Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU

[Harold Feld <hfeld@mediaaccess.org>]

While I have nothing whatsoever against the EU getting their own TLD,
it does raise some procedural questions for this working group and the DNSO
generally.

By what process is the EU applying for the TLD, and to whom?
Can other region/multinational/geographic communities of interest
apply?  For example, what about a NAFTA TLD?  A Central American
TLD?  How about one for the New England region of the United States, a
coherent economic region differentiated from surrounding states through
membership in the New England Compact*?

I will note this is now the second application in what, three months?
by a geographic region that is not technically a "country" for a cc:TLD
equivalent (the Palestinian National Authority having applied for its own
cc:TLD in advance of "final status talks").  If nothing else, this working
group (or the DNSO generally) could well serve ICANN by providing some
comments/advice/guidance on establishment of proper channels and procedures.
This ad hoc approach does no one any good, and risks engendering confusion
and ill-will by those subsequently denied.

A bit of planning now has the potential to save a lot of arguing and fights
later on.
If this working group, and the DNSO generally, are intended as resources for
ICANN,
it would be appropriate to set up a discussion process and make some
recommendations.

Harold Feld


*The states can make treaties with each other, provided they get the consent of
Congress.
Article I Sec. 10.

Keith Gymer wrote:

> The European Commission Working paper on the creation of the .EU Internet
> top level domain, dated 2nd February, 2000 is available at:
> http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg13/index.htm
>
> It is open for public comment for 6 weeks - ie apparently until 15 March
> 2000
>
> The paper specifically seeks answers to six key questions:
>
> Question 1: Please comment on the above outline of the delegation of the .EU
> TLD to a Registration organisation: the Registry. Are there alternative
> models for
> the Registry organisation that should be considered?
>
> Question 2: What should be the main criteria for the .EU Registry's
> registration policies?
> How should the registration policy be developed and implemented? By the
> Registry organisation, by a distinct consultative body or by the European
> Commission
> itself?
>
> Question 3: Would it be appropriate to apply the WIPO disputes and trademark
> policies as reflected in their May 1999 Report to the .EU Domain, or are
> there alternative solutions to these issues within the European Union?
> Might there be a specific role for the Office for the Harmonisation of the
> Internal Market in Alicante in this context?
>
> Question 4: To what extent might a more constraining instrument in the
> European Union or in WIPO reinforce protection of names and marks in the
> DNS, in
> addition to alternative dispute resolution? In that case which categories of
> names
> should be protected and how should they be determined?
>
> Question 5: Do potential business users, including small and medium sized
> enterprises have any suggestions as to how the .EU domain might be managed
> in order to
> optimise its contribution to the development of electronic commerce in
> Europe?
>
> Question 6: Are there any other considerations that should be taken into
> account about the relationships between the proposed .EU Registry and the
> national
> ccTLD Registries in the Member States?
>
> Keith Gymer
> PAGE HARGRAVE
> Manfield House
> 1 Southampton Street
> London WC2R 0LR
> T: +44 (0)20 7240 6933
> F: +44 (0)20 7379 0268
> Email: london@pagehargrave.co.uk
> Web: www.pagehargrave.co.uk