Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

 Index 
 Previous 
 Next 
 Full text 
Verbatim report of proceedings
Tuesday, 3 July 2001 - Strasbourg OJ edition

13. Implementation of the Internet Top Level Domain ".EU"
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – The next item is the report (A5-0226/2001) by Mrs Flesch, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on the implementation of the Internet Top Level Domain ".EU" [COM(2000) 827 – C5-0715/2000 – 2000/0328(COD)].

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Flesch (ELDR) rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, Parliament used the enhanced Hughes procedure to approach this proposal for a regulation. In other words, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has collaborated very closely with the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. I would like to give my heartiest thanks to my fellow Member, Mrs McCarthy, who was the draftsperson of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market and with whom I was able to work in a particularly pleasant and, I hope, effective manner. I would also like to thank the services of Parliament and the Commission, which gave me a great deal of assistance in this matter.

The proposal for a regulation provides for the implementation of the Internet Top Level Domain ‘.EU’, and the European Union should thus assert its visibility in cyberspace as an individual site but also one that complements the national domains, and transpose the trusted environment which the EU has created via the internal market onto the Internet.

Generally speaking, I think I can say that the philosophy of the proposal for a Commission regulation has not been damaged by the amendments proposed by the Committee on Industry and the Committee on Legal Affairs. Mr President, I believe that the parliamentary committees are proposing amendments that will make the text of the regulation more accurate and clear in relation to the demands of businesses using these services and service providers.

As for the general principles, the amendments highlight the desired objective of creating the image of a high-quality brand for the ‘.EU’ domain and they confirm the principles of non-interference, self-management and self-regulation for Internet management, which Parliament regularly advocates. They also make it compulsory for the Registry to manage the ‘.EU’ domain name in the general interest, to observe transparent and non-discriminatory procedures and to conform to best national practices.

The amendments also stipulate that when the regulation is implemented, the principles relating to privacy and the protection of personal data must be taken into account. More specifically, the Parliamentary committees are proposing that the scope of the regulation should be limited to the European Community. In order to designate the registry, a call for expression of interest will be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities; and the difference between registry and registration office, as well as their independence from one another, will be highlighted.

As a general rule, registrations will be done on a first-come, first-served basis, but a so-called ‘sunrise’ clause has nonetheless been put in place to enable the temporary protection of the rights of former right holders. A policy and procedure designed to revoke rather than prevent speculative and abusive registration of domain names will be adopted; lastly, the Member States will be able to prevent the registration under the ‘.EU’ domain of domain names containing established geographical, geopolitical or historical concepts which impact upon the territorial organisation of a Member State.

The guidelines approved by the Council on 27 June 2001 – in other words, very recently – do not appear to be very far removed from the text that I am proposing for Parliament to vote on, so it should be possible to overcome the difficulties between the institutions. Admittedly, there are still some difficult discussions ahead, but I feel that we should be optimistic and believe that a common position can be established in the coming months.

In conclusion, Mr President, I would therefore ask Parliament and you yourself to adopt the report with the proposed amendments.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  McCarthy (PSE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. – Mr President, the initiative to create the ".EU" Domain name will be a necessary boost to expansion in the e-economy. We know that the key brake on this expansion is the lack of confidence, particularly amongst consumers. A European TLD, therefore, should be synonymous with a zone of e-confidence. In addition it should allow European companies to ensure their visibility and presence on the European stage. As Mrs Flesch said, we have worked very closely on this report. We have jointly made some very important recommendations. They give greater clarity to the text and they spell out in detail the role the registry should perform.

I have concentrated in my committee mainly on the issues of the internal market, intellectual property aspects and the general policy framework. Let me highlight some of the amendments. The idea of Amendment No 36 was that the registry should adopt terms and conditions to incorporate an accredited code of conduct for online trading and therefore give businesses the opportunity to join an accredited online extra-judicial dispute resolution scheme. This will respond to business concerns to see added value to ".EU" Domain names and will again create this zone of e-consumer confidence in line with the Lisbon conclusions.

While registration should generally be on a first-come, first-served principle, we have nonetheless proposed that rightholders, who have prior rights in law and public policy, should have the opportunity to pre-register. We have tried to address the growing problem of cyber squatting by asking the registry to run a mediation and arbitration service, either free or on a cost-recovery basis to deal with speculative and abusive registration of domain names. We are proposing the setting up of a policy advisory committee, as is the practice in country domain names, to assist in dealing with what can be registered at top level.

Commissioner, we understand the need to make progress on the establishment of ".EU" and the need to ensure we respect the principles of the Internet world, namely self-regulation and self-management. But it is important to get the principles right from the outset, to ensure success, and that is why we have spelt this out in detail. Mrs Flesch and I had excellent cooperation. We now look forward to similar cooperation with the Council and Commission. We hope they will seriously consider our recommendations, and that we can come to a speedy decision to enable ".EU" to get off to a running start as soon as possible.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Harbour (PPE-DE). – Mr President, on behalf of my Group, I should like to give a very warm welcome to this report and to thank Mrs Flesch for her very comprehensive and detailed work, which shows her experience in the field. I should also like to pay particular tribute to Mrs McCarthy who I have worked with in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. Between our rapporteur and our draftsman, they produced a very sound report.

What is important about this report is that they have resisted the temptation to complicate what was basically a simple text proposed by the Commission. Essentially, Commissioner Liikanen, the word from Parliament is to go and get on with it. We do not want to over-complicate it. We have made some worthwhile improvements, but the fundamentals of what you proposed have been left unaltered.

That is important because, we must remember, the ".EU" domain name is actually a late entrant into a highly competitive and crowded market. It has to justify its existence. For it to be successful we want companies and organisations to use it. Therefore, the registration procedures have to be simple, easy and cost-effective. We must bear in mind that the policies and procedures adopted by the registry will need to reflect best practice in the field. Because we are coming into this late, there is no excuse for not getting it right. So some of the safeguards that both Mrs Flesch and Mrs McCarthy refer to, about protection of trademarks and avoidance of vexatious registration – cyber-squatting – are particularly important.

I want to highlight two particular issues of concern that I raised during the debate and was particularly pleased were reflected in the amendments. Mrs McCarthy referred to her amendment seeking to enable organisations with a prior title to a name to have a priority period of registration. That is very important. We do not want to disadvantage companies which are already active in this field which feel that they must protect themselves and want to take on the ".EU". We do not want them to feel that they are going to be held back in any way. They must have a priority period of registration to avoid this problem of vexatious registration, of people who just want to make a "quick buck" moving into that field and taking hold of that registration.

It will be very important for the new registry – and I direct this particularly to the Commission – that the launch date and the priority registration period are very well publicised throughout the European Union so that people understand those rights.

Secondly, we have to ensure that the ".EU" name does not, in any way, displace existing Member State domain names. I proposed an amendment, which I am pleased was accepted by my colleagues, that makes sure that the ".EU" registration is not empowered to issue any sub-domain names using Member State identities.

In conclusion, this is a worthwhile enhancement of the European Union's information society capabilities in a very fast-evolving world.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Carraro (PSE).(IT) Mr President, I would like to add my appreciation to that already expressed for Mrs Flesch's report. I feel that it is a particularly well-balanced and competent report, and so I can only endorse its approach and contents.

I feel that this report represents a further step along the path embarked upon months ago now by the Commission and Parliament together, towards progress in the information society, to catch up, to eliminate that gap which exists between the information society of the continent of the European Union and the more advanced information societies of other parts of the world, specifically the United States. This is a further important stage, which may be more significant than others in terms of public opinion, but also or precisely because of this it is important that it is completed quickly.

