WRITTEN QUESTION E-1315/01 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission. .EU domain name.
Date: 2001-05-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Internet site, information policy, intellectual property, international standard, new technology

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/33

The Commission has established good and regular contacts with environmental non-governmental
6.
organisations (NGOs) from the candidate countries and is supporting their activities. Twice a year, an
informal dialogue is organised with environmental NGOs. During this dialogue, the NGOs are informed
about the status of the enlargement process and are given the opportunity to express their views and
opinions in order to improve the transparency of the environmental accession process. The 4th NGO
dialogue was held on the 23/24 of April 2001.

The Community is granting direct support to environmental NGOs in some candidate countries through
the Access programme, which aims to strengthen the civil society of the candidate countries in the field of
environment and social and economic development. The Commission has also taken the initiative of
establishing a grant scheme to enhance the NGOs(cid:146) capacities in the accession process related to
environment and is providing the possibility to support environmental NGOs through the newly
established REAP facility.

the public,

Moreover, it should be kept in mind that Community environmental directives will considerably strengthen
the involvement of
the
environmental acquis already provide for this. The Directives on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA),
Access to Information (3), the Air Quality Framework (4) and the new Water Framework Directive (5) are
well-known examples. As a result of the alignment of candidate countries with Community directives, civil
society, and notably NGOs, have already been granted an increasing insight into decisions. This will be
further strengthened once Community directives are fully implemented.

in the candidate countries. Several pieces of

including NGOs,

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(3) Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on the environment

(OJ L 158, 23.6.1990).

(4) Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management (OJ L 296,

21.11.1996).

(5) Directive 2000/60/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for

Community action in the field of water policy (OJ L 327, 22.12.2000).

(2002/C 40 E/030)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1315/01

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject:

.EU domain name

1.
Is it true that there is currently no charter or document for .EU domain name, defining the purpose
and reasoning behind this ambitious project? If this is true, how does the Commission propose to regulate
an entity without declaring the purpose and aims of the regulation?

2.
The ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) had originally indicated
that, under the right circumstances, it would delegate the .EU name to the European Commission. Is this
still the case?

3. Why does the Commission want to control those aspects of .EU domain name policy which are
normally controlled by the stakeholders in the Internet community in line with the generally accepted
Internet conventions expressed in RFC 1591?

4.
The Interim steering group of the EU consultation EC-POP report on .EU proposed that the .EU name
should be structured in line with RFC 1951. Why does the Regulation make no mention of this
fundamental precept?

5. Why does Article 3(b) require various levels of residency within the European Community for users
of the .EU domain name? Existing ccTLDs (Country Code Top Level Domain Name) such as .fr or .uk
indicate the area in which an enterprise does business or where the enterprise wishes to be seen to do
business. What benefits does the residency element of the proposed domain name have for users?

C 40 E/34

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.2.2002

The letters .EU stand for Europe, a geographical area including Switzerland, Norway, Turkey, Latvia,
6.
Estonia and so on. Why does the Regulation seek to limit the use of these letters to the EU, and is there
any real benefit in such a limitation? Have any governments of non-EU countries been consulted on this
matter?

7.
The Commission has had no previous experience of managing an internet domain, nor does it seem
prepared for the task. Has the Commission considered CENTR, the Council of European national Top Level
Domain Registries, as a possible custodian of the .EU domain name?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

The Explanatory Memorandum annexed to the Proposal for a Regulation of the Parliament and of the
1.
Council on the implementation of the Internet Top Level Domain (cid:145).EU(cid:146) (1) refers to two documents which
discuss extensively the purpose and reasoning of the proposal. First, it refers to the Communication of the
Commission of 5 July 2000 on the results of the public consultation on the creation of EU Internet Top
Level Domain (2). It also refers to theReport of the Interim Steering Group (ISG) whose purpose is briefly
explained by a quote from the report in the footnote (3).

As confirmed by a Recital

2.
in the proposal, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (ICANN) Board has adopted a resolution that would permit ICANN to delegate the Community
top-level domain (TLD) code at the appropriate time. On 24 April 2001, the Commission and the Member
States in the Internet Informal Group met with the Chief Executive of ICANN and other senior staff. They
confirmed their support for this initiative.

3.
The Commission(cid:146)s intention is to ensure as large as possible stakeholder participation to the shaping
of the registration policy. The Commission(cid:146)s proposal indicates that those policies which are matters of
public policy will be decided according to comitology procedure. Subject to certain safeguards, such as the
the
respect of
implementation of the (cid:145).EU(cid:146) will according to the Commission(cid:146)s proposal be determined by the Registry
in consultation with the Commission and other interested parties and in accordance with the contract to
be entered into between the Commission and the Registry.

the applicable Community and national

the detailed registration policy for

laws,

The Commission is aware of and recognises the importance of RFC 1591 (4) as updated and amended
4.
by the ICANN ICP-1 document (5) and the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) principles for
Country code top level domain (ccTLD) Registries (6). For legal and political reasons the draft Regulation
refers sparingly to Internet assigned numbers Authority (IANA) and ICANN documents as they emanate
from private entities. However, with regard to the contract between the Registry and ICANN Article 2.4
refers to the GAC principles that refer in turn to RFC 1591.

