Annexes to COM(2000)153 - The creation of the .EU Internet top level domain - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2000)153 - The creation of the .EU Internet top level domain. |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2000)153  |
| date | February 2, 2000 |
[25] . Certain categories of exclusions are already required for technical reasons in the relevant ICANN/IANA RFCs. E.g. RFC 1035 (published in 1987) and RFC 1123 (published in 1989)
- In the light of the problems in existing Registries that have been experienced with abusive registration of names, the interested parties should also address the issue of cybersquatting, warehousing and speculation in DNS names.
- Interested parties would be invited to address, other more detailed questions such as:
_ The utilisation of generic second level domains, [26].
[26] . See: http://194.119.255.333/eif/dns/gsld/ [This pilot project classification will be expanded to multiple languages in due course]
_ The registration policies as they might be applied to companies, individuals, and other categories of private entities and organisations.
_ Whether in addition to appropriate intellectual property protection (see below) trademarks should receive any special treatment within the .EU TLD Registry.
_ The scope for multilingual operation of the .EU Registry and the character sets in which the .EU DNS could operate, initially and over time.
_ Whether, in order to facilitate the scaleability and user-friendliness of the .EU DNS, generic second level domains should be introduced to characterise and identify particular sectors of the economy and/or categories of organisation. [27]
[27] . These might include: NGO, ASBL, EEIG,...., and appropriate designations for other associations and organisations.
Although at first sight these might appear to be rather daunting list of issues, very similar questions have recently been addressed in the context of several other TLD Registries, both in Europe and internationally and in many cases, significant improvements have been made in current practice and relatively satisfactory solutions have been found.
It is anticipated that the responses to the public consultation in this area will be useful as an indication of the direction that the Internet user community in Europe would expect from the registration policy of the .EU Registry.
More generally, registration in the .EU TLD should be commercially attractive from the point of view of cross-border electronic commerce. It would consequently be desirable for the Registration policy to be able to facilitate the development of an Internet identity (a brand) for the products and services of European based enterprises.
The members or agents of the Registry ("Registrars") should also be able to offer enterprises and individuals - particularly small and medium sized enterprises - a quick, inexpensive and simple Internet registration service. Registrars would be able to offer registration services together with other Internet services (one-stop-shop) on a competitive, market-oriented basis.
Thus, the general public and the whole of the commercial community could have access to the new TLD through a large number of competing Registrars operating at least in all the Member States, subject to the general registration policy of the Registry which would be published and up-dated from time to time.
Regarding the Registration policy of the European Institutions themselves, it would be appropriate for this to be the exclusive responsibility of designated, authorised Registrars which would normally be the competent departments of the Institutions, that would progressively develop and implement their DNS policies, as is currently the case, including migration to the new TLD. One could envisage for example, the current Commission E-mail addresses changing from "xxx.yyy@cec.eu.int" to xxx.yyy@Commission.EU.
It would be necessary to distinguish clearly within the .EU Domain between official public use and commercial and other private use by entities and individuals. This is essential to ensure for the user and in the public mind that the use of the .EU Domain did not imply any form of endorsement or assumption of responsibility by the European Institutions for Web-sites other than for their own use.
Whether other categories of official organisations would be eligible for exclusive operational second level domains would be for consideration in a second phase.
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-
8. Dispute Resolution and Trademark Policy
The development of policies to avoid and resolve disputes in the DNS has been the subject of thorough consultation and discussion in recent years. Most such disputes are in practice related to Trademarks.
In March 1998, in response to the US Government's Green Paper [28] the European Union and its Member States requested inter alia that these matters be referred to the WIPO, which had already undertaken preliminary work in this field at the request of the IAHC [29]. As things stand at present, the WIPO has completed its final report [30], the EU has supported its conclusions and the ICANN-GAC has endorsed the general principles reflected in the report. The ICANN Board is proceeding with the implementation of the WIPO recommendations in the existing gTLDs.
[28] . For the Green Paper URL and the EU Reply etc. http://www.ispo.cec.be/eif/policy/govreply.html
[29] . International Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC) set up in 1996 by the Internet Society (ISOC).
[30] . For the WIPO report see: http://wipo2.wipo.int/process/eng/processhome.html
In these circumstances, it is arguable that the methodology and policies recommended by WIPO and adopted by ICANN could equally well be applied in the .EU TLD. Indeed, many of the trans-jurisdictional issues which already arise in the context of the global generic TLDs could also arise in the commercial applications of the .EU domain. Consequently it could be envisaged that in the first instance the WIPO policy be applied to registrations in the .EU domain.
There will, of course be other considerations which will need to be taken into account in due course. ICANN and WIPO may adjust their policy in the future in the light of experience gained. The .EU Registry may wish to give additional weight to certain characteristics of European Trademark law. Certain thresholds and criteria may be adjusted or relaxed in the light of experience. Certain disputes (e.g. those involving the jurisdiction of a single Member State) may not justify or require international arbitration etc.
In any event the basic transparency provisions of the WIPO report and appropriate data protection policies should be implemented by the new Registry and its Registrars.