Well then, without wishing to go over the ground already covered by other Members, I would like to stress just one further point: my satisfaction that the path adopted is continuing to secure self-regulation for operators in the context of the Internet as well. I feel that we must constantly stress that the Internet is a wonderful experience, and it must be so also when we create a European domain for, apart from anything else, it has been entrusted to self-regulation, to the ability of the operators to manage themselves. Therefore, we must continue along this path of enhancing European information technology, but we must avoid restricting independence or, in any case, smothering in red tape an experience which has been positive precisely because it has been allowed to develop spontaneously.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR).(NL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Flesch, on the excellent result that she has achieved within the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, in consultation with the Commission and the Council. Consequently, no further amendments have been tabled for this plenary. All of this has been achieved within the space of six months, while the Commission has needed three years to draft a proposal. It is now important for the Council and Parliament to keep the momentum going. Indeed, the users have been waiting for this with bated breath. Mr Liikanen, I will then obviously expect from you a quick, practical and simple implementation which befits the Internet culture.

The introduction of the “.EU” Top Level Domain is said to afford the European Union a higher profile on worldwide information networks, and it also represents added value for the Internet naming system in addition to the national domain names. Two elements are crucial in this connection.

First of all, the organisation that keeps the register must be independent and must carry out its work in a transparent, non-discriminatory manner. All interested organisations must be represented in the register.

Secondly, the Member States must establish in good time the domain names they want to use exclusively. Clear criteria are needed in that connection. That includes the first come, first served principle, as well as clear rules which can prevent abuse of the system. In the Netherlands, we remember all too well how the city of Amsterdam had to buy back the domain name www.amsterdam.nl for an extortionate sum of money, because that name had already been claimed by a pornography business.

The swift advent of the “.EU” Top Level Domain offers an excellent opportunity to boost public confidence and that of businesses in online trade. This would encourage economic growth and the competitiveness of European industry, and hence employment. The legal framework of the internal market also plays an important role in this field.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Crowley (UEN). – Mr President, I too would like to join in the congratulations to the rapporteur, and to the draftsman from the Committee on Legal Affairs, with regard to the proposal put before us. Like previous speakers, I welcome it because it is time that we in the EU had our own domain. It will allow more business to operate on the new e-economy, and will also get rid of some of the uncertainty and some of the difficulties there are with regard to the different domains that exist at present.

The one area of concern I have is in relation to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers – ICANN. As this is a body which is regulated under US law, they are already in the process of registering the ".EU" domain and allowing people to buy ".EU" domains as well. I would like to know if possible from the Commissioner what action he has taken to deal with this possible conflict in the future. I, along with other Members in the House, have full confidence in the Commission ensuring that there is an innovative and new way of guaranteeing security for this domain in the future.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Cappato (TDI).(IT) Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur. I too, like Mr Carraro, would like to talk about the crucial role of self-regulation for the Internet system. From this point of view, a consultative committee which is too heavy handed with regard to the relationship between the representatives of trade associations, businesses, trade unions and service providers could cause some concern. We must avoid making the procedure for managing the ".EU" domain too rigid and concern ourselves, instead, with filling this domain with rights of European electronic citizenship. This is a proposal that I would like to make to the Commission: to consider immediately how, including by means of the '.EU' domain, new rights can be guaranteed such as rights of access, and rights of interaction with the European petitions institutions, the Ombudsman, and in participation in competitive examinations and procurement competitions. Thus, with interaction between the citizens and the institutions of the European Union, we will be able to fill the '.EU' domain with material of genuine European telematic citizenship

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE).(ES) Mr President, I believe that one of the main reasons for the excellence of this report is the quality of the person who produced it, because it is a real pleasure to work with her. As is well known, through the Internet, the citizens of the whole world can now discover new realities about countries, companies, associations and, in many cases, ways of life from the opposite ends of the Earth.

