Comunicazione della Commissione europea sulla
creazione del TLD .eu
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL COM(2000)421
INTERNET DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM -
CREATING THE .EU TOP LEVEL DOMAIN - .EU
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL
INTERNET DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM -
CREATING THE .EU TOP LEVEL DOMAIN -
For some time the Commission has
been receiving requests and initiatives in support of the creation of a European
Internet Top Level Domain. This indicator of European identity for suppliers of
services and information on the Internet is perceived as a valuable stimulus to
electronic commerce and to the European transition to the information society.
The European Council in Lisbon
stressed the necessity for businesses and citizens to have access to an
affordable, world-class communications infrastructure and a wide range of
services. The setting up of the top level domain name .EU, dedicated to the
needs of electronic commerce, education, public services, libraries, scientific
and cultural institutions, and for the benefit of the final user, would
complement other European policies in the field.
The .EU Domain Name is part of the
recent Commission eEurope initiative.
In February 2000 the Commission
initiated a public consultation on the basis of a document describing the
possibilities and asked several questions about whether and how the proposed .EU
Top Level Domain should be set up.
Accordingly the purpose of this
Communication is to inform the European Parliament and the Council about:
the principal results of the public
the conclusions that the Commission
has drawn, and
the next steps being taken to
implement the proposal.
It also asks the Council and the
European Parliament to endorse these actions and to support the steps taken to
obtain the operational insertion of the .EU Domain Name into the global Domain
2. Results of the public
consultation on the creation of .EU
The Commission received more than 90
responses to the public consultation. A very large majority were strongly in
support of the initiative to create the .EU Top Level Domain. At the same time
many detailed questions and policy issues were raised, together with proposals
for a wide variety of solutions. The Commission has carefully considered these
detailed replies and will continue to examine, together with representatives of
industry and users, the ways and means of implementing an exemplary system that
will fulfil the objectives of the proposed Registry and meet all the concerns
expressed. The Commission notes that some of these issues arise in the context
of the Information Society and electronic commerce in any event, and that they
are already being addressed in an appropriate manner.
The responses to the consultation
addressed the following main policy issues:
The added value of the proposal for
Constitution of the Registry
The role of the European Union
Principal Registry policies
Relationships with national ccTLD
Registries in the Member States
Territorial scope and relations with
In short, the replies showed strong
support for the concept as well as producing a wide range of questions and
comments on the detail of its implementation. Annex 1 to the Communication sets
out the main features of the replies received. The replies may be inspected in
greater detail on the Web.
2.1 Added Value of .EU to the
existing registration policies
The Commission considers that the
creation of the .EU Domain would be a decisive element for accelerating
e-economy and e-commerce in Europe at a time when the single currency will soon
be a reality. The existing generic TLD, .COM, is already congested. Thus, .EU
would expand the Domain Name Space and at the same time would enhance the
interconnection and interoperability of European companies, organisations and
individuals. It would give users who wish to operate across the Internal Market
a specific European identification which will be recognised globally. It will
also avoid the necessity of registration in different Member States. Indirectly,
it would also increase consumer confidence in the use of the Internet among
European users, since European law, data and consumer protection rules would
Furthermore, a number of comments
received argued that the .EU Domain Name should offer characteristics that would
justify this initiative as clearly distinct from the generic Top Level Domains
on the one hand and the country code Top Level Domains on the other hand. The
most frequent proposal is to certify that a .EU domain name operator does exist
as a legitimate entity (e.g. by reference to VAT registration or another
official source) and to maintain accessible "Whois" data about the
operator. This point is also emphasised by the Intellectual Property and
Trademark community as necessary for the protection of their rights. Other
respondents propose domains that are restricted to an industry sector or to
"chartered" members of a profession.
It must however be borne in mind
that domain name registration is an automatic, computerised process that, in a
moderately successful Registry, may involve processing thousands of applications
every day. Consequently policies favouring distinctive features for the future
TLD, would have to be implemented in practice at a reasonable cost.
2.2 The constitution of the Registry
A large majority of the responses
endorsed the Commission's suggestion that a not-for-profit association should
run the Registry organisation, working in the public interest. The possible
policy-making functions of the Registry were addressed separately from the
function of operating the Registry database. There were several opinions
mentioning the possibility to have a purely functional and technical Registry
while the policies aspects would be decided on by a separate entity.
The function of Registrars, that is
agencies that undertake enquiries and registrations of names on behalf of
operators and other interested parties, should be exercised by a number of
organisations operating in all parts of the European Union on a competitive,
commercial basis. The numbers and rules for accreditation and operation of such
agencies remain to be determined.
