News

.SE has decided to allow registration of .se domain names with only one character. The most attractive domain names will be released through an auction on Tradera.

The 18 .se domains up for auction are j.se, q.se, v.se, å.se, ä.se, ö.se, é.se, ü.se and 0.se – 9.se. The auction begins on May 28 and ends on June 10.

Read more here

Today, the European Commission adopted the European Agenda on Security for the period 2015-2020 focusing on three priority areas: fight against terrorism, organised crime and cybercrime. 

Most relevant for CENTR to monitor will be proposals regarding cybercrime:

The threats identified by the Commission include illicit online trade in drugs and weapons, sexual child exploitation, misuse of personal data. This is to be addressed through improved law enforcement and judicial response largely through a better exchange of information and operational cooperation among Member States, EU agencies and the IT sector. A European Counter Terrorist Centre is to be set up as a "secure centre" for such information exchange. An EU-level forum with IT companies will be launched to develop tools against terrorist propaganda. The capacities of law enforcement authorities are to be strengthened through Europol's European Cybercrime Centre (EC3).
Of course, all of this is based on and respecting common values and fundamental rights

"The European Agenda on Security" (COM (2015) 185): http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/e-library/documents/basic-documents/docs/eu_agenda_on_security_en.pdf

Commission Q&A (MEMO): http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-4867_en.htm

The question about who should be covered by the Directive has taken a slight turn. The key question now is who should decide about who should be covered: Member States or the European Commission? There seems to be agreement that stricter rules (security measures and incident notifications) should apply to critical infrastructure (such as nuclear power plants) than to Internet companies offering online services (such as Amazon or ebay). Trilogue meetings are scheduled to resume this Thursday.

The Latvian Presidency floated two ideas among the key negotiators:

Option 1: Let Member States decide which actors fall under the directive and how strictly they wish to regulate businesses (or not). In this scenario, the directive would define the types of internet companies that should comply with requirements. Member States would interpret such definitions. The outcome could be more lightweight regulation for Internet businesses. However, the approaches could vary considerably among Member States. Media state that Belgium, Denmark, Sweden and the UK would favour this option. 

Option 2: Leave it to the Commission to decide who falls under the scope of the directive and which requirements they need to comply with. Under this proposal, Member States would send a national list of operators to the Commission (which they think fall under the category of providing critical services). The Commission would then set up a central list and consult with a (newly set up) cooperation group of national authorities before adopting it through an “implementing act” (which, by the way, would bypass the European Parliament and national governments). This would be a clear step towards harmonisation. Yet, Member States already claimed the right to set up this list.

Other open questions include:

- What security measures do internet services have to have in place? Who defines and imposes them?

- Notification – voluntary or mandatory? If the notification of incidents is mandatory, thresholds would needed to define which companies need to comply.

- Who to notify? If an incident impacts on several Member States, which national authority should be notified (country where the business is established, or where it provides services)?

By Giovanni Seppia (EURid), Chair of CENTR's Board of Directors

According to internetlivestats.com there are over 3.2 billion internet users. How many community representatives have been involved so far in the IANA Stewardship transition and ICANN Accountability processes which should be as multistakeholder as possible? Less than 2000? It might be an overestimated figure.

By Samantha Dickinson

2015 is definitely turning out to be The Year of Internet Governance. With the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) holding its High Level Meeting to review the 10th anniversary of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in December this year, the regular calendar of Internet governance-related meetings have taken on increased significance this year. And so it was with last week’s two-day Global Conference on Cyber Space 2015 (GCCS2015) in The Hague. 

Read more

 

On 21-22 April 2015, RIPE NCC, together with the Serbian National Internet Domain Registry (RNIDS) and the Serbian Open eXchange (SOX.rs), hosted a very successful South East Europe (SEE) 4 Regional Meeting in Belgrade, Serbia. The event attracted 235 participants and focused on the sharing of technical knowledge and finding areas for regional cooperation.
 

By Samantha Dickinson

2015 is definitely turning out to be The Year of Internet Governance. With the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) holding its High Level Meeting to review the 10th anniversary of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in December this year, the regular calendar of Internet governance-related meetings have taken on increased significance this year. And so it was with last week’s two-day Global Conference on Cyber Space 2015 (GCCS2015) in The Hague.

DNS.PT, together with ISOC Portugal Chapter, FCT and ICANN (only for the second session) are organizing next May, 12, a debate on the following themes: 1st session, morning: Net neutrality and, 2nd session, afternoon: IANA Transition and ICANN Accountability. 

The event to be held May 12, 2015, HF F

It is the view of the European Commission that Google is abuse its dominant position as search engine to prioritise its own shopping results over competitors’ offers. If found guilty, Google could face a fine of USD 6.4 billion. The Commission launched investigations after Foundem, a European shopping search company, filed suit against Google. Android has also come under investigation. Despite being an open source operating system, many of its key apps are proprietary, obliging manufacturers to conclude special agreements with Google if they wish to include them – discouraging the inclusion of rival applications.