The development of this interactive means of communication is exponential and access to it in many developed countries is practically universal and, in others, is just a question of time. Furthermore, we have all been witnesses to the frequent bad use of the Internet. I believe that within the Internet top level domain “.EU” we must prevent cases of improper uses of names which may harm the image of the European Union and its Member States, because the top level domain “.EU” is going to be the European Union’s shop front to the world, it is going to be our logo and is going to be part of our heritage, and as such it must be dealt with, supervised, controlled and protected.

In summary, I believe there are certain facets of economic activity which must be subject to control, if the intention is to achieve a good result, and the top level domain “.EU” must, in my view, be one of them, so that it may be synonymous with quality, reliability of the information hosted by it and the consistency of its contents.

I would like to remind you that the European Union has an excellent image and what we have to do is maintain it and support it.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Martin, Hans-Peter (PSE) . – (DE) Mr President, following the fairly technical introduction we have heard, we should not lose sight of what this is all about. It has repeatedly, and quite rightly, been said that Europe does not have a face. If you are a publicity-minded entrepreneurial type and want to acquire an e-mail address, it will be ".at" ".com", ".net" or ".org". Europe is now acquiring a face, an address. It will be valuable in itself if we can bring this off and if the Commission finds the right approach. We will become ".EU".

The fact that we are so late in doing this has a lot to do with the fact that we have not in reality grown together to form a single entity as we pretend we have. It is to be hoped that Europe will gradually develop from being a single market to having its own identity, by means of policy. We know that a lot has gone awry. I regard it as progress that a certain element of labelling is associated with the ".EU" domain. I am relying on the Commission and everyone responsible to make sure that there is no sloppiness if we do get this top-level domain, with incidents like the ones described by the previous speakers occurring. Just remember the "Amsterdam.nl" case.

However, as part of the enlargement and re-regionalisation of Europe I would also like to see all regions having the opportunity to use appropriate sub-domains. On this point, I am not in agreement with the report before us.

I also, however, welcome Amendment No 15, in which the rapporteur refers to the basic principle of transparency, which brings me to my oft-repeated demand that the European institutions should set an example by being completely transparent for the benefit of the public.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Niebler (PPE-DE).(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to warmly congratulate the rapporteur of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, Mrs Flesch, on her excellent report. Mrs Flesch, you have really managed to capture the key aspects of the ".EU" issue in your report and thus set the right course for the European Parliament.

With this regulation, we are helping to construct the European home, in this case in a virtual form. The ".EU" top-level domain will promote Europe's identity more effectively on the Internet, which has numerous advantages. E-commerce in the European Union will be promoted. Through the ".EU" top-level domain, consumers will be able to recognise that a company working via the Internet belongs to the single market and will have greater faith in it.

Up to now, as Mr Martin pointed out, European companies using the ".com" domain have sometimes been taken for American companies rather than European ones. European companies, organisations and private individuals will get concise new addresses long since bagged by others under the current domains. For example, there are already well over 10 million ".com" domains in the European Union.

Now that the Council has pronounced itself in favour of introducing the ".EU" top-level domain, just a few days ago in fact, we can help, by adopting the regulation before the summer break, to ensure that registration of the first ".EU" addresses can begin in spring 2002. Therefore, particularly at a time when over 90% of the most frequently visited web sites are in the USA and about 70% of e-commerce is transacted in the USA, I can only urge you to vote for this proposal.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Van Velzen (PPE-DE).(NL) Mr President, I should first of all like to thank the rapporteur for her outstanding cooperation and the excellent way in which she has worded her report.

I should like to home in on a few points. Firstly, the method of registration of a ‘.EU’ domain. The principle underlying the registration policy is that anyone who wants to register a ‘.EU’ domain also has the related trademark rights. Two interests need to be weighed up in this connection. On the one hand, countering abuse and, on the other, making registration for SMEs and for citizens as simple as possible. Two models are possible in this connection.

The first model prescribes extremely strict requirements to be applied in advance of someone obtaining such a ‘.EU’ name. This will then lead to a shortage of names because the thresholds are too high. The second model prescribes subsequent intervention in the unlikely event of improper use or speculation. That is why I should like to refer to Amendment No 34, which spells this out clearly.