A wide range of interested private
and public sector participants are already working together with a view to
creating an appropriate Registry organisation. They include representatives of
the Internet Service Providers, existing Registries and Registrars, telecom
operators, standardisation bodies and industrial and user associations,
including Intellectual Property interests. The Commission is facilitating and
actively participating in this process in order to help identify the most
appropriate structures and, in consequence, the framework measures that should
be taken by the European institutions.
2.3 The Role of the European Union
The Commission envisages that .EU
will be deployed in the Domain Name System in a similar way to the existing
country code Top Level Domains. In May 1999, the Commission asked the ISO
Maintenance Agency to allow the reserved code element EU to be extended to
Internet applications. It received a favourable reply which permits the code
element EU to be used as a ccTLD identifier, in line with normal practice as
regards the implementation of the ISO list of reserved code elements.
Meanwhile, the Government Advisory
Committee to ICANN has agreed on guiding principles for the relationships
between the governments and public authorities, the ccTLD Registries and ICANN,
whereby the ultimate public policy authority for a national ccTLD Registry rests
with the relevant government or public authority. Accordingly, regarding the .EU
Domain, public policy responsibility will rest with the European Union. The
Operating Principles of the Government Advisory Committee also state that
"Country code top level domains are operated in trust by the Registry for
the public interest of the Internet Community, on behalf of the relevant public
authorities including governments, who ultimately have public policy authority
over their ccTLDs, consistent with universal connectivity of the Internet."
A significant number of the replies
supported, indeed welcomed, the participation of the EU in this way as a
guarantee that the operations of the Registry would be consistent with EU law
and policy. However, this view of the EU's eventual role was not shared by a few
respondents to the consultation, who would rather see .EU as a generic Top Level
Domain similar to .COM, etc. The Commission nevertheless favours the opportunity
to ensure the further added value of European oversight over the new Domain.
The Commission therefore envisages
that it will participate on behalf of the European Union in the overall policy
formation process for the .EU Domain. It will facilitate the creation of an
adequate structure together with representatives of appropriate interests drawn
from suppliers and users of Internet services in order to define broad policy
The organisation in charge of the
operational registration of domain names under .EU (the Registry) would be
independent from the policy structure. The Commission envisages to designate the
Registry either in response to a consensus proposal from the European Internet
community, or if necessary following evaluation of the results of a public call
for expressions of interest. It is envisaged that the Registry organisation
would be a not-for-profit entity.
As stated in the consultation
document, the EU code would be assigned to the Registry by contract for a
limited period, renewable. The European Union would retain all rights in the
code "EU", and other safeguards, including rights to the Registry
database, would be provided for, respecting existing ICANN and GAC policies for
the relationships between public authorities and the existing national (ccTLD)
Registries. The contract with the Registry would exclude the European Union from
any legal or commercial liability for the operation of the Registry.
Recent experience has demonstrated
that the operation of the Internet DNS, and particularly the functioning of
Domain Name Registries may raise issues that fall under Community law. These
include competition, intellectual property and data protection, among other
areas of Community law and policy.
2.4 Principal Registry policies
The responses to the public
consultation reflect a wide range of opinion on the form of domain names under
.EU (second level domains, SLD). Most respondents assumed that a system of
sub-domains would be required but there are different views between those who
advocate a few sub-domains and those who would prefer many domains to permit
differentiation between similar names in different businesses.
A policy will also be needed
covering names that would not be available for use except by those with a
demonstrable right to use them. This list could include certain trademarks and
famous names recognised under a scheme being contemplated by the WIPO and the EU
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market. Additional suggestions include
reserving geographical indicators and place names (regions, towns, and villages)
for use only by the corresponding local and regional communities.
The Commission will continue to
examine these and related issues in the further preparatory meetings with
Furthermore, the Communication on
the Organisation and Management of the Internet concludes inter alia that
the Commission intends to make a proposal for a code of conduct or other
appropriate instrument that would restrict the scope of current abuses in the
area of abusive and speculative registration of domain names.
The Commission has initiated and
will pursue the necessary consultation with all interested parties with a view
to adopting the Code of Conduct so that it can be applied by the new Registry
organisation, and by other TLD Registries operating in the European Union.
Certain replies to the consultation
have raised the question as to what happens in the event of dispute between the
Registry, Registrars, Registrants and other third parties, should they be
subject to the jurisdiction of different Member States.
