28.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/92

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Advancing the Internet Action Plan for the deployment of Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) in Europe’

COM(2008) 313 final

(2009/C 175/17)

On 27 May 2008, the European Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Advancing the Internet — Action Plan for the deployment of Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) in Europe

COM(2008) 313 final.

On 8 July 2008 the Committee Bureau instructed the Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society to prepare the Committee's work on the subject.

Given the urgent nature of the work, the European Economic and Social Committee appointed Mr McDONOGH as a rapporteur-general at its 449th plenary session, held on 3 and 4 December 2008 (meeting of 3 December), and adopted the following opinion unanimously.

1.   Conclusions

1.1   The Committee welcomes the communication from the Commission on the action plan for the deployment of Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) in Europe. The Committee shares the concern of the Commission on the slow rate of adoption of IPv6 in Europe and agrees that urgent action is needed to support the widespread introduction of the next version of the Internet Protocol.

1.2   The slow progress on the introduction of IPv6 is threatening the Lisbon Strategy as implemented in the i2010 initiative (1). The economic multiplier effect of Internet-use and innovation is hugely important to the competitiveness of Europe. Analogous to the availability of broadband, IPv6 availability will be a major driver of the Internet economy and we are already trailing other regions (e.g. use of IPv6 to enable the Chinese Next Generation Internet CGNI project) (2) re IPv6 introduction; we cannot afford to fall further behind our major trading partners on the transition to IPv6.

1.3   The Committee welcomes many of the recommended actions contained in the communication; however it encourages the Commission to be more assertive about the leadership role that the EU should now take to rapidly accelerate the adoption of IPv6. In the absence of this leadership, the Committee believes that the Commission’s objective of having 25 % of European users able to connect to the IPv6 Internet by 2010 is overly optimistic.

1.4   The Committee believes that the communication gives inadequate attention to the privacy and security issues raised by the adoption of IPv6 to power ‘The Internet of Things’ (3). These issues are of major importance to the people of the Union and need to be properly addressed to protect citizens’ rights and to facilitate the acceptance of the IPv6 standard.

1.5   The already serious problem of a geographical digital divide in Europe will be acerbated by the transition to IPv6 unless the Commission takes specific action to address the problem and ensure that the less advantaged regions get special attention. EU-wide action is needed to make certain that there is parity across all member states on the availability of IPv6 as soon as possible.

1.6   IPv6 will herald-in a vast array of new internet-based technologies and services which will improve the lives of all citizens, but especially the less advantaged — the elderly, the disabled, the less-educated. The Committee believes that the roll-out of IPv6 across the EU requires strong government action and should not be left to the lowest common denominator of narrow commercial interest.

1.7   The Committee directs the attention of the Commission to previous Opinions by the EESC which commented on the promotion of internet use, data protection issues, Internet security concerns and the geographical digital divide (4).

1.8   In this opinion, the Committee wants to comment on areas of specific concern and to make some recommendations.

2.   Recommendations

2.1   The Commission should provide strong European level leadership and support for the rapid roll-out of IPv6 across Europe.

2.2   This leadership needs to be based on a compelling vision for the future of the Web enabled by IPv6 Internet and the many benefits that will accrue to all stakeholders.

2.3   The Commission should work more closely with the Internet Organisations to ensure that there is an integrated approach to provide the industry with European-level leadership for the rapid introduction of IPv6.

2.4   Extensive training and education programmes should be provided across the EU to ensure maximum understanding of IPv6 technology and the capability to adopt it successfully.

2.5   The Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) (5) should be used to help defray the cost of IPv4 to IPv6 transition for the smaller Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and content providers.

2.6   The CIP should also be used to encourage the development of applications and services which will leverage the new standard.

2.7   To redress the imbalance between the interests of Internet Service Provider (ISP) company shareholders and the interests of citizens, the large ISPs should be obliged to provide EU-level leadership for the adoption of IPv6 across the Union. Renewal of ISP operator licenses should be tied to obligations to offer full IPv6 connectivity, without restriction, by 2010, and to provide extensive customer training on IPv6 implementation.

2.8   The Commission needs to lead a concentrated effort at EU-level and globally to deal with the serious security and privacy concerns raised by the adoption of IPv6.

2.9   The Committee recommends that the potential problem of a geographical digital divide between IPv6 haves and have-nots should be addressed through the mechanism of the National Broadband Strategies (6) or a similar instrument. Furthermore, the Regional Development Fund (ERDF) should be used to support IPv6 roll-out where appropriate.