We prefer the second model because it is much more SME-friendly, results in many more domain names and – in my opinion – in many more domain registrations. That is the right way forward in my view.

My second point concerns clarity on behalf of citizens and businesses. ‘.EU’ offers EU citizens clarity, for it stipulates that registration is only possible for people or businesses lawfully based within the EU. That is what Amendment No 24 is about. That translates into more legal certainty, more confidence and an increase in e-commerce within the European Union. I believe that that is what it is all about.

Finally, my third point. All of this fits in with the EU policy which we aim to pursue. We want to assume a favourable position worldwide in the Information Society. In my opinion, the ‘.EU’ Internet Domain sets the right tone for this, for which I am extremely grateful.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Rübig (PPE-DE).(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in terms of gross national product Europe leads the world, and I think it is a good thing for us to make rather more effort to market Europe in the future. I welcome the fact that we want to become the most competitive area in the world and I believe that we still need to put in a lot of effort to achieve that. Our competitors throughout the globe are sleeping; they have launched good initiatives, which makes it important for us to act as efficiently and quickly as possible in this area.

We have over 18 million companies in Europe, and I believe that it gives them an extremely valuable marketing advantage if they are immediately and easily recognisable throughout the world. Consumer confidence is fundamental for business and that is why the presence of the European Union on the Internet with a top-level domain is particularly important.

I also consider that an efficient dispute resolution system is needed, and one that is as cost-effective as possible but at the same time neutral and non-discriminatory. Especially in the case of speculation or misuse of registered names, it should be possible to take drastic action quickly and efficiently, because that is a very significant issue for the parties involved and can create a need for effective action on their part.

It is also very important that the Registry should be put out to tender, as this will guarantee optimum support in Europe. I wish the Commission and, in particular, Mrs Flesch, every success. I believe that you have taken an important step for the European Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Liikanen, Commission. – The proposal to set up the ‘.EU’ top-level domain was first tabled by the Commission last December after public consultation over the whole year. In Internet terms, it is a lifetime. European Internet users are becoming increasingly impatient to have a ‘.EU’ top-level domain where they can register pan-European names. It is becoming imperative, therefore, that the EU takes the necessary steps to implement ‘.EU’ as soon as possible. In this respect, I am pleased to note the common orientation agreed last week in the Council, which was a major step forward.

With regard to Parliament, I would particularly like to thank Mrs Flesch and Mrs McCarthy for their contributions as rapporteurs. Their work has contributed significantly to a situation where we are very close to an agreement between the institutions, which would enable implementation of the ‘.EU’ top-level domain soon. I am extremely happy about the high quality discussion we have here today in this plenary.

As far as the amendments are concerned, the rapporteurs in particular have proposed a number of amendments, which will significantly improve the text of the regulation. This includes reinforcement of the key principles of Internet management, clarification of conformity with the Community data protection rules, and more precise definitions relating to the role and the functions of the registry. The Commission also welcomes the support given by the rapporteurs to the Commission's proposals for an advisory committee.

There are also a number of proposed amendments which the Commission can accept in principle, subject to further clarification. These include the proposal that the Commission would be authorised to levy a management charge on the registry for services provided. If the intention is to ensure that the registry remains cost-neutral to the Commission, this is acceptable, although the Commission would welcome a clearer reference to avoid any suggestion that a standing charge of any sort is imposed on the registry.

With respect to the proposals for a policy advisory board to the registry, the Commission agrees that broad consultation with the European Internet community will be a prerequisite for the proper functioning of the registry. At the same time, it will be important to clarify how such a body would interact with the Commission and the Member States committee.

The 'first-come-first-served' approach for registrations is supported by the Commission, as it is one of the underlying principles for the registration process proposed by the Commission. We would, however, point out that this general principle must be subject to the rules and principles adopted as public policies in relation to the registration of the ‘.EU’, just to avoid the problems which have been mentioned by a few speakers tonight.

