Annexes to COM(2011)616 - Implementation, functioning and effectiveness of the .eu Top Level Domain - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2011)616 - Implementation, functioning and effectiveness of the .eu Top Level Domain. |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2011)616  |
| date | October 5, 2011 |
Security
In September 2010, EURid completed the implementation of the Domain Name Security Extensions (DNSSEC) protocol for the .eu TLD. The DNSSEC is a protocol to verify the authenticity of the display name server responses (websites) up to the Internet root zone in what is called a ‘chain of trust’[21]. DNSSEC is designed to protect the Internet users from forged DNS data. DNSSEC can only reach its full potential if all the zones in the hierarchical DNS tree are signed. EURid is simplifying the process of signing a .eu domain name by introducing a signing service. It organises training seminars[22] for .eu registrars to encourage them to promote DNSSEC to their customers, who in turn disseminate the protocol to the Internet players (ISPs, webmasters, etc.).
Phishing and other malicious activities
The Registry has been applying measures to counter phishing and other types of malicious online behaviour[23] on a daily basis. Domain names in particular are checked against compliance with the eligibility criteria[24] and new registrations are screened for suspicious patterns or other anomalies on a daily basis.
Also on a daily basis, the Registry is informed of suspected or proven misconduct by private security organisations or by public authorities[25].
As a result, a suspicious domain name may be withdrawn. In the reporting period the number of suspicious domain names withdrawn decreased dramatically: from 81 in January 2010 to 2 in January 2011 and 0 in March 2011[26].
The profile of a .eu user
Consumers register the .eu domain for many purposes (business, social activities, presence of institutions on the Internet, etc.). An analysis[27] prepared by EURid on the usage of websites with the .eu TLD shows that around 36.3 % are business-related. When comparing with the main generic TLD (gTLD) strings (‘.com’, ‘.net’, ‘.org’, ‘.info’, ‘.biz’, ‘.mobi’ and ‘.pro’), the .eu TLD stands out in terms of usage for business purposes (27.3 %).
However, when looking at e-commerce websites (based on the pay-per-click model[28]), the .eu TLD displays only 14.5 % of websites in contrast with the gTLDs, which range from 22 % to 29 %.
Legal proceedings and disputes concerning domain names
Cases before the General Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union
In the past two years the European courts have ruled in two cases concerning .eu usage. In both cases the rulings were in line with the pleas submitted by the Commission.
In the first case of 15 December 2009 — Inet Hellas T-107/06 — the Court reaffirmed the separation of functions between the Commission and the Registry regarding the registration of domain names under the .eu TLD. The Court stated that the Commission's letter to the applicant, explaining that the Commission could not act as an appeal body with regard to the decision of the independent .eu Registry, did not contain any decision that could be challenged in the Court, and dismissed the complaint as inadmissible.
In the second case of 3 June 2010 — Oberster Gerichtshof C-569/08 — the Court analysed the conditions enabling the revocation of a domain name registered on speculative or abusive grounds. The Court ruled that the list of ‘bad faith’ circumstances in Article 21(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 is not exhaustive, and explained the circumstances to be considered when establishing ‘bad faith’.
Alternative Dispute Resolution procedure
Any disputes between the .eu domain names' holders or claims against decisions of the .eu Registry, can be submitted to the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) provider[29] — the Prague-based Arbitration Court (Czech Arbitration Court or CAC)[30].
The ADR procedure applies without prejudice to any court proceeding. Complaints can be submitted online in any of the 23 official languages of the EU.
Complaints are mostly initiated against the .eu domain name holders. This is because any party may initiate ADR proceedings against the domain name holder and claim that the registration is speculative or abusive under Article 21 of Commission Regulation No 874/2004.
During the past two years, an average of 13 cases has been filed per quarter[31]. In the majority of cases published by CAC in the period Q2 2009 to Q4 2010, the panel decided to transfer the domain name to the complainant[32]. On average, CAC panels take a decision in ADR proceedings within 4 months following receipt of the complaint. If a decision is rendered in favour of the complainant, the disputed .eu domain name is usually transferred to the latter within about 30 days following the panel decision, after the expiry of the right of appeal by the losing party.
The fees for ADR proceedings are based on the cost recovery principle[33]. ADR fees, which originally started at € 1990, have been reduced several times since 2006 and currently start at € 1 300. This is comparable with the fees charged by similar arbitration bodies, despite the fact the latter do not produce translations of the complaints.