3.   Background

3.1   Action Plan Overview

The action plan drawn-up to support the widespread introduction of the next version of the Internet Protocol (IPv6) by 2010 notes:

—	urgent implementation of IPv6 is required as the pool of IP addresses provided by the current protocol version 4 is being depleted;

—	IPv6 provides a platform for innovation in IP-based services and applications and it is vital to keeping Europe at the forefront of technology-driven growth.

3.2   Internet Protocol

The ‘Internet Protocol’ (IP) gives any item connecting to the Internet a number, an address, so that it can communicate with other connected items. The current version, IPv4, provides for more than 4 billion such addresses (7). However, this will not be enough to keep pace with the continuing growth of the Internet.

An upgraded protocol, IPv6, has been gradually deployed since the late 90s (8); but its adoption has been very slow — IPv6 traffic is still a tiny percentage (>1 %) of overall Internet traffic) (9).

It is forecast that the IPv4 pool of addresses will be exhausted somewhere between 2010 and 2012 (10). The growth of the Internet and also the capacity for innovation in IP-based networks will be hindered without an appropriate solution to the IPv4 address problem.

3.3   Need for IPv6

IPv6 provides a long term solution to the address space problem: the number of addresses defined by the IPv6 protocol is huge (3.4 × 1038).

IPv6 will allow every citizen, every network operator and every organisation in the world to have as many IP addresses as they need to connect every conceivable device or good directly to the global Internet. As Commissioner Reding graphically stated ‘… If Europeans are to use the latest internet devices such as smart tags in shops, factories and airports, intelligent heating and lighting systems that save energy, and in-car networks and navigation systems, then we already face a thousand-fold increase in demand for IP addresses…  (11).’

A study funded by the Commission (12) demonstrated this potential for a number of market sectors such as home networks, building management, mobile communication, defence and security sector, and car industry.

3.4   IPv6 and International competitiveness

Other regions, in particular the Asian region, have already taken a strong interest in IPv6.

3.5   Transition to IPv6

There will be a transition phase (expected to last for 20+ years) when IPv4 and IPv6 will co-exist on the same machines and be transmitted over the same network links. During this transition expensive coping mechanisms will be employed to deal with the legacy dependence on IPv4: overlay technologies such as double stack protocol interfaces and tunnelling, and work-around tactics, such as NAT sub-addressing and IPv4 address auctions.

3.6   Stakeholders

The deployment of IPv6 requires the attention of many actors worldwide:

—	Internet organisations (such as ICANN, RIRs, and IETF), which need to manage common IPv6 resources and services.

—	Internet Service Providers (ISPs), which need over time to offer IPv6 connectivity and IPv6 based services to customers.

—	Infrastructure vendors, which need to integrate IPv6 capability into their products.

—	Content and service providers (such as websites, instant messaging, e-mail services etc.), which need to enable IPv6 on their servers.

—	Business and consumer application vendors, which need to ensure that their solutions are IPv6 compatible and to develop products and services that take advantage of IPv6 features.

—	End-users (consumers, companies, academia, and public administrations), which need to purchase IPv6 capable products and services and to enable IPv6 on their own networks.

3.7   Cost of Implementing IPv6

It is impossible to reliably estimate the costs of introducing IPv6 globally. A steady incremental adoption of IPv6 by the various stakeholders will help to keep costs under control.

3.8   The need for policy driving at European level

Today, for most stakeholders the advantages of adopting IPv6 are not immediately visible. The benefits are long-term and so many stakeholders have taken a ‘wait and see’ position.

The cumulative result has been the delay in the widespread adoption of IPv6; unless positive action is taken now ‘…Europe [would be] badly placed to take advantage of the latest internet technology, and could face a crisis when the old system runs out of addresses’ (13)…. Appropriate policy measures at the European level could give a market stimulus by encouraging people and organisations to move ahead positively.

3.9   Actions Proposed by the Commission

3.9.1   IPv6 to become widely implemented in Europe by 2010

3.9.2   Stimulate IPv6 accessibility to content, services, and applications

—	Member States to enable IPv6 on public sector websites and eGovernment services.

—	Industrial stakeholders to consider IPv6 as their primary platform for developing applications or appliances.

—	Financial aid provided through standardisation support actions to improve interoperability of networks.

—	Encouragement of research projects funded by Framework Programme 7, to utilise IPv6 whenever possible.