Similarly, the Commission has no objections to the requirement for registrants to respect a code of conduct, although care needs to be taken to avoid confusion and any suggestion of a priori controls. Mr Carraro also made comments which I endorse.

The Commission is fully committed to transparency principles and supports the publication of a call for expression of interest in the Official Journal, as was also mentioned by Mr Martin. However, the procedure of publication of the conditions of implementation of the registry and of the policy framework in the Official Journal may prove a very cumbersome procedure and alternative publication may be more efficient. Why not this time a website? When talking about ‘.EU’; why not go to the public on the website?

There are however, some proposed amendments which the Commission cannot agree with. In relation to the proposed amendments on the preventive measures to be adopted by the Member States on the geographical and geo-political basis, I would like to point out that should the Member States impose individually such measures to the registry, this could lead to conflicting measures or various incompatible approaches. The issue of geographical and geopolitical names is, however, an important political issue for some Member States and is fully recognised by the Commission.

I am convinced that the compromise which was reached at the Council, introducing a new paragraph for Article 4.1a may offer an alternative which Parliament may wish to consider further.

The proposal to require the registry to ensure that companies registering a name are legally established in the Community is also problematic. Given the automated nature of the registry process, it is not practical for the registry to carry out a priori checks on registrants. Apart from questions of technical feasibility, the Commission would view such a requirement to be an excessive burden on the registry and an unnecessary barrier to registrants.

The proposal that the registry should be obliged to supply information to third parties with a "legitimate interest" is also unacceptable as such to the Commission. It is not clear exactly how such a provision could apply, and we suggest that the registry will, in any case, be subject to existing legal provisions for disclosure.

There also seems to be a linguistic problem surrounding the concepts of "public policy" and "public order" in the French and English versions. Here the Commission must reiterate its position that the public authorities must only be involved in those areas of registry policy where matters of genuine interest to the public at large are involved and not in the day-to-day operational decisions of the registry.

Mr Crowley raised the question about ‘.EU’ and I also received an e-mail at the end of June, talking about the creation of 'www.eu' and a welcome to use our services. Of course, it was slightly embarrassing, but we must make it clear that, after verification, we are aware of the existence of so-called alternate routes outside the domain-named system; top level domains coordinated by ICANN and of the recent introduction of the alternative route www.eu by the organisation called 'The Universal Registry'.

The future ‘.EU’ top-level domain will, however, operate within the ICANN-approved named system, partly because of the need to ensure that most EU users can access addresses under ‘.EU’, but also because the Commission supports the principle of a single authoritative rule for the domain-named system. Alternate rules operate quite legally within the Internet, but have relatively limited visibility and can be difficult to access, because the majority of browsers, quite naturally, point at names servers related to ICANN-authorised top-level domains.

To Mr Cappato, the Commission has just accepted a communication on e-Commission and that is a big challenge to guarantee that all the activities of the Commission will be online, that we will be able to give access to all citizens, but also in the medium and long-term, to interact with our partners and citizens.

Of the 40 amendments proposed by the rapporteurs the Commission can accept in full Amendments Nos 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26, 28, 31, 35, 38, 39 and 40. The Commission can accept, in part or in principle Amendments Nos 9, 13, 14, 18, 20, 29, 30, 32 and 36. Mr van Velzen mentioned Amendment No 34. There are positive elements here but for particular reasons of revocation the Commission included that in the amendments which the Commission cannot accept, which are Amendments Nos 6, 15, 23, 24, 27, 33, 34 and 37.

In conclusion, given 40 amendments of which the Commission can accept 32 in full, in part or in principle, these amendments indicate that Parliament and the Commission are clearly pursuing a common objective to ensure that the ‘.EU’ Top Level Domain will soon be a successful registry.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.

 
Legal notice - Privacy policy