In the current system, individuals and small and medium-size enterprises in the EU do not take full advantage of the ADR mechanism given its high entry cost. An audit performed in June 2011, at the request of EURid, made a number of recommendations on ways to improve this[34]. One recommendation is to consider an accelerated process (‘domain name suspension mechanism’) for holders of prior rights who want to act swiftly against clearly abusive domain name registrations, e.g. when inappropriate content or counterfeit products are offered via the domain name registrant’s website. This would be applicable by default to any response from the respondent. Therefore, the decision to revoke or transfer abusively held domain names could be taken without needing to convene a panel. This would reduce the costs of the proceedings.
Another recommendation by the auditors is for the .eu Registry (EURid) to become financially involved in ADR proceedings by refunding the winning party the ADR fees. These recommendations are being analysed by EURid and the Commission, who will look into ways to improve accessibility to ADR, in particular for SMEs and individuals.
Court proceedings
In the reporting period EURid has been a party in two major court cases — Ovidio [35] and Zheng [36]. These proceedings concerned the legitimacy of EURid's actions to combat warehousing and cyber-squatting practices.
In the Ovidio case, the Appeal Court in Brussels accepted EURid's plea and discharged it from paying the penalties previously laid down in two payment orders. These had been issued against EURid in response to its actions to combat warehousing practices (July 2009).
In the Zheng case, the Brussels Court of First Instance agreed with EURid about the legality of its actions to combat cyber-squatting practices. This judgment helps EURid in its efforts to fight phishing and other malicious activities[37] (September 2009).
Conclusions
The .eu TLD model has been successfully implemented and is operating effectively.
Over the past two years the .eu TLD strengthened its position among the biggest and most popular Top Level Domains in Europe and in the world. It remains successful despite the continued growth of the 27 national country-code TLDs in the Member States and the availability of generic TLDs such as .com and .org.
By 2009 the .eu Registry had introduced IDNs under the .eu TLD to allow for the registration of .eu domain names at the second level in the Cyrillic and the Greek alphabets. Consequently, since 2009 the domain names registered under the .eu TLD have been available in all 23 official languages of the European Union (and their respective scripts).
However, one and a half years after EURid’s application, ICANN has not yet completed the fast track procedure, allowing for the introduction of IDNs at the top .eu level (.ευ in Greek and .ею in Bulgarian). The Commission has urged ICANN to complete its examination by the end of 2011 at the latest. It has made it clear that the future rules establishing a ‘permanent’ IDN application procedure should be designed in such a way as to avoid any undue delays. This is one of the public policy issues that the Commission will continue to raise in the Governmental Advisory Committee which provides advice to ICANN.
In 2010 the .eu Registry upgraded its technical systems, fully implementing the DNSSEC ‘chain of trust’ for the domain names registered under the .eu TLD.
The financial situation of the Registry remained stable in 2009 and 2010.
The ADR system provided by the Czech Arbitration Court allows for the protection of the rights of registrants in all 23 EU languages. The Commission monitors the actual use of the system. Following recommendations by auditors, the Commission, together with EURid, will examine solutions to ensure better accessibility of the ADR to individuals and SMEs who have reasons to believe their .eu names have been improperly registered by third parties.
In the years to come the Registry should work on strengthening and developing the perception of the .eu TLD among different target groups, in order to expand its penetration in the European domain name market and to reinforce public awareness of the TLD. The stability and security of the associated TLD services must be ensured in accordance with the best standards in the field. Given the dynamic nature of the TLD environment, the Registry should continue to maintain and expand its dialogue and exchanges with the European and international Internet community. The Commission will continue to cooperate closely with the Registry as set out in the terms of the legal framework.
ANNEXES
ANNEX 1: World's top ten TLDs at 31 December 2010
[pic]Source: EURid’s quarterly progress report, 4th quarter 2010
ANNEX 2: Overview of the decisions taken by the Czech Arbitration Court in .eu cases
Decision | #No | % |
Complaints Denied | 82 | 16,53% |
Domain Names Transferred | 360 | 72,58% |
Domain Names Revoked | 40 | 8,06% |
Settlements | 13 | 2,62% |
Court Decisions | 1 | 0,20% |
Total | 496 | 100,00% |
ANNEX 3: Total number of .eu domain names by country of registrant
[pic][pic]
Source: EURid’s quarterly progress reports.
