The European Parliament,

-  having regard to the Commission communication (COM(2000) 202 - C5-0263/2000 ),

-  having regard to the Council resolution of 3 October 2000(1) ,

-  having regard to the Commission communication on the "Internet domain name system - Creating the .EU top level domain" (COM(2000) 421 ),

-  having regard to the Commission working document on the creation of the .EU top level domain (COM(2000) 153 ),

-  having regard to the conclusions of the Feira European Council meeting of 19 and 20 June 2000 (SN 200/1/2000),

-  having regard to its resolution of 16 March 2000 on the Commission communication on "eEurope - An Information Society For All: a Commission Initiative for the Special European Council of Lisbon, 23 and 24 March 2000" (COM(1999) 687 - C5-0063/2000 - 2000/2034(COS) )(2) ,

-  having regard to the Commission communication on "Internet Governance - Management of Internet names and addresses - Analysis and assessment from the European Commission of the United States Department of Commerce White Paper" (COM(1998) 476 ),

-  having regard to the declaration of the European Ministerial Conference held in Bonn from 6 to 8 June 1997, on global information networks,

-  having regard to Rule 47(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

-  having regard to the report of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (A5-0063/2001 ),

A.  whereas balanced international representation must be achieved within ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), so that due account may be taken of all five geographical areas covered by the organisation,

B.  whereas the European Union is at a competitive disadvantage with respect to North America as regards the infrastructure required for the expansion of the Internet, and whereas the developing countries have a very low connection rate,

C.  having regard to the threat posed by the digital divide,

D.  whereas the European Union can benefit from the creation of its own Top Level Domain (ccTLD), '.EU', and its inclusion in the Domain Name System following an application made to ICANN,

E.  whereas management of the Internet should be governed by general legislation, possibly involving forms of self-regulation, which, without jeopardising the sector's development, is capable of delivering uniformity and transparency so as to ensure operability and efficiency,

F.  whereas, as the ICANN GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) stated when setting out the objectives which the organisation is to pursue, the allocation of domain names and addresses by ICANN must be carried out in a non-discriminatory and fully transparent manner,

G.  whereas the process of internationalising and democratising by ICANN must be completed with a view to making the organisation totally independent of national influences and ensuring that the creation of new gTLDs (generic Top Level Domains) is not affected by outside pressures,

H.  whereas the Union can give a new impetus to Internet management; whereas the Commission has a role to play in this connection, both with regard to the development of self-regulation, the possible framing of European legislation (where appropriate) and with a view to future international agreements,

I.  whereas the Commission plays a major role in the coordination of Internet management and in negotiations with the United States in this area,

J.  whereas the consultations between the Commission, the private sector and civil society regarding Internet management are also of major importance and should therefore be encouraged,

K.  whereas the provision of access to and the protection of data published on the Internet should be regulated,

L.  whereas the expansion of the Internet and the liberalisation of the telecommunications industry are interrelated,

1.  Welcomes the Commission communication;

2.  Emphasises the need for all five geographical areas covered by ICANN to be represented by democratically elected representatives on the organisation's Board of Directors;

3.  Points to the need to decide which EU entity, organisation or representative will negotiate, on behalf of the EU Members, with the international organisations responsible for the development of the Internet, including those negotiations on the future functioning of ICANN; considers that the Commission should be a leading authority, backed by the necessary resources, to negotiate with governments from the US and other parts of the world; insists that neither the Commission, nor the US Government, nor other governments should interfere in the organisation and management of the Internet, but they should give it sufficient independence and a legal basis at international level, so that it may be an independent network;

4.  Considers that the neutral role of ICANN must be reinforced by a strong presence from the European Union, working alongside the US and other governments, through the Governmental Advisory Committee;

5.  Supports the continuation of the self-regulatory basis of ICANN's operations, but emphasises that the EU must ensure that ICANN works within the principles of existing international codes, particularly the WIPO protocols;