3.9.3   Generate demand for IPv6 connectivity and products through public procurement

—	Member States to prepare for IPv6 within their own networks.

3.9.4   Ensure timely preparation for IPv6 deployment

—	Targeted awareness campaigns to various user groups.

—	Support for ‘specific support actions’ (within Framework Programme 7) to disseminate practical deployment knowledge.

—	Encouragement for ISPs to provide full IPv6 connectivity to their customers by 2010.

3.9.5   Tackle security and privacy issues

—	The Commission will monitor the privacy and security implications of widespread IPv6 deployment, in particular through consultation with stakeholders such as data protection authorities or law enforcement.

Also, concerns have been expressed about IPv6 and privacy, in particular by the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (14).

3.10   Execution of the Action Plan

—	The Action Plan is scheduled to be executed over the next 3 years.

—	The Commission will continue to follow the activities of the Internet organisations, and where necessary make contributions to debates.

—	The Commission will regularly report progress to the i2010 High Level Group.

4.   General Comments

4.1   The transition to IPv6 is critical because the current Internet protocol standard — IPv4 — is rapidly running-out of available addresses: estimates forecast that the existing pool of IPv4 addresses will be exhausted before 2012. Unless the adoption of IPv6 is greatly accelerated the growth of the Internet will dramatically slow-down and the costs of Internet usage will be adversely affected by the legacy of IPv4 in EU networks. The effect of this delay will be higher costs in all areas of internet commerce, slower IP-based innovation and slower economic growth.

4.2   The communication notes that there has been slow progress towards the standard because there is no single authority to steer IPv6 introduction. The Committee recognises that individual countries and stakeholders have been driving programmes at national level to roll-out IPv6, but the Committee is dissatisfied with the support that the adoption of IPv6 has so far received at the European level.

The Committee is concerned that too much reliance has been put on commercial interests, especially the ISPs, to advance the adoption of IPv6. This has failed miserably. The economic and social consequences of the delay in IPv6 are too great to leave it to narrow commercial interests — IPv6 adoption is a matter for government. The Commission should now be advocating a greater leadership role for the EU, supported by appropriate policy and support instruments, and execute that role with urgency.

4.3   The lack of effective action on the introduction of IPv6 is threatening the Lisbon Strategy as implemented in the i2010 initiative (1). The economic multiplier effect of Internet-use and innovation is hugely important to the competitiveness of Europe; we cannot afford to fall behind our major trading partners on the transition to IPv6. Although some countries in the European Union have made special efforts to ensure that their country is IPv6-ready, the EU as a region is lagging behind IPv6 roll-out in other regions.

4.4   Under the banner of ‘Internet Governance’, the Commission needs to lead a concentrated effort at EU-level, and globally, to deal with the serious security and privacy concerns raised by the adoption of IPv6. IPv6, combined with technologies like Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags, will enable billions of objects to be networked in the ‘Internet of Things’, raising serious and complex issues regarding personal privacy and security.

We note that Commission will bring forward proposals in early 2009 on the protection of critical information infrastructures to enhance our capability to cope with Internet security concerns (15). The EESC, therefore, recommends that those proposals contain strong schemes for dealing with the new challenges posed by the introduction of IPv6.

4.5   We await the recommendation from the Commission on the privacy aspects of RFIDs and on the governance of the Internet of Things (16). The new IPv6 protocol will facilitate a massive expansion in connectivity, with countless billions of every-day objects (cars, clothing, tools, etc.) eventually connecting to the Internet with their own unique IP address. To quote Commissioner Reding ‘…We must address these risks if the “internet of things” is to deliver its full potential for economic growth. In particular, we must answer citizens' concerns if we are not to get a rejection of these new technologies…’ (15).

4.6   The Commission should provide strong European level leadership for the rapid roll-out of IPv6 across Europe. This leadership needs to be based on a compelling vision for the future of the Web enabled by IPv6 Internet — ‘The Internet of Things’, ‘Ambient Intelligence’ (17) etc. — and the many benefits that will accrue to all stakeholders.

4.7   The vision needs to be communicated through multiple channels with appropriate messages targeted at each specific audience (ISPs, content providers, application vendors and end-users), in a European-wide information campaign.

4.8   The adoption of IPv6 would be greatly facilitated by education and training programmes. The technology is much superior to Ipv4, but it requires good training to be implemented properly. The Commission, Member States' governments, ISPs and other leadership entities should ensure that IPv6 training and education programmes are readily accessible to all target groups of adopters.

