MANAGEMENT OF THE INTERNET
(21195)
7924/00
COM(00) 202
|
Commission Communication concerning the organisation and management of the Internet, international and European policy issues 1998-2000.
|
| Legal base:
| — |
| |
| Document originated:
| 11 April 2000 |
| Forwarded to the Council:
| 14 April 2000 |
| Deposited in Parliament:
| 10 May 2000 |
| Department: |
Trade and Industry |
| Basis of consideration:
| EM of 25 May 2000 |
| Previous Committee Report:
| None |
| Discussed in Council:
| Oral presentation made to the May Telecoms Council
|
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision:
| Cleared, but Government to keep Committee informed of any unwelcome developments
|
The Commission Communication
7.1 The Communication covers:
- recent developments in the organisation and management
of the Internet;
- the transfer of the US government's responsibilities
to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN);
- the principal policy issues for both the EU and
internationally; and
- the operational conclusions for the EU.
7.2 The Internet plays an increasingly important
rôle as part of the economic and social infrastructure of
Europe and the Commission suggests that the way in which it is
expanding is likely to put the capacity of the system under strain.
It has taken measures to improve the economy and efficiency of
the communications infrastructure for Internet and will continue
to monitor the situation. All the eEurope[14]
initiatives depend in the last resort on the Internet infrastructure
in Europe and worldwide.
7.3 The Commission notes that the current
prices and bandwidth available for Internet users in Europe have
led to a significant proportion of European Internet traffic being
diverted across the Atlantic and back, with the resultant costs
and inefficiencies that this entails becoming a growing problem
as Internet use increases. To address this, the Commission says
that it intends to pursue a policy of encouraging the roll-out
of a high bandwidth Internet backbone across Europe, and calls
for Member States to implement speedily the recommendations on
leased-line pricing and local loop unbundling.
7.4 Following the US Government's June 1998
White Paper, ICANN was created and incorporated as a non profit
public benefit corporation in the County of Los Angeles, California.
Its Articles of Incorporation specify that:
"ICANN shall operate
for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, carrying
out its activities in conformity with relevant principles of international
law and applicable international conventions and local law and,
... through open and transparent processes that enable competition
and open entry in Internet-related markets".
7.5 A Memorandum of Understanding signed
on 25 November 1998 provided that the US Department of Commerce
and ICANN will:
"... jointly design,
develop, and test the mechanisms, methods, and procedures that
should be in place and the steps necessary to transition management
responsibility for Domain Name System [DNS] functions now performed
by, or on behalf of, the US Government, to a private-sector not-for-profit
entity".
7.6 The Commission comments:
"By October 2000, ICANN
should have taken responsibility for co-ordinating the management
of the Domain Name System, the allocation of Internet Protocol
address spaces, the co-ordination of new Internet protocol parameters
and the management of the Internet's root name server system.
Although the October 2000 threshold appeared to be distant when
the US White Paper was published, in the light of intervening
delays, it is now a challenging deadline for all concerned. Significant
progress had already been made by the end of 1999, although in
the context of its agreements with ICANN and NSI[15],
the US Department of Commerce has retained a significant degree
of direct authority over ICANN. Exactly how and when the US Government
will divest itself of these authorities remains to be seen. In
that event, the question will remain as to what extent and how
the necessary public policy oversight of ICANN's important functions
will be exercised. The Commission has drawn the attention of the
US Department of Commerce to the importance of resolving these
issues in a timely manner."
7.7 The Commission comments that the European
private sector has played a critical rôle in establishing
the EU's position at all levels in the global co-ordination of
the infrastructure functions of the Internet: the ICANN Board
and Supporting Organisations, the DNS Root Server system, Internet
Registries and Registrars and in the Internet Engineering Task
Force and the World Wide Web Consortium:
"Without that commitment,
the public policy rôle of the EU and the Member States would
be much less effective, if not impossible. Maintaining and deepening
European private sector membership and participation in the ICANN
organisation is a critical pre-condition for successful participation
by the EU both from the point of view of the Internet user community
in Europe and from the point of view of public policy".
7.8 Partly in response to pressure from
public authorities worldwide, including the EU, a Governmental
Advisory Committee (GAC) to ICANN has been formed which is to:
"consider and provide
advice on the activities of the Corporation as they relate to
concerns of governments, particularly matters where there may
be an interaction between the Corporation's policies and various
laws, and international agreements".
7.9 The Commission says that, together with
the Member States, it participates in the work of the Committee
which has provided the ICANN Board with advice on questions such
as dispute resolution, geographical diversity and policies for
ccTLD[16]
Registries. EU participation in these negotiations is co-ordinated
in advance through the informal Internet working group convened
periodically by the Commission and through the Council Telecommunications
Group.
7.10 The Commission comments that ICANN
and the GAC are taking decisions of a kind that governments would,
in other contexts, expect to take themselves in the framework
of international organisations. However, it says:
"For the time being,
there would appear to be consensus that the nature of the Internet
and the speed of events preclude this approach and that the current
self-regulatory structure, buttressed by active public policy
oversight, is the best available solution."
7.11 The Commission regrets that developing
countries are under-represented on ICANN bodies, as are business
users and public sector Internet users such as universities, museums,
libraries and local and regional authorities. It calls on the
Member States and the European Parliament (EP) to help to ensure
an adequate level of participation and representation by all categories
of users.
