Difference between revisions of "European Commission"
| Line 76: | Line 76: | ||
====Paper 2==== | ====Paper 2==== | ||
| − | The second paper deals with the U.S. Government's recommendations regarding new [[gTLD]]s, the renewal of the [[IANA]] contract between the USG and ICANN, and the future role of the GAC in determining whether or not a proposed [[TLD]] has legitimate community support, and also that body's role in creating a block-list for names at the [[Second Level Domain|second-level]].<ref>[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/9/4/4893009.html InternetGovernance.org/blog]</ref> | + | The second paper deals with the U.S. Government's recommendations regarding new [[gTLD]]s, the renewal of the [[IANA]] contract between the USG and ICANN, and the future role of the GAC in determining whether or not a proposed [[TLD]] has legitimate community support, and also that body's role in creating a block-list for names at the [[Second Level Domain|second-level]].<ref>[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/9/4/4893009.html InternetGovernance.org/blog]</ref> Basically, the EC seems to agree with a provision suggested by the U.S. Government, that would require all applicants to substantially prove that they have the backing of the community they claim to be serving through the proposed new extension. The EC further adds that an application should, ideally, not even be seen by them if it does not have verifiable backing from the outset. Essentially, they claim that it should be quickly verifiable if the extension is a legitimate addition to the root, and if it has a legitimate sponsoring community behind it; though they also seem to reserve the right to amend any initial ruling. Further protections sought by the EC in this paper include a type of universal blocked-list for names at the [[Second Level Domain|second level]]; this was preempted when [[ICM Registry]] asked the GAC for a list of names that it would like to reserve in the .xxx name space as culturally sensitive or otherwise improper for that name space. The EC sees it as time consuming to produce this list for every new domain, and instead would like the [[IANA]] contract to be amended to allow the GAC to create an authoritative master list of all second-level names that should not be allowed to be registered in any new [[TLD]].<ref>[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/pdf/EC-TLD-censorship.pdf InternetGovernance.org/blog]</ref> |
| + | |||
| + | The second paper can be read [http://blog.internetgovernance.org/pdf/EC-TLD-censorship.pdf here]. | ||
== References == | == References == | ||
Revision as of 22:22, 12 September 2011
 | |
| Industry: | Government |
| Founded: | 1958 |
| Headquarters: | Brussels |
| Country: | Belgium |
| Employees: | 25,000 |
| Website: | ec.europa.eu |
| Facebook: | EC Facebook |
| LinkedIn: | EC LinkedIn |
| Twitter: | Error creating thumbnail: Unable to save thumbnail to destination @EU_Commission
|
| Key People | |
| Jose Manuel Barroso, President | |
EC stands for the European Commission or the European Community. It is an executive body of the European Union, which proposes legislation to the Council and the Parliament and administers and implements legislative EU policies and enforces EU law jointly with the Court of Justice. It represents the general interests of Europe as a whole.[1][2]
The European Commission is a member of the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) of ICANN. EC has always wanted ICANN to be more accountable to the international community and transparent in it's policies. It also wants ICANN to involve governments in key public aspects of ICANN policy.[3] The EC and ICANN are constantly in conflict over various issues and recently they had a tiff over an issue relating to trademarks.[4] The EC also strongly supports IGF.
History
The European Commission was created in 1957 by the Treaty of Rome. The first President of the Commission is Walter Hallstein. He had had two terms in the office from January, 1958 to June, 1967.
After Walter Hallstein, the Commission has seen 10 other Presidents. They are Jean Rey, Framco Malfatti, Sicco Mansholt, Francois-Xavier Ortoli, Roy Jenkins, Gaston Thorn, Jacques Delors, Jacques Santer, Romano Prodi and Jose Manuel Barroso (still in office).
Structure of the European Commission
The European Commission operates under a College of 27 Commissioners, one from each member country of the EU. The President of the European Commission is appointed by the European Council. The President and the Council together appoint the remaining 26 Commissioners. These 27 Commissioners as a single body are subject to a vote of approval by the European Parliament.