The Commission notes that these
matters are in general governed by the provisions of the Brussels Convention and
will monitor any problems that arise in practice in this area and make the
necessary proposals should the need arise.
It should also be stressed that all
current registrations in the existing generic TLDs, of which there are an
increasing number in all the Member States, expose Registrants to
extra-Community jurisdiction. Consequently, the Commission considers that the
overall position in this respect could be improved for new Registrants in .EU as
a result of the creation of the new Registry.
2.6 National ccTLD Registries
The results of the consultation
confirm the need to reach agreement on the respective roles of the .EU Registry
and the ccTLD Registries in the Member States. It is also clear that this is
possible. The Association of the ccTLD Registries, CENTR, has decided to
participate fully in the process of setting up the Registry to this effect.
There is also agreement that the
national Registries could function as Registrars within the .EU Registry should
they wish to do so, but that it would not be appropriate for them to enjoy any
exclusive or privileged position in this area.
2.7 Territorial scope
The consultation tends to confirm
the Commission's view that the territorial scope and eligibility of the .EU
Registry should be open to entities and individuals within the European Union in
a manner consistent with the EC Treaty rules.
There is however a significant
demand from representatives and entities of other European countries for access
to the new Registry. This includes member states of the EEA and EFTA, candidate
countries and from other European countries making up the CEPT.
In the Commission's view, the
possible extension of the eligibility criteria for the Registry should be
considered after the Registry has come into existence.
3. The way to proceed
3.1 ICANN and the US Department of
On the basis of the White Paper
issued in June 1998, ICANN was created as a not-for-profit private corporation
in order to progressively take over from the US Administration and carry out the
administrative functions for the Internet naming and addressing system.
Meanwhile, in the context of the agreements reached in October/November 1999,
the US Department of Commerce (DoC) has retained a significant degree of direct
authority over ICANN. The Commission has drawn the attention of the Council and
the European Parliament to these aspects in the Communication on the
Organisation and Management of Internet adopted on 11 April 2000,
Historically the Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority, IANA administered the DNS Root and the domain name Root
Servers. The transition process for ICANN has involved transferring part of
these functions through a contract between ICANN and the United States
Government signed on 9 February 2000. However this contract does not yet give
powers to ICANN to authorise modifications, additions, or deletions to the root
zone file or associated information that constitute delegation or re-delegation
of top-level domains. The DoC still performs these functions during the
transition phase which is defined as the "DNS Project" through
a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed between the DoC and ICANN on 25
3.2 Actions to be undertaken
The United States Government and the
ICANN organisation have been informed that the European Union intends to deploy
the two letter code "EU" for the purpose of an Internet Top Level
Domain and that the Commission is the relevant public authority that will be
ultimately responsible for defining the principles for its management and
administration. The Commission has therefore requested the formal delegation of
the .EU Domain Name and its insertion into the Domain Names System.
The Commission Services are in
contact with the US Government and the ICANN Board and staff and have informed
them of the results of the public consultation and the follow-up envisaged in
Meanwhile the Commission will
continue to consult with relevant private and public sector participants and
users' associations in Europe in order to facilitate the preparation of
guidelines for the registration policy of .EU, including a code of conduct or
other appropriate instrument that would restrict the scope of abuses as regards
the registration of Domain Names. It will also address the question of the legal
framework for the operation of the entity in charge of the .EU Registry.
The Commission will monitor the
registration policy for .EU and the management of the Registry on behalf of the
European Union and report periodically on the exercise of these functions to the
Council and the European Parliament.
4. Conclusions and recommended
course of action
In the light of the results of the
consultation process, the Commission considers that the .EU domain name would be
a significant new asset for the development of electronic commerce and the
information society in Europe.
4.2 Course of action
The Council and the European
Parliament are asked to take note of the orientations of the Commission as
outlined in this Communication and, further, to note that the Commission will
proceed by requesting from the US relevant authorities and from ICANN
appropriate action for the delegation of the .EU Domain Name.
In addition, the Commission will:
Continue consultations with the
interested private and public sector participants and users associations in
Europe to define a suitable structure for the Registry operation and
registration policy for the .EU Domain Name.
In the light of these consultations, the Commission will draw conclusions for
the legal framework for the operation of the system, including the designation
of the entity in charge of running the .EU Registry and the guidelines for its
registration policy, which will include measures to counter the speculative and
abusive registration of names. These conclusions will form the subject of a
further Communication to the European Parliament and the Council.
