52002PC0165

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION pursuant to Article 251 (2), third subparagraph, point (c) of the EC Treaty, on the European Parliament's amendments to the Council's common position regarding the proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the .eu Top Level Domain AMENDING THE PROPOSAL OF THE COMMISSION pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty

2000/0328 (COD)

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION pursuant to Article 251 (2), third subparagraph, point (c) of the EC Treaty, on the European Parliament's amendments to the Council's common position regarding the proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the .eu Top Level Domain AMENDING THE PROPOSAL OF THE COMMISSION pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty

1. Introduction

Article 251(2), third subparagraph, point (c) of the EC Treaty provides that the Commission is to deliver an opinion on the amendments proposed by the European Parliament at second reading. The Commission sets out its opinion below on the 6 amendments proposed by Parliament.

2. Background

In response to the conclusions of the special European Council of Lisbon of 23 - 24 March 2000, and building on the Communication on the results of the public consultation on the creation of the .eu (COM(2000)421), the Commission proposed this Regulation [1] to implement the .eu Top Level Domain (TLD), with the view to ensure the availability of a new domain for the registration of names to undertakings, organisation and individuals established or resident in the Community. The Regulation aims at establishing the conditions for the designation of a Registry to administer, organise and manage the .eu TLD and the general policy framework to implement it.

[1] COM(2000)827 - 2000/0328 (COD)

The European Parliament adopted its amendments in first reading on 4 July 2001 and the Commission adopted a modified proposal on 2 October 2001. The Council adopted its common position on 6 November 2001 unanimously. The Commission was able to support the common position to the exception of the provision relating to the type of committee and procedure which was rejected.

The amendments voted by the European Parliament are the result of a compromise reached between the institutions. Since the amendments are acceptable to the Council, the conciliation procedure will not be invoked. Final adoption by the Council is foreseen at the Transport and Telecoms Council meeting of March 2002 following verification of the texts by jurist-linguists.

3. Purpose of the proposal

This proposed Regulation aims at ensuring the availability of a new Top Level Domain to undertakings, organisation and individuals established or resident in the Community and offering a complementary choice to register domain names to the existing national domains. The .eu will contribute to increase the visibility of the Internal Market in the virtual marketplace by ensuring Europe-wide presence on the Internet and should increase the use of Internet in Europe. The proposed Regulation establishes the conditions to designate a Registry to manage, administer and organise the .eu TLD and it provides the general policy framework for the implementation including areas requiring public policy rules to be adopted.

4. Opinion of the Commission on the amendments by the European Parliament

The Parliament adopted 6 amendments (Amendments 7 to 12) to the Regulation on the 28 February 2002. The Commission can accept all of them in full.

4.1. Type of Committee and procedure (amendments 8, 11 and 12)

The main issue dividing Council and Parliament during negotiations related to the type of committee and procedure required for this Regulation. The Commission proposed that the 'communications committee' to be established under the Framework directive and an advisory procedure should apply to the Regulation in relation to measures of public policy. The Parliament supported the Commission's proposal in its first reading adding that the 'ONP committee' should be assisting the Commission until the Framework directive enters into force. In doing so it acknowledged the need to take the convergence of communications technologies into consideration by addressing .eu related matters together with other electronic communications matters and to avoid heavy procedures to apply to the implementation of the .eu tLD. The Council has supported a specific committee and a regulatory procedure to apply to both the selection of the Registry (Article 3) and the public policy rules to be adopted.

The compromise solution, set out in amendments 8, 11 and 12 represents a good balance, whereby the 'communications committee' and, until it is established the 'ONP committee', will assist the Commission and the regulatory procedure will apply to the establishment of the criteria and procedure for the designation of the Registry (Article 3.1.a) and the public policy rules (Article 5) whereas the advisory procedure will apply to the designation of the Registry and the contractual framework for the supervision of the management of the .eu TLD.

4.2. Registration method (Amendment 7).

A new recital introduces the 'first come, first served' method to be considered at the time of formulation of the registration policy among other options. Though not included in its proposal, the Commission could support in its amended proposal a reference to this method, which is a widely applied registration method, subject to the limits to be introduced by the public policy rules.

The compromise solution does not pre-empt the decision to be made on the registration policy but points out that such method is a recognised registration method. This recital is a useful clarification with respect to the registration policy which can be supported by the Commission.

4.3. Amendments clarifying the obligations of the Registry (Amendment 9 and 10).

Two additional amendments clarify the provision addressing the obligations of the Registry under this Regulation.

Amendment 9 specifies that the extra-judicial settlement of conflicts policy is based on the recovery of costs. This principle already introduced by the Parliament in first reading is consistent with a similar principle applying to fees (Article 4.2.c) and can be supported by the Commission as a useful clarification.

Amendment 10 clarifies that the integrity of domain names databases must be ensured by the Registry.

This clarification is useful as the domain names databases are of the essence of the Registry functions. The Commission will have the possibility to ensure to the extent necessary that the Registry is under a contractual obligation to protect databases which cannot be described as "domain name databases".

5. Conclusion

Pursuant to Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty, the Commission amends its proposal as set out above.