4.9   The Commission should work more closely with the Internet Organisations — Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), Réseaux IP Européens (RIPE), Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and others — to ensure that there is an integrated approach provide the IT sector with European-level leadership for the rapid introduction of IPv6.

4.10   The role of the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) is crucial in the roll-out and adoption of IPv6. Unfortunately, because of the threat of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) to their current revenue models, the ISPs who also have mobile phone or fixed-line telephone businesses are resistant to IPv6 and the revolution it will bring to EU communications. But the narrow commercial interests of ISP shareholders should not be allowed to hurt the interests of all EU citizens. Large ISPs should be obliged — through the use of sanctions, penalties and licensing rules — to provide EU-level leadership for the adoption of IPv6 across the Union. They have the power and the resources to make a big impact on the problem.

4.11   The Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) (5) should be used to help defray the cost of IPv4 to IPv6 transition for the smaller Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and content providers. The CIP should also be used to encourage the development of applications and services which will leverage the new standard.

4.12   The Committee believes that the communication gives inadequate attention to the privacy and security issues raised by the adoption of IPv6. These issues are of major importance to the people of the Union and need to be properly addressed to protect citizens’ rights and to build trust and to facilitate the acceptance of the IPv6 standard.

4.13   The geographical digital divide (18) in Europe will be acerbated by the transition to IPv6 unless the Commission takes specific action to address the problem. Some countries in the Union are leading programmes at national level to ensure that all their Internet users will be able to connect to IPv6 by 2010. EU-wide action is needed to make certain that there is parity across all member states on the availability of IPv6 as soon as possible.

4.14   The Committee recommends that the potential problem of a geographical digital divide between IPv6 haves and have-nots should be addressed through the mechanism of the National Broadband Strategies (6) or a similar instrument. Furthermore, the Regional Development Fund (ERDF) should be used to support IPv6 roll-out where appropriate.

---

(1)  COM(2005) 229 final ‘i2010 — A European Information Society for Growth and employment’.

(2)  http://www.ipv6.com/articles/general/IPv6-Olympics-2008.htm.

(3)  See, opinions CESE ‘Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)’OJ C 256 of 27.10.2007 (p. 66) and CESE ‘The Internet of Things’, OJ C 77, 31.3.2009, p. 60.

(4)  See, for example, opinions CESE ‘Infornation society/Computer-related crime’OJ C 311 of 7.11.2001, p. 12, ‘Network and information security’OJ C 48 of 21.2.2002, p. 33, ‘Safer use of the Internet’OJ C 157 of 28.6.2005 p. 136, ‘E-business/Go Digital’OJ C 108 of 30.4.2004 p. 23, ‘Secure Information Society’OJ C 97 of 28.4.2007 p. 21, etc.

(5)  Decision No 1639/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 establishing a Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007 to 2013).

(6)  ‘Connecting Europe at High Speed: National Broadband Strategies’, COM(2004) 369.

(7)  IPv4 is specified in RFC 791, 1981. RFC stands for ‘Request for Comments’ See the ‘Internet Engineering Task Force’ (IETF); http://www.ietf.org.

(8)  RFC 2460, 1998. http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/OLD/ipv6-charter.html and http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/6man-charter.html.

(9)  ‘Tracking the Ipv6 Migration’ Aug 2008 research report by Arbor Networks http://www.arbornetworks.com/en/ipv6-report.html.

(10)  http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html, http://www.tndh.net/~tony/ietf/ipv4-pool-combined-view.pdf.

For an earlier estimate which contains a description of the analytical background: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_8-3/ipv4.html.

(11)  IP/08/803 Brussels 27/5/2008.

(12)  ‘Impact of IPv6 on Vertical Markets’, October 2007 (http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/ipv6/docs/short-report_en.pdf).

(13)  IP/08/803, Brussels, 27 May 2008.

(14)  Opinion 2/2002 on the use of unique identifiers in telecommunication terminal equipments: the example of IPV6, http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2002/wp58_en.pdf.

(15)  Speech /08/336, 17/6/2008, ‘Seizing the Opportunities of the Global Internet Economy’, OECD Ministerial Meeting ‘Future of the internet economy’ Seoul, Korea, 17-18 June 2008.

(16)  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_of_Things and http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/publications/internetofthings/InternetofThings_summary.pdf.

(17)  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambient_intelligence.

(18)  COM(2003) 65, COM(2003) 673, COM(2004) 61, COM(2004) 369, COM(2004) 380.

---