Ensure that the responsibilities of
the EU public authorities towards the economy at large, the deployment of the
information society in Europe and the character of public resource of the .EU
Domain Name are effectively linked to the policy of the not-for-profit entity in
charge of its operation.
Report to and maintain a dialogue
with the Council and the European Parliament on the results of these actions and
its contacts with the US Government and ICANN.
Annex 1: Summary and evaluation of
the replies to the public consultation.
ANNEX TO THE COMMUNICATION
Analysis of Responses to Commission Working Paper -
(COM/2000/153) 2 February 2000
The Working Paper on the Creation of
the .EU Internet Top Level Domain was published on 2.2.2000 on the Commission's
Internet sites, http://www.ispo.cec.be and http://europa.eu.int. The intention
of the Commission was to initiate a public consultation on the interest in a .EU
Top Level Domain and the ways and means of setting it up.
Six questions were proposed for the
orientation of responses:
On the form of the Registration
organisation: the Registry.
On the process for deciding .EU
Registry's registration policies and the main criteria for these policies.
On dispute resolution and trademark
On the protection of names and marks
in the DNS
On contributing to the development
of electronic commerce in Europe
On the relationships between the
proposed .EU Registry and the national ccTLD Registries in the Member States.
92 responses were received by the
closing date of 17.3.2000. These included six national administrations, 28
organisations representing the interests of different industries (including 8
specifically concerned with trademark and intellectual property issues), 28
enterprises, including 8 telecom companies. Other respondents included users,
engineers, advisers and others closely concerned with Internet applications,
including Domain Name registration. 76 of the responses came from European Union
sources, the remainder being from international organisations, other identified
countries (CH, NO, JP) or unidentified origins.
2. Points of convergence and
The responses were overwhelmingly in
favour of the establishment of a .EU Domain, with however a number of doubts,
questions, certain pre-conditions and differences of opinion that are further
discussed below. The Commission notes the support expressed particularly by the
administrations of several Member States and by the CENTR Group representing the
national country-code Top-Level-Domain registries, as well as by EuroISPA and
other competent Internet industry representatives.
The second area of consensus was in
favour of a non-profit organisation to run the Domain system, divergences
appearing however in recommendations as to the actors preferred to participate
Thirdly there was strong agreement
from most respondents with WIPO recommended policies relating to
trademarks and resolution of disputes.
The issue where greatest divergence
of opinion occurred was that of Registry policies, ranging from the
first-come-first-served principles of .COM etc. to desires for more equitable
and added value solutions. The most frequently expressed concern was to avoid
the phenomenon of speculative registration of names under a new Domain system. A
substantial number of respondents would like to see .EU acquire added value
through validation of name holders or similar generators of confidence.
3. The need to create .eu
Some 90% of responses are in favour
of creating .EU and many urge the Commission to move quickly and avoid the
procedural constraints that have been associated with the privatisation of .COM.
Almost half of the responses included detailed advice on the establishment of a
Registry and associated policies. Many interested parties recognise a need for a
TLD Registry in Europe that signals an European identity and would privilege
cross-border activities, both commercial and non-commercial. The .EU Domain is
seen by many as offering a better solution to contemporary requirements than
either the .COM which is already congested, or other existing gTLDs or multiple
registration is several national ccTLDs.
Those who have reservations include
a minority of the trademark bodies and the telephone companies. Arguments
advanced concern the difficulty of avoiding cybersquatting and possible
confusion in the markets, with respect to existing and future generic Top Level
Domains and the country-code TLDs. Others maintain that .EU will in any case be
considered a global Domain competing directly with .COM etc. and that the
Commission's Working Paper did not spell out sufficiently the added value of .EU
over other existing and future TLDs. Another remark was that progress with
software and directories might replace the Domain Name System and therefore make
.EU unnecessary. Some were concerned that the creation of .EU would encourage
other regions of the world to set up similar claims to having their own regional
TLDs, creating yet another space for cybersquatters.
The question of bringing further
added value to .EU also interested many respondents who are strongly in favour
of .EU, as discussed below. Yet others advise the Commission in any case to
obtain and deploy .EU as a globally competitive Top Level Domain, emulating the
4. The form of the Registry
Almost all respondents preferred the
option of the. EU's being run by some form of non-profit organisation in the
private sector, working in the public interest. The main alternative proposed is
that European Union itself administers the information centre and Registry,
although others note that direct administration by a government body may be
insufficiently responsive to changing needs. Other suggestions include running
the Registry through the ccTLDs (at least initially) but some claim that the
ccTLDs have up to now been too restrictive. Complete commercial privatisation,
with auctioning or other distribution, is suggested by few, including a shared,
co-operative system run by a network of distributed Registrars. In parallel,
opinions ranged from favouring strong central control of registration to the
view that no central administration might be needed.