7.12 Addressing the question of ICANN's
authority, the Commission notes that the US Department of Commerce
("DoC") has:
"... reasserted its
rights of supervision over ICANN policies, including any amendments
to ICANN's agreements with NSI. Furthermore, ICANN shall not enter
into any agreement with any successor registry to NSI for the
.COM, .NET and .ORG TLDs without prior approval by US DoC. Should
US DoC withdraw its recognition of ICANN or any successor entity
by terminating their Memorandum of Understanding, ICANN agrees
that it will assign to DoC any rights that ICANN has in all existing
contracts with registries and registrars.
"The broad scope of the powers and authorities
reasserted by the US Administration (as recently as November 1999)
notwithstanding, the US Department of Commerce has repeatedly
reassured the Commission that it is still their intention to withdraw
from the control of these Internet infrastructure functions and
complete the transfer to ICANN by October 2000.
"The Commission has confirmed to the US authorities
that these remaining powers retained by the United States DoC
regarding ICANN should be effectively divested, as foreseen in
the US White Paper. The necessary governmental oversight of ICANN
should be exercised on a multilateral basis, in the first instance
through the Governmental Advisory Committee."
7.13 Creating and maintaining an environment
for neutral international jurisdiction is proving to be even more
difficult than had been originally envisaged when this process
began in 1998, the Commission says. It asks the Council and the
EP to confirm that the EU should continue to play the rôle
of participant, co-ordinator and, where necessary, negotiator
in the relevant international fora. It identifies in particular,
the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), the International
Telecommunications Union, bilateral relations, including with
the US government, and the GAC.
7.14 A number of European policy issues
are addressed in the Communication. These, and the Commission's
intentions in dealing with them, have been summarised in her EM
by the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia
Hewitt) as follows:
"— Internet
Domain Name System and Internet Addressing
"some follow-up to the
launch of the public consultation on the new top level domain
(TLD).eu is given, with an additional Communication expected
to follow before July 2000. The implementation of next generation
Internet Addressing, and increased standardisation and harmonisation
of approaches to Internet protocols is encouraged by the Commission
in view of the projected increases in demand for the Internet
and related services.
"— Intellectual Property Rights
"the preparation of
a code of conduct to address issues such as the abusive registration
of domain names (known as cybersquatting) and speculative registration
(known as warehousing). The Commission will seek the assistance
of Member States in implementing an EU-wide code of conduct to
assist in resolving disputes relating to intellectual property
rights.
"— National Country Code Top Level
Domains (ccTLDs)
"including the implementation
of ICANN-GAC guidelines, the development by national Registries
of registration best practice policies, on which the Commission
calls for increased transparency, and preparation and implementation
of guidelines for data protection and privacy, are discussed.
Approaches to data protection and privacy, will continue to be
discussed by the Commission with ICANN and the US Government.
"— Alternative Dispute Resolution
"the development and
implementation of WIPO recommendations appropriate to top level
domain registries operating in the EU.
"— Competition Policy
"the Commission will
examine agreements and business practices in the area of Internet
organisation and management to see if they fall under EU competition
rules (Articles 81 and 82), and encourage Member States to ensure
that national registry policies are consistent with competition
and internal market laws."
The Government's view
7.15 The Minister says that the UK broadly
accepts the Commission's views on how to make the administration
and management of the essential infrastructure of the Internet
truly international, and to ensure that the EU exerts an influence
on ICANN, commensurate with its size. However, she says:
"...the Commission's
proposal for greater harmonisation of Member States' registration
policies to encourage transparency, over and above that covered
by ICANN best practice, may be of little benefit. Similarly, we
are not convinced that the use of WIPO rules in alternative dispute
resolution is required as part of best practice for domain name
registries.
"We are content for the Commission to maintain
its existing rôle as a participant and co-ordinator for
discussions on the management of the Internet in international
fora, since this is in line with our general policy of promoting
internationally compatible approaches wherever possible. However,
whilst we see no major problems with the Commission undertaking
negotiations with ICANN about the possible creation of a .eu TLD
— subject to this being an alternative to, and not a replacement
for, existing ccTLDs, and to its registration policy not being
unnecessarily restrictive — we will need to watch carefully
their approach to some other fora, such as the International Telecommunications
Union; we would not wish to see the Commission taking on a negotiating
rôle where currently national delegations are able to formulate
their own positions on policy issues without having to agree a
common EU position.
"Some of the activity proposed by the Commission,
such as the creation of a .eu TLD, the development of next generation
Internet and the infrastructure in general, is included in the
Commission's eEurope initiative, which is to be the subject
of an Action Plan at the Feira European Council in June."
Conclusion
7.16 We note the Minister's concern that
the Commission should not assume a negotiating rôle in fora,
such as the ITU, where national delegations are not at present
required to agree a common EU position. We ask her to inform us
of any departure from this practice.
7.17 We also ask the Minister to inform
us if the transition of authority for management of the Internet
from the US Government to the international body does not proceed
in a manner which is acceptable to the UK Government, and what
steps she intends to take.
7.18 We clear the document but ask for
these concerns to be borne in mind by the Government.
14 (20858) 14205/99: see HC 23-viii (1999-2000), paragraph
7 (9 February 2000); and (21095) 6978/00: see HC 23-xvi (1999-2000),
paragraph 12 (10 May 2000). Back
15 Network
Solutions Incorporated, previously a subsidiary of Science Applications
Investment Corporation (SAIC) recently acquired by VeriSign, Inc. Back
16
Country Code Top Level Domains. Back
|
