European Commission Says It Will Cancel All 300,000 UK-Owned .EU Domains (theregister.co.uk)

Brexit has hit the internet, and not in a good way. From a report: In an official statement Thursday, the European Commission announced it will cancel all 300,000 domains under the .eu top-level domain that have a UK registrant, following Britain's eventual departure from the European Union. "As of the withdrawal date, undertakings and organizations that are established in the United Kingdom but not in the EU and natural persons who reside in the United Kingdom will no longer be eligible to register .eu domain names," the document states, adding, "or if they are .eu registrants, to renew .eu domain names registered before the withdrawal date." Going even further, the EC suggested that existing .eu domains might be cancelled the moment Brexit happens -- expected to be 366 days from now -- with no right of appeal.

Comments

Petty.

[MachineShedFred]

Is it just me, or does this seem fairly petty and petulant? Yeah, sure, the UK won't be in the Eurozone any more, but all you're doing is (in the best case) generating revenue by making all those domain owners re-register with addresses in continental Europe, and inviting a land rush for speculators and scammers in the worst case.

Seems pretty stupid.

Re:Petty.

[Joce640k]

Rules is rules.

They voted to leave, they've got nothing coming.

Re:Petty.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing someone will register fuck.eu

Re: Petty.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll register fc.uk.eu

Think about it

Re:Petty.

[Hylandr]

I would normally mod this down as a troll but I am going to feed it instead:

What the Brexit and Trump votes proved is more people that don't buy the media's bullshit voted than those that do believe the bullshit.

And honestly, anyone that thinks they are better than anyone else for any reason are the problem here. Accusations aren't evidence, calling people xenophobic, racist, small minded etc doesn't make them so. It just makes them ( rightfully ) not like you, your cause, or your candidate.

It had nothing to do about gender, race etc. It had to do with the candidate was utterly reprehensible in her conduct and track record. As exemplified by the meltdown of her constituency afterward. Based on that fact alone we know we dodged a bullet. The media has been bordering on treason in it's 'reporting' of Trump and his activities.

Re:Petty.

[hazardPPP]

So far this action tells me that Brexit may have been the best thing to happen to the UK for quite some time. Right now it's just the .eu TLD. ( that we know of ) With a clearly petulant EU leadership that's appointed and not elected I shudder to imagine where the line would be drawn between necessity and atrocity.

You have a bunch of misconceptions here.

The EU commission is no more "appointed, not elected" than the UK government.

First, the UK head of state is an unelected, herediatery monarch (this is not criticism - I happen to think this is good thing, actually - just a statement of fact). No equivalent of this exists at the EU level. There is no King of Europe.

Second, the UK has an upper house of parliament, the House of Lords, which is totally unelected - it's a mix of heredietary and appointed positions. Appointed, ostensibly, by the Queen, but in reality nowadays by the Prime Minister. There is no equivalent at the EU level - the EU has a unicameral, fully democratically elected (directly by the citizens of each country) parliament.

Third, while we think of the UK government as "elected", legally speaking it is appointed. By custom, the Prime Minister and the other ministers are all of Members of Parliament (although this is not legally required), however technically no one elected David Cameron or Theresa May Prime Minister in a nationwide vote - they were elected MPs for Whitney and Maidenhead, respectively, only by the voters in those constituencies. The Queen appoints the Prime Minister and his government. This is different from other parliamentary systems, where the president/king proposes a prime minister and a government, and the parliament approves or explicitly elects it - the UK parliament does not approve a government before it takes office - however it can pass a motion of no confidence in that government and bring it down. That is why, in order for the government to function, the Queen must appoint a government that can "command a majority" in the House of Commons. So, the government is de facto, indirectly elected by the MPs, while the MPs are directly elected by the people - so the government is de facto, indirectly elected by the people.

How does this compare to the EU? How is the European Commission appointed? It starts with the EU parliamentary elections. Then, the European Council, "taking into account the elections to the European Parliament" (Article 17 of the Lisbon Treaty), proposes a candidate for the President of the Commission. The candidate is chosen by qualified majority voting. The European Council consits of the heads of state or heads of government of each member state, who are all either directly elected (e.g. the President of France) or indirectly elected (e.g. the Prime Minister of the UK) by the people. So the council proposes a candidate to the European Parliament. The Parliament must then explicitly approve, i.e. elect the President of the Commission - an absoluty majorty of MEPs must vote in his favour. The MEPs are directly elected by the people in the member states. Then the President must propose a Commission to Parliament - i.e. the other commissioners, one for each portfolio. Each potential commissioner is then scrutinized in front of the relevant committes in Parliament. Finally, Parliament votes on the Commission as a whole, and an absolute majority of MEPs must vote for it to be approved. Then the European Council, again by a qualified majority decision, appoints the entire Commission. So you see, on paper, this is actually more democratic than the UK process for appointing a government. No unelected heads of state are involved. Each candidate for a post gets parliamentary scrutiny (like hearings in the US senate before secretary appointments). The parliament must explicitly approve i.e. elect the commission.