ANNEX 4: Popularity of .eu at 31 December 2010
[pic][pic]
Source: EURid’s quarterly progress report, 4th quarter 2010.
[1] COM(2007) 385 final, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council — Report on the implementation, functioning and effectiveness of the ".eu" TLD (6 July 2007).
[2] COM(2009) 303 final, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation, functioning and effectiveness of the ‘.eu’ TLD (26 June 2009).
[3] Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 adapting a number of instruments subject to the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty to Council Decision 1999/468/EC with regard to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny — Adaptation to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny — Part One (OJ L 311, 21.11.2008, p. 1).
[4] Commission Regulation (EC) No 1654/2005 of 10 October 2005 (OJ L 266, 11.10.2005, p. 35) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1255/2007 of 25 October 2007 (OJ L 282 26.10.2007, p. 16).
[5] Commission Regulation (EC) No 560/2009 of 26 June amending Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 (OJ L 166, 27.6.2009, p. 3).
[6] Commission Decision of 21 May 2003 on the designation of the .eu Top Level Domain Registry.
[7] See recital 12, Articles 2(a), 3(1)(c), 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 733/2002.
[8] See recital 9 of Regulation (EC) No 733/2002.
[9] Under Arti.6 of Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 ‘the Registry shall perform the registration of domain names in all the alphabetic characters of the official languages when adequate international standards become available’.
[10] The amendment was due to inform the public of the introduction of IDNs and update the list of names in the Annex to the Regulation.
[11] ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) is a non-profit, private-sector corporation For more information see: http://www.icann.org/.
[12] For more information on The Fast Track Process see: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/.
[13] Cyprus and Greece - October 2008, Bulgaria - February 2009.
[14] See footnote 6.
[15] See recital 13, Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 733/2002.
[16] See recital 12, Article 3(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 733/2002. Under Article I.2 of the Service Concession Contract between EURid and the Commission ‘The contract is concluded for an initial period of five years [..] [and] may be extended for another five years by both contracting parties in the form of a supplementary contract’.
[17] On 12 December 2008, the Commission and EURid signed a supplementary contract renewing the initial contract for another five years. The supplementary contract came into force on 12 October 2009.
[18] See Article 3(4) of Regulation (EC) No 733/2002, and recitals 2, 3, 4 and Article 4 of Regulation (EC) 874/2004.
[19] The registration services were migrated from the main .eu site to a mirror site in less than three hours..All functioning .eu websites continued to be available and accessible during the entire test period.
[20] A mirror site provides a copy of the main site to allow for the multiplication of the sources of the same information.
[21] A chai[pic]HI™š³´¿J M o r |§¬ÐØìíö÷ý
hÙMíhvA4]?mHnHu[pic]hhttp://www.eurid.eu/en/about/facts-figures/reports.
[22] ‘What is in a domain-name extension’ — a study categorising websites (June 2010). EUrid set up a test lab where evaluators visually assessed a random sample of websites found under each extension. In addition, statistical methods were applied to estimate the error margin and automated scanning was used to verify some of the numbers. In total, around 5 000 domain names were assessed for each of the selected TLDs. For more information see: http://www.eurid.eu/files/eu_insights_2.pdf.
[23] Pay-per-click is a site containing mainly advertising links.
[24] See Article 4(2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 733/2002 and recital 15, Articles 22 and 23 of Commission Regulation 874/2004.
[25] Memorandum of Understanding (2005) between EURid and the Czech Arbitration Court attached to the Economic Chamber of the Czech Republic and the Agricultural Chamber of the Czech Republic.
[26] In the reference period, the number of cases was as follows (per quarter): 11 in Q2 2009, 11 in Q3 2009, 14 in Q4 2009, 15 in Q1 2010, 14 in Q2 2010, 11 in Q3 2010, 18 in Q4 2010, 12 in Q1 2011. The number of ADR cases initiated before the CAC has declined significantly since 2006 from approximately 200 cases per quarter to the current level.
[27] For more specific information see Annex 2.
[28] See Article 4(2)(d) of Regulation (EC) 733/2002.
[29] The audit is not publicly available yet.
[30] Ovidio v EURID judgment, Brussels Appeal Court, 8 July 2009.
[31] EURID v Zheng Qingying judgment, Brussels Court of First Instance, 10 September 2009.
[32] For more information on phishing and similar activities see point 5.4.3 above.