The Commission operates as a cabinet government and each of the Commissioner is assigned a portfolio. These Commissioners are supported by a staff of around 25,000 civil servants who work in various departments called Directorates-General. These DGs are classified based on the policies with which they deal, usually issues that have a specific mandate or are mostly administrative. For instance, creating statistics or to detect fraudulent activities.[5]
Role of the European Commission
The EC is responsible for drafting proposals for new EU laws. It also manages the daily business of implementing the policies of the EU and allocates the EU funds. The EC also sees to it that no one violates European laws and treaties.[1]
The working of European Commission
The EC is highly active and addresses all key issues concerning the European Union by formulating and bettering various policies in areas such as agriculture, transport, energy and natural resources, the economy and finances, external relations and foreign affairs, culture, education and youth, business, cross-cutting, climate action, and others. [6]
Interest in ICT and Internet
The European Commission has major interest in ICT and the Internet. The organization has invested around €90 million in IPv6 research. The EC has also proposed a Critical Information Infrastructure Protection (CIIP) strategy to protect Europe from cyber attacks. The EC also has a digital agenda that focuses on seven key areas, which are:
- Creating a digital single market
- Improving ICT standards and interoperability
- Boosting internet trust and security
- Speeding up internet
- Investing more in research and development
- Enhancing digital literacy
- Applying information and communications technologies to address societal challenges[7]
High Profile Cases
- European Commission undertakes anti-trust probe against Microsoft for tying of Internet Explorer to Windows.[8]
- European Commission probes allegations of antitrust violations by Google on doubts that it has abused it's dominant position in online search.[9]
European Commission and ICANN
In 2009, with ICANN’s original U.S. led contract ending in September, the EC appealed for international involvement in carrying out ICANN's responsibilities. At that time, ICANN was more of a private firm that ultimately answered to the US Government's Department of Commerice. The EC explained that the management of the Internet, which had become a vital part of the global economy and tool for worldwide communications, should not be assigned to a single country.[10]
In a paper titled "Internet Governance: Next Steps," the EU proposed that ICANN be handled by private bodies without any government intervention in its day-to-day activities, instead being governed according to the principles agreed upon by public authorities. The EC also called for international talks on Internet governance, realizing that the next billion Internet users would come mainly from the developing world.[10]
On September 30th, 2009, the US government declared that ICANN would be governed by international parties. From then onwards, ICANN has been subject to independent review panels appointed by ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) and not solely to the review of US Department of Commerce (DOC). Viviane Reding, the EU's Commissioner for Information Society and Media, welcomed the US administration’s decision, and said that "Internet users around the world can now anticipate ICANN’s decision as more independent and accountable."[11]
In 2009, when ICANN's Independent Review Panel found that it had violated its own rules by denying ICM Registry's proposal for management of the .xxx sTLD, the EC, under the leadership of Neelie Kroes, asked the U.S. government to effectively break its contract with ICANN by refusing to enter the extension into the root zone.[12]
6 Policy Papers of 2011
At the end of August, 2011, Kieren McCarthy of .nxt leaked 6 papers written by the EC regarding their take on ICANN; the papers came on the heels of a number of brash encounters between the EC representative, Gerard de Graaf, and other ICANN participants at ICANN 41 in Singapore.[13] His behavior had some wondering how well he was representing the entire membership of the European Union, and struck many as blatantly rude. At one point during the discussions between the GAC and the ICANN Board, Mr. de Graaf grew so frustrated that he was audibly pounding on the table and wondered aloud whether he was talking "to the deaf or stupid".[14][15] The board was discussing how to handle trademark issues with regards to the new gTLD creation process, and Mr. De Graaf was frustrated that the E.U.'s trademark policy would not be implemented in this circumstance.[16]
The papers themselves largely propose subordinating ICANN as an entitled policy-making body. Many see the publication of the papers as a response to the aforementioned dismissal of GAC recommendations by the ICANN board at ICANN 41.[17] The papers take issue with a range of ICANN decisions and policies; from how they staff the organization, to the new gTLD program, to their handling of ccTLDs; as a whole they have been taken as a full assault on the organization's independent legitimacy, and its multi-stakeholder model.[18]
Paper 1
The first paper deals with the board's 2011 decision in Singapore to move from a vertically separated registrar/registry model to one that allows competition in the new gTLD space through integration of the previously separated spheres. The EC does not seem to agree, or is not convinced, that competition will continue to be fostered to the highest degree possible; thus, they see the move as possibly in violation with a number of their own laws, and are generally dissatisfied with the board's decision to move ahead despite opposition from them and the GAC. The EC believes that businesses will now be in violation of certain anti-trust and other applicable laws, and consequently accuses ICANN of disregarding these laws. However, industry insiders have pointed to the fact that any company in a given jurisdiction traditionally must answer to that jurisdiction's law, regardless of the way ICANN decides to allow its regulations with international businesses to develop. The EC is further seen as misunderstanding the situation when it calls for review mechanisms to review all board decisions. In fact, ICANN does have an Independent Review Panel.
The first paper can be read here.
Paper 2
The second paper deals with the U.S. Government's recommendations regarding new gTLDs, the renewal of the IANA contract between the USG and ICANN, and the future role of the GAC in determining whether or not a proposed TLD has legitimate community support, and also that body's role in creating a block-list for names at the second-level.[19] Basically, the EC seems to agree with a provision suggested by the U.S. Government, that would require all applicants to substantially prove that they have the backing of the community they claim to be serving through the proposed new extension. The EC further adds that an application should, ideally, not even be seen by them if it does not have verifiable backing from the outset. Essentially, they claim that it should be quickly verifiable if the extension is a legitimate addition to the root, and if it has a legitimate sponsoring community behind it; though they also seem to reserve the right to amend any initial ruling. Further protections sought by the EC in this paper include a type of universal blocked-list for names at the second level; this was preempted when ICM Registry asked the GAC for a list of names that it would like to reserve in the .xxx name space as culturally sensitive or otherwise improper for that name space. The EC sees it as time consuming to produce this list for every new domain, and instead would like the IANA contract to be amended to allow the GAC to create an authoritative master list of all second-level names that should not be allowed to be registered in any new TLD.[20]
The second paper can be read here.
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 ec.europa.eu Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "link1" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ europa.euAbout us
- ↑ eurunion.org
- ↑ thedomains.com
- ↑ Structure of European Commission
- ↑ ec.europa.eu
- ↑ EC Digital Agenda
- ↑ ec.europa.eu
- ↑ mashable.com
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 ec.europa.eu
- ↑ eurunion.org
- ↑ InternetGovernance.org/blog
- ↑ Blog.InternetGovernance.org
- ↑ EU Rep Refers to ICANN as Deaf or Stupid, InternetNews.me
- ↑ Blog.InternetGovernance.org
- ↑ ICANN-GAC Session Marred by Name Calling Disagreement, TheDomains.com
- ↑ Whore Wrote these ICANN Papers Anyway European Commission, circleid.com
- ↑ Blog.InternetGovernance.org
- ↑ InternetGovernance.org/blog
- ↑ InternetGovernance.org/blog