The Commission Communication

12.1  The Communication sets out the Commission's views on the US Government's Green Paper[33] on the future organisation of Internet domain names. Appended to the Communication is a draft response by the Community and Member States.

12.2  Stressing the EC and Member States' interest in the future organisation and management of the Internet, the Commission recalls that the European Ministerial Conference in Bonn on 6-8 July 1997 issued the following draft declaration: "Fostering economic growth, developing content and commerce, point 12: Ministers stress the importance of Internet domain names for the development of electronic commerce. They support the principle of an internationally recognised body operating a transparent system of management of the Domain Name System. They consider it imperative to ensure adequate European representation in this system".

The US Government's Green Paper

12.3  The Green Paper sets out the US Government's plans for reform of the system of Internet domain names. Domain names are the user-friendly internet addresses such as ...DTI.gov.uk. To date these names have been subject to a loose system of self-management reflecting its non-commercial origins. Certain key functions for the management of the global Internet domain system are currently run by US companies under contract to the military research arm of the US Government. The US has recognised the need to reflect the new commercial basis of the Internet by privatising and internationalising the management of the domain name space. Its key proposal is to establish a not-for profit, non-Government body to manage naming. It will be controlled by a board, on which representatives of a range of interested parties, worldwide, will sit.

The Community's response

12.4  In an Explanatory Memorandum, dated 10 March, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Barbara Roche) says that:

"the principal message of the Community response is that, while there are many aspects of the US Government's proposals which are welcome, they could have the effect of further consolidating US jurisdiction over the Internet. In addition considerable further detailed work on the proposals is required and it is vital that the EU, and the international Community more generally, should be associated with that work. The response concludes that the US Government should restrict its direct regulatory intervention to relationships falling under existing contracts made with the US Government, and that all other decisions on the future of the Internet domain name system be referred to 'an appropriate internationally constituted and representative body'. This could be the not-for profit body proposed by the US "if the international constitution of its board were deemed satisfactory".

The Government's view

12.5  The Minister says:

"The Government supports the text of the response in both welcoming the US initiative as a necessary step for the development of the Internet while also noting the need for full international consultation and involvement in the finalisation and implementation of these proposals. If the Internet is to meet its potential and provide the vehicle for global electronic commerce, management of the infrastructure, of which the domain name system is part, must be seen to be robust, internationally and functionally representative and capable of resisting pressures from narrow interest groupings. The Community response stresses the need for full international consultation to achieve this."

The Minister's letter

12.6  Apologising for not providing the Committee with time to complete scrutiny of the Commission Communication and Community draft response, the Minister says that the UK Presidency is under pressure to finalise the response at COREPER[34] on 11 March. If agreement can be reached on a text which the Government can support, she considers that it will not be in the UK's interest to maintain the reserve.

Conclusion

12.7  The Minister appears to have been caught off guard by the speed at which the Member States decided to move on this response. There is nothing in the draft, as described, to warrant withholding clearance, but we do wish to impress on the Minister the need to bear in mind the interests of Parliament.

12.8  We ask her to keep us informed on this important issue, in a timely fashion, and to ensure that no substantive agreements are entered into without this Committee being given ample opportunity to perform its scrutiny function.