4.1 Policy formation and oversight
As to the specifics of overall
policy oversight, opinions included the creation of a new European Internet
society, recourse to existing bodies such as RIPEor the Office for the
Harmonisation of the Internal Market. Most respondents assumed however that
general policy will be developed through cooperation between the Commission,
(the EU institutions retaining ultimate authority), the ccTLDs in Member States
and other relevant interests in the EU. A number point out that the policy
formation and oversight body should be distinct from the operational running of
the Registry and available to receive and resolve complaints about the
implementation by the Registry of general principles. Some propose that the
policy oversight needs no legal form, while others assume that a formal
structure needs to be created.
4.2 The Registry
With the exceptions noted above in
favour of decentralisation or freedom from control, it was generally recognised
that a central Registry will be required to set up and maintain the system,
hardware, software and the central database or shared registry system. A
variation proposed would involve some geographically distributed functions under
the control of Registrars. OHIM is also suggested as a possible Registry. Some
respondents would mandate the ccTLD Registries to take on the whole task of
Registry and Registrar, whereas others would prefer to license others such as
existing ICANN accredited Registrars. It was noted that the CENTR group,
representing the national Registries, declared that it does not at the current
time consider it appropriate that it should undertake this role.
4.3 Registrars or agents
The question of who should be
accredited to undertake the registration of names produced a variety of
suggestions, from direct registration with the central Registry to the
accrediting of a very large number of agents on the UK ccTLD model (Nominet).
Some respondents would allocate responsibility for registration in sub-domains
to specialised Registrars; others would insist that all remain open for
registration through all Registrars, except for certain governmental or
The registration of names by
Registrars is generally supposed to be best undertaken through open competition
on a commercial basis, i.e. the end-user tariffs being variable since fixed
individually by each Registrar. One suggestion is that Registrars should be able
to offer a "one-stop shop" for ccTLD and .EU names.
4.4 Geographical coverage
The great majority of respondents
mentioning this issue propose that .EU should be restricted to the territory of
the European Union, with Registrants being required to show establishment in one
of the Member States. However, some, including governments and institutions from
concerned countries as well as others who point out the need not to discriminate
against close trading partners, plead for extension to EEA, candidate countries
or the CEPT countries. Others note that .EU would in practice be a global TLD
and should be treated as such, allowing all who wish to register.
5. Registration Policies
Several respondents pointed out that
it is advisable to set out the broader principles of registration policy before
deciding on the form of the Registry and its constitution. A number believe that
only general policies need be laid down, leaving detailed implementation to
individual Registrars in a competitive environment. Generally, pleas are made
for simple, rapid and flexible procedures.
5.1 Second Level Domains or
"flat" .EU domain
A large majority of responses
addressing the issue of the kind of names to become available under .EU favoured
the creation of a system of sub-domains, usually representing different economic
or professional sectors. Some pointed out however that considerable thought must
be given to the categories to be offered, to avoid the need for a single user
enterprise to register in multiple categories and to ensure clear
differentiation between them for the benefit of Registrants and net users. A few
examples like name.hotel.eu or name.aero.eu. are given and pleas are made that
the Second Level Domains (SLDs) should be linguistically meaningful to as many
European users as possible. Some would advise the creation of reference tools
such as multilingual directories of domain names. Some consider country SLDs
such as .FR.EU to be possible, despite the fact that this category was
specifically excluded from consideration in the Commission's Working Paper.
Others point out that this geographical subdivision would create confusion with
the existing Registries.
A minority plead for no subdivisions
of .EU for the sake of simplicity, visibility, ease of trademark protection and
because the .EU Registries will not be able to compete with the gTLDs if
restrictions are imposed. A few propose only general SLDs, like name.com.eu (or
name.gmbh.eu). Some respondents would like to see every citizen have an
automatic right to a personal domain name under .EU (name.pp.eu). Devices such
as adding a geographical element, a serial number or even random numbers could
distinguish many instances of the same personal or business name.
5.3 Prevention of cybersquatting and
Many respondents are concerned about
the practice of buying up domain names and thereby excluding others from using
them (cybersquatting and warehousing) which can result from an unrestricted
"first come, first served" policy. Some support the adoption of
specific cybersquatting legislation, such as a European Directive to avoid
piecemeal national bills. Other suggestions to avoid this problem include the
use of many SLDs corresponding to economic sectors, as above, the restriction of
the domain names to one per registered company address and the withdrawal of
names that have been registered but are not used. It is also pointed out that
charging a relatively high fee, and ensuring its prepayment, can discourage
high-volume speculative registrations.