The residency element was introduced to support the principle that there should be a tangible
5.
relationship between the principal location of the entity concerned and the territorial scope of the Registry
and the Commission considered that basic principles of European Internal Market Law should be applied
i.a. the criteria mentioned in Article 48 (ex-Article 58) of the EC Treaty.

6.
As a proposed ccTLD, the code (cid:145)EU(cid:146) is drawn from the International Organisation for Standardisation
(ISO) 3166 Standard of two letter codes for the representation of names of countries. In that standard, (cid:145)EU(cid:146)
has been reserved as the code representing the name of the Union (7). Representatives of the governments
of European Economic Area (EEA) and European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries have contacted
the Commission with a view to obtaining an enlargement of the eligibility criteria in their favour (8).

7.
The Commission does not intend to manage the (cid:145).EU(cid:146) Internet Top Level Domain. The Commission(cid:146)s
proposal clearly indicates that the intention is to ensure that a Registry will be entrusted with the task to
organise, administer and manage the .EU TLD. This was also made clear in the initial Commission working

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/35

paper (9) and it further appeared from the replies to the ensuing public consultation in early 2000 (10). The
Commission(cid:146)s Communications and the ISG Report envisaged that the Registry would be a private not-for-
profit self-regulating entity operating in the public interest. The Registry will be designated by open and
transparent procedures.

(1) OJ C 96 E, 27.3.2001.
(2) COM(2000) 421 final.
(3)

(cid:145)Meanwhile, as announced in the July 2000 Communication, the Commission and the Internet community in
Europe have moved forward with detailed technical and policy preparations. This has been done in the context of
the existing European Community Panel of Participants (EC-POP) who have constituted an Interim Steering Group
(ISG) that worked on this question during May-October 2000. A report on their work is available and has been
published for comment, (http://www.ec-pop.org/1009prop/index.htm). Indeed, the Community has an interest in
benefiting from the available expertise among those groups most actively participating in the development of the
Internet in Europe. For that reason, particular weight is attached to the work of the Interim Steering Group,
including for example,
the registry,
contractual relationships between the Commission and the registry organisation and the options for the form that
organisation could take. The ISG members recognise that their work in this area was of an advisory nature.(cid:146)

the eventual operational and technical characteristics of

its analysis of

(4) http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1591.txt.
(5) http://www.iana.org/cctld/icp1.htm.
(6) http://www.icann.org/committees/gac/gac-cctldprinciples-23feb00.htm.
(7) The three letter code (cid:145)€(cid:146) has also been standardised by ISO to represent the name of the Euro currency.
(8)

In the case of several existing ccTLD Registries, including those in the Union, eligibility requirements have recently
been progressively relaxed, to include non-residents. The Parliament has recently asked the Commission to conduct
a review of the national measures in this regard. (European parliament Resolution A5-0063/2001 of 15 March
2001, Clauses 18 and 19).

(9) http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/information_society/policy/internet/workingpaper_en.htm.
(10) http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/information_society/policy/internet/com2000421_en.htm.

(2002/C 40 E/031)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1323/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: Amendment of Article 296(1)(b) of the EC Treaty

On 15 December 2000 the Belgian Federation decided that
it would no longer link its military
procurement to economic compensation for businesses in Flanders and Wallonia. The notification by the
Council of Ministers [i.e. the Belgian Government] for an order of night sights includes the following
statement:
(cid:145)The Council confirms that future orders will no longer contain an economic compensation
clause.(cid:146) Previously the government had sought whenever possible to place military procurement orders (cid:129)
worth billions (cid:129) with (cid:145)Belgian(cid:146) companies. The compensation was always veiled in an atmosphere of
protectionism and unsavoury conflicts of interest because decisions were not taken in accordance with
market principles. The F16 fighter and Agusta helicopter cases are two classic examples of this happening
in Belgium.

The Belgian Government(cid:146)s decision should be emulated at European level. By putting an end to national
economic compensation, the procurement of military equipment can in future be placed on a transparent
footing, and one which accords with market principles, avoiding protectionism and the mingling of
political and business interests. The aims of the European Rapid Reaction Force, as agreed at Helsinki, also
require a new approach to military procurement.

Pursuant to Article 296(2) of the EC Treaty, the Council may, (cid:145)acting unanimously on a proposal from the
Commission, make changes to the list, which it drew up on 15 April 1958, of the products to which the
provisions of paragraph 1(b) apply(cid:146). Article 296(1)(b) permits Member States to waive the general principle
of competition (Title VI of the EC Treaty) in the case of military procurement. By altering the scope of
Article 296(1)(b), the procurement of military equipment can in future be based on market principles.
More specifically, the Commission would have to propose to the Council that all military (cid:145)products(cid:146) be
deleted from the list of products to which the provisions of paragraph 1(b) apply, which the Council drew
up on 15 April 1958.