Dutch government announces to write a DNS-registry law

[Heiko Recktenwald <uzs106@ibm.rhrz.uni-bonn.de>]

Und bei uns ?

>Translated from the Dutch version at Planet Multimedia
>
>http://www.planet.nl/pmm/0,1674,101_1498_140015,00.html
>
>
>Ministry intervenes in domain names
>
>What was expected for months, becomes reality: the full autonomy of the
>market in the assignment of domain names in the Netherlands will be
>terminated. The ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water management
>will start supervision.
>
>Secretary of State (junior minister) Monique de Vries of Transport, Public
>Works and Water management concludes after an investigation that
>improvements can be realised by the broadening of the representation of
>stakeholders in the board oft the Internet Domain registry of the
>Netherlands (Stichting Internet Domeinregistratie Nederland) and their
>Council of participants.
>The cabinet (council of ministers) has the opinion that the SIDN, who has
>the responsibility for the assignment and management of the domain names in
>the .nl TLD, 'functions in large part as may be expected'. But with that
>conclusion the cabinet does not finish their evaluation.
>
>In specific cybersquatting is gaining attention. The SIDN has to develop a
>procedure for the solution of conflicts that result from domain name trade.
>
>De Vries also wants to investigate with involved parties a way to reduce the
>excess claiming of  domain names.
>
>The cabinet proposes to expand the relation between the government and the
>SIDN in additional laws. This meets agreements on this issue that have been
>made at the European [Ed. European Community] level. The societal interest
>in a well functioning Internet is underlined with this proposal .
>
>The ministry reports that the demand for [Ed. new] domain names lowers
>somewhat, but this does not diminishes the request for further regulation.
>The Netherlands are on the third spot in the number of registerd domain
>names under country codes. Only Germany and the United Kingdom did register
>more domain names in there ccTLD's, according the ministry of Transport,
>Public Works and Water Management.
>
>*************
>
>Notes of the Editor of this translation:
>1.    The Dutch government had announced in a 1997 White Paper that they
>would evaluate the existing self-governance of the Domain Name Registry on a
>number of typical institutional public policy goals.
>
>>From this White Paper.
>Criteria for continued allowance of self  regulation were:
>a) Are the relevant stakeholdergroups sufficiently organised?
>b) Is there equal representation of the relevant social interest?
>c) Is there sufficient binding of all parties?
>d) Is maintenance of the agreements sufficiently assured?
>
>Criteria for governmental intervention roles instead of continuation of self
>regulation, the government has to :
>a) Examine expulsion of traditional types of communication and a diminishing
>of the existing technological turbulence.
>b) The government has to care that the above mentioned criteria for self
>reguleration are followed; the government can use a number of instruments,
>like the establishment of (facilitating) laws or the closing of a convenant
>[ Ed. I heavily doubt if this soft law instrument exist in any other nation.
>It is a promise by industry to the government to bend some type of existing
>unwanted behaviour. A convenant is a main instrument for environmental
>pollution reduction etc. etc.]. An eventual governmental intervention has to
>be as flexible and  adequate and take place as timely as possible. The
>character of the electronic highway infrastructure demand this.
>c) Evaluate whether there are fundamental values and norms at stake. When
>that is the case governmental intervention will be placed on the agenda.
>2.    The evaluation took more than a year and has been released after the
>last cabinet session before the summer holiday which is followed by the
>opening of the new parliamentary year.
>3.    This Council of Ministers resolution is more or less in line with the
>governmental position taken during an industry and citizens hearing in
>August 2000.
>
>Comments
>1.     A decision has been made by the Dutch government to introduce
>additional legislation. This means that there will become some kind of
>property rights definition on domain names (I am quite curious what
>direction it will go to, but I suspect the government will attempt to
>declare the ".nl" namespace into some kind of a public good. The announced
>study on the limitation of existing domain name trading, handling domain
>name conflicts (cyber squatting dispute resolution) and excess name claiming
>(domain name grabbing) suggest government public space conversation in the
>making.
>A large number of Dutch parliament members (from left to right wing) has
>been very unhappy with the gradual shift from the SIDN from strict
>assignment policy to unrestricted assignments. They consider current
>assignment policy too liberal on many aspects.
>
>2. The government has concluded that there is not yet an expulsion of
>traditional communications technology (this is a policy paper framing
>intended to safeguard a public policy interest like universal telephone
>services (there is no universal service fund at this moment in the
>Netherlands, but this can be instituted). It is intended for the moment that
>substitution of circuit switched telephony by IP-telephony would take place
>in the near future. It is concluded that the establishment of ENUM does not
>qualify for such an intervention into DNS-regulation.
>
>3. The government decided that the existing setup contains enough safeguards
>to garantue fundamental values and norms (the penal laws and the SIDN's
>complaints, hearing and appeals procedures are considered sufficient in the
>case of blasphemy and names in conflict with public order, moral offence and
>public indecencies.)
>A provocative registrar last year registered names like "heilhitler.nl" etc.
>to create press coverage and juris prudence. He mainly gained the interest
>of a number of parliament members willing to issue legislation on domain
>name registration that would reintroduce the very strict registration rules
>on domain names that existed a few years ago.
>
>4. The remark on Dispute resolution means that the SIDN is instructed to
>create an UDRP-like dispute resolution procedure (public consultation is
>going on these months with assistance of WIPO). This will (partially)
>replace current short trial court litigations. I am still very puzzled about
>the popular enthousiasm for the UDRP-like systems (even from the grass
>roots, non-commercial and small user groups that favour UDRP above the quite
>inexpensive Dutch courts). It has been mentioned several times that an
>UDRP-like Alternative Dispute Resolution can be more expensive than the
>typical short trial in court.
>
>5. Therefore my main conclusion is that the Dutch government plans to
>provide SIDN with some guidelines to a broader user interest representation
>and will institutionalise the existing setup in the Telecommunications Act.
>On average this requires one to two years in the Netherlands to pass through
>all official legislative bodies and law advisory councils.
>
>
>As mentioned above in the news message translation; other European countries
>are planning to go into a similar direction.
>
>This has considerable consequences for the future position of ccTLD's and
>their role inside ICANN. More and more ccTLD's will be able to claim a
>legitimate position, as there organisations will be backed by formal laws in
>the near future.