A number of respondents would allow
registration only of a name to which the applicant had a legal right, like a
trademark, registered company name or personal name. It is noted however that
some such restrictions are quite easily side-stepped, for instance by the
creation of fictitious companies.
5.4 Added value of .EU
A significant number of respondents
advise the creation of added value to .EU names, for example through a guarantee
of quality for user confidence and visibility of the system. At a minimum, this
would be an assurance that a commercial name holder is a legitimate entity (e.g.
by VAT registration). Thus, verifiable information about commercial domain name
owners (but trademark associations point out the difficulty of distinguishing
between commercial and non-commercial use of a Web site) could constitute an
extension or addition to existing basic reference data on the domain names,
Registrar, holder and contacts). Some respondents go further, proposing a code
of conduct for .EU name holders or reserving specific domains for use by
chartered members of a profession.
Other respondents would demand that
specific types of use be restricted to defined SLDs (so, for example, as to
clearly label sex or other sites and to give confidence that the registrations
in the SLD correspond to the meaning of its label). A warning is made however by
trademark interests against creating a new type of commercial branding and
protection through .EU names.
5.5 Registration Data
Many respondents, and the Trademark
and Intellectual Property Rights community in particular, insist that the
registration system be fully transparent, with free, permanent on-line access to
the Registry and to complete and up-to-date data about the Registrants of domain
names through a Whois system. Certain responses detail how this requirement may
be satisfied while conforming to the provisions of data protection legislation.
6. Dispute resolution and Trademark
A number of responses from the
trademark community go into great detail on policies to prevent conflict and
procedures to resolve differences. WIPO procedures are generally advised. Some
users however maintain that these favour trademark holders excessively. The
Uniform Alternative Dispute Resolution (UADR) procedures initiated by ICANN,
particularly the arbitration expertise of the WIPO administration, are praised
and adherence to the global policy is advised. Some suggest a specific European
forum is suggested but it is also pointed out that systems should be compatible
globally since domain names are inherently global.
In view of the characteristics of
European Trademark law OHIM in Alicante is claimed by a majority to be well
suited for policy making and appeal roles, insofar as adequate resources are
made available. Others disagree on the grounds that OHIM's priorities lie
elsewhere or that it should first build up its' experience. It is noted by some
that ADR procedures should not however prevent recourse to the courts. The
suggestion is also made that national legal systems should accept electronic
petitions and those in other languages because of the urgency.
A suggestion is to make a special
SLD category for trademark and other right holders, with the proviso that this
needs to be further examined.
7. Protection of Names and Marks
Most respondents accept that
exclusion lists should be drawn up for screening applications for names not
available for registration as domain names and they mention that famous and well
known names (and any confusingly similar names) should be screened out. Others
would add to this list, public institutions, branches of industry and all
place-names. Some advocate excluding the use of all generic words, to avoid
their capture by particular interests, and claim that such generic words if used
should become SLDs under .EU. One suggestion however in the other sense would
allow registration of famous names on payment of a large fee and public notice.
8. On contributing to the
development of electronic commerce in Europe
The principle view given was that a
.EU name would have added value if it is associated with a "label" or
certificate of quality. Such labels would require verifiable data to be
accessible about name holders and possible association with organisations
delivering certificates of professional qualification or quality of products. A
system of SLDs by economic sector was also proposed as offering advantages of
differentiation and scale over existing domains. A multilingual thesaurus of
SLDs was again proposed here.
The management of the .EU domain
should, in some views, include the representation of business and users.
9. On the relationships between the
proposed .EU Registry
and the national ccTLD Registries in the Member States
Whereas some respondents preferred
not to give a privileged role to the national ccTLD Registries, most
acknowledged the complementary nature of .EU and that the national Registries
should be fully involved in the process of creating .EU and in producing
coherent policies. The CENTR group, representing such Registries is actively
supporting the .EU initiative and confirms that the new entity will need to be
harmoniously integrated with existing domains.
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)
3 Principles for the delegation and
administration of country code Top Level Domains. See:
5 Com(2000)202, 11 April 2000
6 Council of European TLD Registries
Conférence Européene des Postes et Télécommunications (CEPT)
IP Européens (RIPE), Amsterdam.
for the Harmonisation of the Internal Market (OHIM), Alicante.