6.  Hopes that all continents will be represented on the ICANN Board in the future, just as they are today;

7.  Points to the need to define the management structure of ICANN, an essential issue in order to guarantee the best possible results for its work; calls for the budgetary and financing arrangements for ICANN to be defined clearly and transparently to facilitate annual monitoring and guarantee its future viability, irrespective of the fact that ICANN is managed privately; considers that there should also be a transparent membership process when the corporation is being formed;

8.  Considers it necessary to guarantee the independence of ICANN from the US Government and to define the legal framework to which it must adhere in future, on the understanding that it is of paramount importance to maintain international neutrality if ICANN is to play a key role in the global development of the information society; considers, similarly, that all continents must be represented on it;

9.  Points out that the Union is lagging behind North America as regards telecommunications infrastructure;

10.  Emphasises that this situation is likely to place European economic operators working in the electronic commerce sector at a disadvantage with regard to their North American competitors, since it has an adverse effect on their costs;

11.  Notes that private investment is the primary source of funding for the establishment of European backbone transmission networks, which are essential to the development of the Internet in the Union given the steady increase in bandwidth applications; points out that the need for such investment has been acknowledged in connection with eEurope action and was confirmed by the European Council at its meeting in Feira in June 2000, but that public investment should be called upon principally where private investment is insufficient;

12.  Welcomes the action taken by the Commission with a view to creating a Top Level Domain (ccTLD) for the European Union, and calls on the Commission and the ICANN Board to ensure that '.EU' is created as soon as possible; considers that its registration procedures should provide a model for international best practice in this field;

13.  Supports the WIPO's arbitration service in respect of the registration of domain names which infringe trademarks and looks forward to organisations submitting proposals to combat other cases of registration not made in good faith which are an infringement of personal names, for example, or a misuse of geographical designations;

14.  Draws attention to the fact that, with a view to ensuring the development of the Internet within the Union, the Commission should develop, in conjunction with ICANN, effective codes of conduct (supported by legislation as appropriate), to cover the allocation and protection of domain names, action to combat fraud and cybersquatting, and access to personal data and the security and protection thereof; considers it necessary to define not only the arrangements for settling disputes between the US and the EU, but also a universal method which will not be subject to differing national regulations or to merely bilateral treaties;

15.  Notes that it took a long time to introduce the seven new domain names and that the time thus lost needs to be made up as quickly as possible; maintains, more generally, the need for a more transparent and democratic process when other new domain names are created in the future;

16.  Attaches priority to the achievement of an open and competitive environment for registration, supported by an international regulatory structure for domain name registration and registrar;

17.  Considers it necessary to establish clearly the scope of the responsibility of the national bodies administering the registers and of the service contractor, in the event of dispute; calls therefore on Member Governments to coordinate their Country Code top level domain registration policies and procedures, so that users are handled in a consistent manner and with effective dispute resolution policies, and further encourages the Commission to promote effective alternative dispute resolution procedures to reinforce the domain name registry codes of conduct;

18.  Calls on the Commission to address at the earliest opportunity the problem of disparities between national laws already in force or under preparation or discussion in the Member States; considers that, as a result of this review, the Commission should encourage self-regulation and legislation with the aim of fostering the development of the Internet in Europe by ensuring uniformity and transparency within the Union;

19.  Calls for a periodical evaluation of whether legislative action taken, or self-regulatory measures, have actually achieved the desired effect;

20.  Considers that the European regulatory strategies in the above areas should aim to become 'best practice' across the world Internet;

21.  Calls for the common Internet management standards to be included in the negotiating package up for discussion with the applicant countries, so as to ensure that those countries have the same legislation in this area as the rest of the Member States from the moment they join the EU;

22.  Draws attention to the link between the development of the Internet within the Union and liberalisation of the telecommunications industry and stresses the need for swift action to cut Internet access costs and extend flat-rate charging; calls therefore for the package of telecom proposals currently under discussion to be adopted at the earliest opportunity;

23.  Points to the importance of combating the digital divide by facilitating access to the Internet for the most disadvantaged sections of the population;

24.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission, and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

(1) OJ C 293, 14.10.2000, p.3. (2) OJ C 377, 29.12.2000, p. 380.