante in this context?
"Question 4: To
what extent might a more constraining instrument in the European
Union or in WIPO reinforce protection of names and marks in the
DNS, in addition to alternative dispute resolution? In that case
which categories of names should be protected and how should they
be determined?
"Question 5: Do
potential business users, including small and medium sized enterprises
have any suggestions as to how the .EU domain might be managed
in order to optimise its contribution to the development of electronic
commerce in Europe?
"Question 6: Are
there any other considerations that should be taken into account
about the relationship between the proposed .EU Registry and the
national ccTLD Registries in the Member States?"
The Government's view
8.9 The Minister for Small Business and
E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt) clarifies further aspects of these
issues, which will need to be considered, and sets out the Government's
view where this has already been formed, in a useful comment on
the policy implications:
"The UK welcomes the
initiative of the Commission in considering the possibility of
creating a new .eu TLD. It has the potential to help EU businesses
by, for example, allowing them to sell across borders within the
EU without being perceived as foreign. This will be particularly
useful for SMEs trading on-line, who are making the transition
from the domestic market to the EU single market. It could also
help accelerate the integration of new Member States into the
internal market. It may also boost consumer confidence if linked
to compliance with EU laws.
"However, there are a number of aspects which
need to be considered further by the Commission and Member States.
One of these relates to whether businesses not established in
the EU, but targeting the EU market should be accepted. The Commission
proposal is that there should be a 'tangible relationship' between
entities registering names and the EU. This needs clearer definition.
At first sight it does not seem entirely necessary and might limit
the scope for other potential regional ccTLDs to accept registrations
reciprocally from EU businesses. However, it could be advantageous
to EU citizens if, as a condition of registering in the .eu domain,
such businesses agreed (perhaps through codes of conduct) to abide
by EU law in their dealings with EU citizens.
"A separate aspect to be taken into account
here is that ICANN is unlikely to approve this new TLD quickly
or without argument. The Commission is proposing that .eu should
be a new country code TLD, but there may be opposition to a proliferation
of regional domains (eg .apec, .nafta etc). Were it to be treated
as a generic TLD like .com, then progress may be unlikely until
ICANN has finalised its policy on the creation of new gTLDs, which
may not be for another 12 months or so.
"The UK is strongly of the view that the appropriate
form of registry is a not-for-profit organisation designed along
lines similar to the existing Nominet organisation. This is because
other forms raise potential competition questions."
Consultation
8.10 The Minister says that the DTI is continuing
discussions with interested parties. It envisages extending this
through its website at www.dti.gov.uk/cii/ecomdirective/index.htm.
The Commission is carrying out an on-line consultation at Dot-EU-Consult@cec.eu.int.
Timetable
8.11 No specific closing date is given for
responses to the Commission's working document. The Government
aims to give an initial response in mid-March. However, due to
the complexity of putting in place a new TLD of this sort, it
does not expect the initiative to progress rapidly and envisages
putting in more detailed comments by the end of April.
Conclusion
8.12 We thank the Minister for giving
us a clear picture of the Government's views on some aspects of
the issues raised and for pointing out the difficulties with others.
We ask her to provide us with a copy of the Government's responses
to the Commission. It would be helpful to have the more detailed
of the two responses in time for us to consider it before our
evidence session with the Minister on the eEurope initiative.
8.13 Meanwhile we shall not clear this
document.
23 (20858) 14205/99; see HC 23-viii (1999-2000), paragraph
7 (9 February 2000). Back
24 See
Glossary at Annex. Back
25 See
Glossary at Annex. Back
26 See:
http://www.din.de/gremien/nas/nabd/iso3166ma/. Back
27 Under
ISO 4217, the three-letter currency code standard. Back
28 Such
as (.TO) Tonga. Back
| 