Finally, in the UK people indirectly vote for a Prime Minister because they know that their local candidate for MP which they are voting for is a member of

Is the UK really going to go through with this?

[rsilvergun]

so far none of the benefits of Brexit have materialized and all of the promises have been walked back. I doubt they'll even get to cut back on immigration. Immigrants are usually brought in for cheap labor, I can't see the ruling class giving that up. It looks to me like you've got all the downsides and none of the up. Just do a second referendum already.

Re:Is the UK really going to go through with this?

[rahvin112]

It's too late, they already initiated the withdrawal. It happens now regardless. The only thing left to do is negotiate some type of trade agreement if possible.

To get back into the EU the UK would have to make some major concessions, including adopting the EU currency. I'd imagine the rest of the EU would extract a pretty penny from the UK to be let back in and they'd always be a second class member afterwards unlike the first class founding member they were before leaving.

No, Brexit is happening, there's no turning back and it's going to hurt the UK far more than the Brexit campaigners claimed. The UK is likely to lose half their banking industry to this.

Re:Is the UK really going to go through with this?

[klingens]

No, the UK could go back if they wished. The brit rebate by "I want my money back!" Thatcher however wouldn't be reinstated. That would probably be the main concession demanded by the others. Basically, no more special circumstances for the UK, they have to be a member like any other which there were not anymore for many years. So it would cost the UK a lot monetarily to go back. The Euro is a non-issue. No one would force them to join it.
The problem however is not money in any form, it's UK politics. It would kill the tories, split them up basically. And of course would sink PM May.

The UK is no founding member of anything. They joined the EU in 1973 or so. Very much a Jonny come lately. Founding members of what became today's EU were Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and West Germany in 1957 in Rome. This morphed into the 1967 "European Communities" which is what the UK joined in 1973 together with Denmark and Ireland.

Who voted to what?

[SuperKendall]

Not all of the people in the UK voted to leave. But way to make them realize they should have, by childishly having an un-elected shadow government steal a bunch of domains.

This action makes me think less of the EU, which I had thought was impossible.

Re:Who voted to what?

[thaylin]

your country voted to leave, it is something you should h ave seen coming, as you will no longer be legally eligible for the domain, trying to have your cake and eat it too so to speak

Re:Who voted to what?

[gravewax]

".EU is the domain extension for the country code EU. It is a ccTLD (country code top level domain) for the European Union. It's open to organisations or residents that reside in the EU member states". The UK is leaving the EU, why should organisations and regulations change in the EU to accommodate the UK?

Re:Who voted to what?

[AmiMoJo]

TLD admin organizations can set whatever rules they like. Some countries allow anyone to register, some require them to be resident. The EU is one of the latter.

So once outside the EU, naturally they will not suspend the rules for the UK unless the UK negotiated that as part of the post-brexit deal. Since the UK has a very weak position and desperately needs things like financial service access that are near impossible to get, .EU domains are going to be way down that list of things to ask for.

Plus, the UK would have to contribute to the registra operating costs, which would just further annoy Brexiteers.

By the way, the EU is not a shadow government or unelected.

Re:Who voted to what?

[AmiMoJo]

The EU TLD is for sites based in the EU. The idea is to give EU citizens confidence that it is an EU site operating under EU rules on things like privacy.

Since the point of brexit is supposed to be ditching those rules and leaving the EU, it makes no sense to allow UK entities to have EU domains.

If the UK wants to negotiate access and agrees to abide by the rules, fine. But the UK doesn't want that. Agreeing to the rules is one of the government's red lines, although so far they have not meant much.

Re: Who voted to what?

[dgatwood]

Arguably, the interests of the people as a whole are with a united Europe that allows the free flow of workers and tourists from country to country without a cumbersome visa process. The problem is, Great Britain was never really part of the EU. It just paid lip service to it. They used their own currency, they required passport screening to travel via train to France, etc. So they got a lot of the headaches of being in the EU, while missing a lot of the benefits.

