Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-07-03-Speech-2-259"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010703.13.2-259"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – 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.
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
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.
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
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."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"a"1
"priori"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples