Annexes to COM(2017)725 - 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(2017)725 - Implementation, functioning and effectiveness of the .eu Top-Level Domain. |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2017)725  |
| date | December 4, 2017 |
Improving the provision of accurate registration data by registrants is an increasingly important tool in preventing and for combatting fraudulent domain name use. With that aim, EURid launched the Whois Quality Plan in Q1 2014. In the reporting period, the procedures to introduce a fast-track method for clear-cut cases were refined. The fast track procedure is enforced in case of obviously inaccurate registration data, detection of patterns in domain name registrations, or suspicion or allegation of abuse. Should this be the case the registrant is requested to provide evidence of the registration data within three days after which the domain name involved is suspended. During 2016, over 18,000 domain names were checked, out of which over 9 000 were suspended and over 1 000 were subsequently withdrawn.
In addition, the Registry continued to provide regular assistance to law enforcement and other relevant authorities. At the national level in Belgium, EURid upheld a regular dialogue with CERT-EU and collaborated actively with authorities such as the Belgian Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs (‘FOD Economie’), Belgian Customs (‘Cybersquad’), and the Public Prosecutor’s Office, in their fight against illegal activities related to .eu domain names. The collaboration mainly focused on the selling of counterfeit products while using .eu domain names. At European level, EURid signed a MoU with EUROPOL in December 2016 to engage in joint efforts related to fighting cybercrime, to exchange statistical data and trends pertaining to cybercrime, and to commit to cooperating on projects designed to combat cybercrime. 16
5.7.Legal proceedings and disputes concerning domain names
5.7.1.Cases before the General Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union
There were no cases before the General Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the reporting period.
5.7.2.Alternative Dispute Resolution procedure
Domain name disputes may be submitted to the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) provider – the Prague-based Arbitration Court (‘Czech Arbitration Court’ or ‘CAC’).
During 2015 a total of 65 new ADR complaints were filed, on average 5 complaints per month. In total, 68 ADR disputes were terminated (complaints accepted: 46; complaints denied: 5; complaints withdrawn: 2; complaints defective: 14; settlements: 1)
During 2016 a total of 80 new ADR complaints were filed, a steady average of just over 6 cases per month. In total, 67 ADR disputes were terminated (complaints accepted: 41; complaints rejected: 9; complaints withdrawn: 2; complaints defective: 14; settlements: 1).
As of 1st June 2016, disputes for .eu domain names within the Cyrillic extension (.ею) can be filed. At the end of Q1 2017, no cases were filed with the CAC for .ею.
5.7.3.Court proceedings
In the reporting period, EURid has been a party in the following cases:
STRANSKY vs. EURid
On 6th May 2015 EURid introduced IDNA2008 and homoglyph bundling, and announced its legacy policy for domain names that are no longer compliant with these new rules. The policy included a phasing-out period of one year. By 6th May 2016), non-compliant domain names were to have been withdrawn, and could not be re-registered. The expiry date of two no longer compliant domain names (‘fırstrowsports.eu’ and ‘fırstrow.eu’) extended beyond the phase out date of 6th May 2016 (to 28th February 2025).
The holder of both domain names sued EURid before a court in the Czech Republic regarding one domain name: ‘fırstrowsports.eu’.
The written judgment was received on 21st November 2016. The official Court decision stipulates: ‘An obligation is being imposed on the Defendant (EURid) to ensure the operation of the domain name “fırstrowsports.eu” until 28th February 2025, as art. 13 of EURid’s terms and conditions does not allow EURid to unilaterally change the rights and obligations of the holder, but only allows EURid to apply new rules to any subsequent registrations.
Although the Court’s decision only relates to one domain name, ‘fırstrowsports.eu’, and does not relate to ‘fırstrow.eu’, EURid applied the Court’s decision to both domain names and will keep both active until their expiration date on 28th February 2025 (on which date they will be withdrawn).
As a consequence, this case has been closed.
EURid vs. VAN COLLEM
On 29th February 2016 EURid initiated court proceedings against two domain name holders (Nanogenetics Ltd and Citizen Engineering Services Ltd), both having the same business address (29 Harley Street, Marylebone, London, W1G 9QR). Both holders had registered approximately 1600 domain names via registrar IO Domain UK Ltd, doing business as ‘Universal Domains’, with the same address (29 Harley Street, Marylebone, London, W1G 9QR). It appears that more than 6000 UK companies were registered to that address. It would seem that a Mr. Van Collem claimed to represent both domain name holders, and EURid has reason to believe that Mr. Van Collem is actually the registrar as well.
Since this registrar had an overdue balance of 7,363.50 EUR, EURid terminated its accreditation agreement due to breach of contract (after several reminders).
As a consequence of the termination of the registrar’s contract, all domain holders received an automated email notification to look for another registrar of their choice, and to transfer their domain names to the chosen registrar. Mr. Van Collem indicated that he had selected ‘Lifestyle International BV’ (a Dutch foundation). This company had indeed applied for .eu accreditation, but since it never successfully completed the accreditation procedure, EURid had not accepted its application.
EURid granted Mr. Van Collem more than 166 calendar days to transfer his domain names (compared to the regular 30-40 quarantine days for any other holder in similar circumstances).
Since EURid had ‘reserved’ these domain names for Mr. Van Collem without being paid for them, it decided to initiate court proceedings in order to ask the Court to declare the agreement between EURid and the domain name holder(s) terminated.
The domain name holders (Nanogenetics Ltd and Citizen Engineering Services Ltd)
The (Brussels) court hearing took place on 21st February 2017, and in the meantime both companies have been dissolved.
The judge decided to take more time to double-check the removal of both companies from Companies House (UK), and thus to postpone his decision. EURid expects to receive an interim decision, in which the judge may or may not re-open the debate.
6. EMAS registration and CO2 compensation
On 23rd May 2012, EURid became the first EMAS-certified registry in Europe (registration number BE-VL-000016) 17 . In Q2 2015 EURid completed its re-certification process with the revised Environmental Declaration 2015-2017, which includes six objectives. The EMAS registration covers both the headquarters of EURid in Diegem, Belgium, and its branch in Pisa, Italy (since Q2 2015).
Since 2013, EURid has been validating its CO2 emissions and, afterwards, purchasing certified CO2 credits to compensate for them. 18
7. Conclusions
The .eu TLD model has been implemented successfully.
Over the last two years, the .eu TLD has been operating in a TLD landscape different to the one that it entered when it was launched in 2006. The new gTLDs have completely changed the domain name industry. More and more registrars have become involved in the management of the new extensions, while the legacy TLD operators have started to look into options to differentiate their offerings and expand into new business areas, which might compensate for the lower income coming from new registrations in the long-term.
In late 2016, the European Commission launched a Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT) review of the .eu Regulations, to ensure that the .eu legal framework still serves its intended purpose. It includes a "back-to-back" evaluation and impact assessment. The evaluation will examine at least the five mandatory evaluation criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value and it will cover the implementation of the .eu legal framework across the EU, the EEA and candidate countries, since the adoption of the first Regulation in 2002. This evaluation will form a basis for the eventual future oriented impact assessment, outlining policy responses to identified challenges, with the possible adoption of concrete initiatives in 2018.
Multilingualism continues to be a primary goal both for the .eu Registry and the European Commission. It is worth noting that, seven years after EURid’s application for the .eu string in Greek, .ευ in Greek has not yet been approved by ICANN on the grounds that it is confusingly similar with other strings. The Commission has repeatedly urged ICANN to complete this process, and has emphasised that ICANN has not followed the same strict policy when clearly confusingly similar new gTLDs have been delegated in the recent past.
The recent proactive Registry support of actions that have the aim to prevent the abuse and improve the security and trustworthiness of the .eu domain are considered important and will be further encouraged in a digital environment where the threat and impact of cybercrime have significantly increased.
The European Commission will continue its regular and constructive communication flow with the Registry, both to maintain the .eu TLD at the highest standards of DNS, and to make it the extension of choice for Europeans. Conclusions on the performance of the .eu TLD will be drawn again in 2018 when the results of the ongoing REFIT evaluation will be available.
ANNEX
·Statistics .eu against CENTR registries end Q1 2017
·.eu registrations by quarter till end Q1 2017
·Total number of domain names by country of registrant end Q1 2017
·Registrar distribution end Q1 2017
·IDN registrations end Q1 2017
(1) .tk is still excluded from the count due to its special framework and sales model.
(2) Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22nd 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).
(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1654/2005 of 10th October 2005 (OJ L 266, 11.10.2005, p. 35), Commission Regulation (EC) No 1255/2007 of 25th October 2007 (OJ L 282 26.10.2007, p. 16), Commission Regulation (EC) No 560/2009 of 26th June (OJ L 166, 27.6.2009, p. 3), Commission Regulation (EU) No 516/2015 of 26th March 2015 (OJ L 82, 27.03.2015, p.14).
(4) European Commission Implementing Decision of 11th April 2014 on the designation of the .eu Top-Level Domain Registry, published in the Official Journal (L109/41) on 12th April 2014.
(5) See section 5.6.3
(6) See https://www.icann.org/public-comments/fy18-budget-2017-03-08-en
(7) See Verisign Domain Industry Brief, Q4 2016, https://www.verisign.com/en_US/domain-names/dnib/index.xhtml#executive-summary
(8) See http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/
(9) Name server is a server on the internet specialized in handling queries regarding the location of a domain name's various services. Name servers are a fundamental part of the DNS. They allow using domains instead of IP addresses.
(10) The World IDN Report went digital in late 2016 with an official launch at the Internet Governance Forum meeting in Guadalajara, Mexico, on 7th December 2016. For the online IDN World Report, see www.idnworldreport.eu . For the IGF 2016 workshop, see https://igf2016.sched.com/event/8htA/ws19-enhancing-linguistic-and-cultural-diversity-in-cyberspace
(11) Both cases included a study on domain marketplaces in the respective regions. For the MEAC Study, see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/meac-dns-study-26feb16-en.pdf , for the LAC Study, see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/lac-dns-marketplace-study-13mar17-en.pdf
(12) The initiative has, as its main objective, the goal of contributing to the education of industry peers, registrars, and future generations in the basics of the Internet, its history, functioning, and marketing/administrative/security/law-related facets.
(13) See https://eurid.eu/en/about-us/publications/
(14) See Facebook (EUregistry), Twitter (@Euregistry), YouTube (Europeanregistry)
(15) For the eligibility criteria, see Article 4(2(b) of Regulation 733/2002. The Registry has the right to verify the validity of a registration (Article 3 of Regulation 874/2004). The registration policy requires the registrant to keep personal data complete and accurate, and the email address functioning for communication with the Registry, which reserves the right to revoke the domain name of a non-functioning address.
(16) See https://www.europol.europa.eu/newsroom/news/europol-enhances-cybercrime-and-internet-security-cooperation-signing-mou-eurid
(17) More information on EURid’s environmental commitment is available at: https://eurid.eu/en/going-green/
(18) In 2015, EURid assessed its CO2 emissions from 2014 and purchased verified CO2 credits to contribute to the Ecomapuà project, which, among other things, has the goal of conserving the rich biodiversity of the Amazon. In 2016 the CO2 emissions of 2015 were off-set by verified CO2 credits which contributed to the Dak Rung Hydropower project in Vietnam.