And to the extent that a shared currency and freedom of travel between EU member countries is beneficial, it is also to the benefit of the people of the EU to make an example of Britain, to make it as painful as possible for them, to discourage anyone else from leaving, because every time any country leaves, all the other countries are worse off.

Re:Who voted to what?

[AmiMoJo]

Brexiteers assume all rules were designed to punish the UK. Even the ones we wrote, like Article 50, are just an EU plot to frustrate Brexit.

It's not just ccTLDs either. Today the EU confirmed that we would lose access to the Galileo satellite navigation system. We could negotiate access to some service/manufacturing contacts, but all secrets like military decryption keys would be off limits. As any sensible person would expect.

Re:Who voted to what?

[serviscope_minor]

What kind of fucking moron cares about the "EU's best interest?"

Well, the extant members of the EU for one.

If you don't like the rules of a club and decide to leave and stop paying your fees, you can't really complain when you can't use the gym any more. Or the pool. and the sauna's off limits too. Yep and the sports massage even though you had to pay extra for it.

Oh and you also don't get the affiliate discounts at the loca supermarket either.

SERIOUSLY HOW THE FUCK IS THAT A SURPRISE TO ANYONE???

"we" (ha!) voted to leave, now the people who voted to do so are throwing a total shit fit about not getting al the cool shit we got as members. .eu domains are for members of the EU, end of. Not members and random whiny hangers on. Just members.

Re: Who voted to what?

[serviscope_minor]

So they got a lot of the headaches of being in the EU, while missing a lot of the benefits.

No bollocks to that. We benefitted pheomenally from being in the EU.

it is also to the benefit of the people of the EU to make an example of Britain, to make it as painful as possible for them, to discourage anyone else from leaving, because every time any country leaves, all the other countries are worse off.

They're not even doing that. There's no need to do that. Just letting us leave, and by leave, I mean you know leave where we don't get all the stuff we had before---just letting us leave is more than bad enough.

they don't need to make an example of; we're making a fine example of ourselves without any assistance.

Re:Who voted to what?

[alex3772]

.eu domains are for members of the EU, end of. Not members and random whiny hangers on. Just members.

Actually that is not entirely correct. .eu domains are also usable by residents/entities in Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. However these countries are EFTA members and abide by the rules of the EU.

Re:Who voted to what?

[serviscope_minor]

The current domain holders should be grandfathered

Oh they should, should they?

Why? The rules specifically state that owners must be in the EU (plus Norway etc).

It was an obvious consequence of Brexit that we would lose access to this. Because it's in the fucking rules of the registrar which are public.

Getting pissy because you didn't bother to figure out what actually leaving meant before voting leave isn't going to help. If you voted against your own interests out of ignorance and stupidity it's not the EU's fault or their job to fix it for you, especially when you're determined not to lift a finger to fix it for yourself.

That's you in the general sense, not you specifically since IIRC you are in fact American.

Re:Who voted to what?

[JBMcB]

why should the EU go out of its way?

The EU is actively cancelling the accounts. Keeping the accounts would entail them doing nothing. I would say they are going out of their way to cancel them.

sorry but that seems idiotic, The UK is screwing over the EU but the EU should go out of its way to accommodate that?

In what way is the UK "screwing over" the EU? The EU charter has a provision saying a country can leave if it wants to. The UK is taking advantage of that provision.

especially as people have plenty of options to keep the domain name just by registering a local presence in the EU which many of the registry services offer.

Keep in mind that we're talking about an entry in a lookup table here. TLD owners can put whatever rules they want on their TLDs, but seriously, most do not care that much.

Re:Who voted to what?

[gravewax]

The UK doesn't get to get the advantages of leaving the EU and the advantages of staying, why would any country stay when they can just move out yet keep all the benefits. The reality is part of leaving the EU is leaving behind all the EU regulations and rules AND all the EU benefits. you can't be just a little bit pregnant here.

Re:Who voted to what?

[jeremyp]

The European commission is staffed by people appointed by the democratically elected governments of Europe. The Council of Europe is comprised of ministers from the democratically elected governments of Europe.

Re:Who voted to what?

[hazardPPP]

What kind of fucking moron cares about the "EU's best interest?" The EU ostensibly exists for the convenience of its members states, and those states exist for the convenience and welfare of their citizens.