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-
Furthermore, in the light of the recent United States act of Congress in the form of a "cybersquatting law" [31] the question necessarily arises whether names and marks should also be protected in the DNS through a more constraining code of conduct (or other instrument) and if so, whether this should be at the national or EU level, what would be the role of inter-governmental agencies such as WIPO, and precisely which categories of names should be protected. [32]
[31] . Act of Congress, S 1255, Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 20.11.99
[32] . It has, for example, been variously suggested that the protection of names in the DNS should extend not only to trademarks but also possibly to other commercial names, the names of famous people, geographical indications, and the names of organisations and localities. Currently there is no internationally agreed codification of such concepts that might be used for these purposes.
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-
9. The .EU Domain and electronic commerce
Many companies throughout the European Union are interested in developing their businesses through electronic commerce. Indeed, the Commission and several Member States have initiated the process of popularising this process, notably with respect to small and medium sized enterprises. Electronic commerce holds the prospect of becoming an economic and competitive way of doing business world wide with suppliers, contractors and customers, as well as directly with final consumer.
The Commission is currently addressing several legal and regulatory aspects of electronic commerce with a view to facilitating this kind of business, particularly to create as uniform as possible legal and regulatory treatment throughout the Internal Market. Electronic Commerce may also become an important element of the export and import trade, particularly in those services that can be delivered on-line.
In this context, the interest in the .COM TLD Internet Domain has already become apparent, however, this domain while in principle global in scope is in practice predominantly North American. Furthermore, it is reportedly already congested, at least in the English language.
One advantage of the .EU Domain would be that it would offer all businesses, Europe-wide, a consistent European identity at the same time as offering plenty of scope for the foreseeable future for second and/or third level domain registrations in a wide range of alternative languages for the purposes of cross-border and international trade.
The precise way in which the utilisation of the .EU domain would materialise for electronic commerce would largely be a function of market demand, but there would appear to be a reasonable expectation that it could become a significant platform as and when the EU market becomes an active area of electronic commerce, particularly as a very wide range of useful names would be available, initially and for some time to come and in all languages.
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-
10. The EU domain and the National ccTLDs in the Member States
A large proportion of total registrations in the European Union are in the 15 national ccTLDs in the Member States. This should continue to be the case, particularly as the national ccTLD Registries are particularly apt to promote a high degree of universality in the general public's access to and use of the Internet.
In this context, an appropriate division of labour might involve the .EU Registry concentrating on those applications for which it would offer significant value-added with respect to the national ccTLDs. It is not envisaged that the national codes would be used as second level domains in .EU (e.g. .SE.EU, .NL.EU etc.) That would clearly involve a degree of duplication and undermine the specificity of the .EU domain for EU-wide and cross-border applications.
On the other hand, the members of the national ccTLD Registries and their agents should have the opportunity to become Registrars for the .EU Registry. Indeed their ability to offer the DNS market an option for registration purposes is one of the principal advantages of the present proposal.
The need and opportunity for an alternative to the national ccTLD domains is however evidenced by the growth of European commercial registrations in other TLDs including .COM.
Furthermore, registration of a significant proportion of European electronic commerce applications in .COM will give rise to problems relating to the shortage of "good" names in .COM [33], to the dispute resolution and trademark policies (NSI has only recently agreed to respect the WIPO policies as implemented by ICANN) and the currently commercial nature of the NSI Registry which is inconsistent with European competition policy. The implementation of European data protection and consumer protection laws and policies would also be facilitated by a European-based TLD Registry such as .EU.
[33] . A very large proportion of recognisable and useful words (in English) have already been registered in .COM either by existing users or by speculative registrations.
European organisations and entities with activities and scope pertaining to more than one Member State or to cross-border regional groupings may be particularly interested in using the .EU domain as soon as it becomes available.
Question 6: Are there any other considerations that should be taken into account about the relationships between the proposed .EU Registry and the national ccTLD Registries in the Member States-
ANNEX
Glossary of Internet terminology and acronyms
CORE Council of Registrars, a not-for-profit shared Registry set up by the IAHC report. Current (9/99) membership 55 companies.
ccTLDs Country code Top Level Domains. (Referring to the ISO 3166 standard two letter codes for countries and territorial entities).
Cybersquatting Speculative (or abusive) registration of trademarks owned by third parties.
Delegation Delegation by ICANN/IANA of a TLD in the Internet Root.
Designation Designation by the relevant government or public authority of the Deleguee, recognised as competent to create the Registry organisation and database.
DNS Domain Name System
GAC ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee
gTLDs Generic Top Level Domains (such as .COM, .ORG, .INT etc.)
IAHC International Ad Hoc Committee
IANA Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (predecessor to ICANN)
ICANN Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (successor organisation to IANA)
IETF Internet Engineering Task Force
ISO International Standards Organisation, Geneva
ISOC Internet Society
NSI Network Solutions Incorporated, a subsidiary of Science Applications Investment Corporation - SAIC
RFC Request for Comments: originally a label for a draft Internet (IETF) standard. In practice, once a standard has been stabilised by consensus, the title RFC(No) is not changed.
Warehousing: Speculative registration of significant numbers of words or names, not necessarily for current use but in the expectation of transferring them at a profit subsequently.