The "EU's best interest" is shorthand here for the "best interest of its member states" i.e. "the best interest of the citizens of the EU member states".

This is what UK Leavers don't get - that in the other 27 EU states, people don't generally hate the EU and don't want to get out, and feel that they have a common interest to defend. This is demonstrated by the EU27 maintaining a common front in the Brexit talks, whereas the UK side thought it would be easy to play them against one another to get a good deal for the UK.

Re:Who voted to what?

[Freischutz]

Brexiteers assume all rules were designed to punish the UK. Even the ones we wrote, like Article 50, are just an EU plot to frustrate Brexit.

It's not just ccTLDs either. Today the EU confirmed that we would lose access to the Galileo satellite navigation system. We could negotiate access to some service/manufacturing contacts, but all secrets like military decryption keys would be off limits. As any sensible person would expect.

The EU does not have to punish the UK for leaving, Brexit is a completely self-punishing exercise. Still, it amuses me how the Brexiteers manage to cast every consequence of Brexit as unfair punishment, persecution and dispossession. Just changing the context a bit brings out their irrational entitlement complexes: I'm leaving the golf club and now I'm no longer allowed to make use of club discounts, UNFAIR!!! I'm leaving the golf club and now I'm no longer allowed to get free golf lessons, PUNISHMENT!!! I'm leaving the golf club and now I'm no longer allowed to play their courses for free, BULLYING!! Now for most of us these would be natural and normal consequences of leaving the golf club, to a Brexiteer these are violations of his/her fundamental human rights. The average Brexiteers attitude can be summed up in three words: .... BWAAAAAAH!!! ... BABY WANT!!!

sacrebl.eu!

[trb]

will be up for grabs.

https://whois.eurid.eu/en/sear...

There are already benefits

[SuperKendall]

One hard benefit the UK is receiving is not having to pay the EU membership fee - savings of around 8.5 billion pounds.

Not sure what other promises you think are being "walked back". Not having to be members in a government that would pull such a petty stunt seems like a huge win. You are who you partner with, after all...

Registering vs cancelling existing, in-use domains

[raymorris]

To register a .Eu domain, you're supposed to have some connection to the EU. You do not have to prove every 30 days that you're still in the EU to prevent it being cancelled. It makes since to say "UK residents without any connection to the EU can no longer register EU domains". That's no what they are doing.

These domains were properly registered by EU people, who have built communities and businesses under these names. Taking them away, after they were properly and legitimately registered and may have been in active use for several years is petty.

Additionally, they are cancelling all the domains registered to organizations with UK addresses - who may also have offices throughout the UK! Many companies with a UK address are also active in other parts of Europe and may very well qualify for .Eu domains. Heck, the EU itself has offices in England, who have registered at least one domain. I wonder if the EU leadership realises they are cancelling their own domain.

Re:.su still exists (Re:Petty.)

[serviscope_minor]

This looks more like spouses divorcing and threatening each other's items out of sheer spite.

Why don't people understand? We are LEAVING. We chose to leave (for some reason). that means we don't get any of the stuff any more.

That's what fucking leaving means.

Re: "2. REVOCATION OF REGISTERED DOMAIN NAMES"

[Obfuscant]

I can only assume that your ellipses were intended to create confusion and a dishonest interpretation of the actual statement, because they elided a critical component of that section. It did not say that the EU registrars WOULD revoke any domain names. Here is some of what you elided -- the actual active part of that sentence:

... the Registry for .eu will be entitled to revoke such domain name on its own initiative and without submitting the dispute to any extrajudicial settlement of conflicts ...

That is exactly what I said it was. It is a statement of fact. Because entities in the UK will no longer be authorized to hold a .eu domain name, the registrars for the .eu TLD WILL BE ENTITLED TO revoke them. If you don't know the difference between "entitled to" and "will", I suggest any online dictionary.

Cancelled, with no appeal just because your main office is in Belgium.

Belgium is still part of the EU as far as I know, so no, if your main office is in Belgium you are still entitled to a .eu domain and this statement does not apply to you in ANY WAY.

What a sad muckraking attempt.

Re:.su still exists (Re:Petty.)

[bingoUV]

For eligibility, it refers to Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 733/2002. Which says

(b) register domain names in the.eu TLD through any accredited.eu Registrar requested by any:

(i) undertaking having its registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the Community, or

(ii) organisation established within the Community without prejudice to the application of national law, or

(iii) natural person resident within the Community;