1. 1
BRUSSELS – OCTOBER 2010
Mr. Robert MADELIN
To: DIRECTOR – GENERAL
DG “INFORMATION SOCIETY”
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION
From:
A PERSONAL VIEW

2. 2
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Information Society and Media Directorate-General
The Director-General
Brussels, 3 August 2010
INFSO/C1/JD/svc D(2010) 483128
eMail: marius.opran@eesc.europa.eu
NOTE FOR THE ATTENTION OF DR MARIUS-EUGEN OPRAN
MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE BUREAU OF
THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE
GROUP I - RO / REX & TEN
Subject: ICT4EU-SD and the Digital Agenda for Europe
Dear Dr. Opran,
Many thanks for sending me your communication dated July 2008. I note with interest that you have
pursued the work begun some two years ago in the Committee where INFSO contributed with views
and advice.
You will also have noted that the first of the Commission's seven flagship initiatives under
Europe2020 – the Digital Agenda for Europe - was launched by Commissioner Kroes in May of this
year. There are clear points of overlap and I would be interested in having your detailed comments
on our flagship – which included no less than one hundred and one actions and some thirty potential
legislative proposals.
(eSIGNED)
Robert Madelin
Cc: Z. Stančič, A. Peltomäki, Assistants, D. Eckert, K. Ducatel, J. Doyle

3. 3
Distinguished
Mr. Robert MADELIN
DIRECTOR – GENERAL
DG ”INFORMATION SOCIETY AND MEDIA”
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Esteemed Director - General,
Many thanks for Your letter dated August 3rd
and for the remarks related to the content
of the brochure ”ICT for the sustainable development of the European Union” published in 2008
under the auspices of the Group I ”Employers” of ECOSOC. More than this, I want to express my
particular appreciation generated by the fact that You confirmed the existence of a number of points of overlap between our document content and the ambitious
“The Digital Agenda for Europe” launched by H.E. Commissioner Neelie Kroes, Vice President of the European Commission, in May of this year.
First though, I feel very honored by Your proposal to develop a detailed opinion on your
ambitious flagship program. After a brief review of its content, I found that, statistically, it refers to
a total of 16 well-defined areas of interaction IT2G, IT2C and IT2B plus three topics related to Single
Market, Intelligent Transport and International Cooperation. According with the DG “INFSO”
Communication, the program will be implemented through a number of 21 individual - type
"Action Key", accompanied by 45 other supporting actions, 23 obligations of the Member States and
11 adjacent tasks undertaken by the Commission – totally 100. Concerning the legislative action, the
Commission is referring to a number of 6 themes, involving 13 key actions and 29 measures. The
benchmarking will be applied for a number of 6 key performance targets, tracking the evolution of
13 indicators.
As a first impression, I think that DG INFSO should pay a greater attention to “e-Inclusion”
implementation, including emergency practical solutions for a range of current issues of priority in
many Member States and whose solution is urgently required by the governments of those countries
- such as the integration of Roma children by intensive IT training simultaneously in several EU
countries during their schooling period, according with a special program developed within Digital
Agenda. Other spot aspect is referring to the necessity to add to Key Action 7 a special task
concerning the need to change the current training method preparing our technicians only as
defenders, building up to our experts cyber-attack skills because if they will know how to attack,
we’ll obtain a major improvement of our defence, the way of operation used by the cyber -
terrorists looking familiar to our specialists. Another important improvement of our defence
capabilities in this field can be reached by setting up a mobile EU anti – cyber attack unit grouping
the best professional EU experts and equipped with the most modern equipment installed in mobile
containers, ready to assist the European countries and our allies facing cyber – terrorism threats and
attacks.
Respected Director - General,
I hope to successfully complete this task, forwarding You the final report not later than
September 30th
.
Please accept, dear Mr. Robert Madelin, my sincere feelings of high respect and
consideration.
Best regards,
Nr. 554/EC/11.08.2010
EU NOT RESTRICTED
FEDERATIA NATIONALA A
PATRONATELOR SERVICIILOR

4. 4
I wish to express my deep gratitude to Mrs. Irina SOCOL, President & CEO of SIVECO
and to Prof. Dr. Traian C. IONESCU, SIVECO CEO's Adviser, for their professional
remarks and permanent support.
Marius – Eugen Opran
Brussels – October 4th, 2010

5. 5
- Key Action 1 -
Key Action 1: Simplify copyright clearance,
management and cross-border licensing -
by :
KA1(1): Enhancing the governance,
transparency and pan European
licensing for online rights management;
KA1(2): Proposing a Directive on
orphan works;
KA1(3): Review the Directive on Re-
Use of Public Sector Information;
KA1(4): Allowing EU citizens, to benefit
from the full potential of the digital
internal market, including cross-border
and pan-European licenses;
KA1(5): Issue a Green Paper on online
distribution of audiovisual works;
KA1(6): Protection of intellectual
property rights in the online
environment, with the guarantees
provided in the Telecoms Framework.

6. 6
ACTIONS
The Commission will:
Key Action 1: Simplify copyright clearance, management and cross-border licensing by :
KA1(1): Enhancing the governance, transparency and pan European licensing for online
rights management by proposing a framework Directive on collective rights
management by 2010;
MEO: KA1(1)
Since Europe is a union ship, it is desirable and normal to share not only legislation,
economic values etc., but also cultural and historical heritage. Consequently, bringing
down borders which prevent free, unhindered access to such values becomes more and
more a necessity.
The present structures for cross-border collective management of legitimate online music
services - based on models developed for the analogue environment - need to be
improved for music to fulfil its unique potential as a driver for online services.
Revenue achieved with online content services in the US in 2004 was almost 8x higher
than online content revenue produced in Western Europe. As music pervades European
culture and society, only music has the real potential to kick-start online content services.
Regarding the present structures for cross-border collective management of copyright
for the provision of online music services:
The absence of EU-wide copyright licences for online content services makes it difficult
for these music services to take off.
Improving cross-border licensing for music services requires the creation of entirely new
structures for cross-border collective management of copyright.
The optimal solution to improve the cross-border management of copyright should
integrate:
The right of the right-holders to authorise a collecting society of their choice to
manage their works across the entire EU, enhancing the right – holders’ earning
potential;
The right of the cross-border collecting society outside their national territories to
obtain EU-wide licensing of the use made of his works;
The establishment of a competitive environment for management.
With respect to cross-border distribution of royalties, the right-holders freedom to choose
any collecting society in the EU, will be a powerful incentive for these societies to provide
optimal services to all its right-holders, irrespective of their location – thereby enhancing
cross-border royalty payments.
The Member States would have to adopt and to implement a series of principles
supporting this solution as a competitive model for the cross-border management of
copyright works.

7. 7
KA1(2): Create a legal framework to facilitate the digitisation and dissemination of
cultural works in Europe by proposing a Directive on orphan works by 2010, to
conduct a dialogue with stakeholders with a view to further measures on out-of
print works, complemented by rights information databases;
MEO: KA1(2)
Although digital form is by no means a compensation for the original, wide
availability of digitized works of art, orphan works, rare documents and like is a safe
way towards increasing the quality of living by offering access virtually (in the proper
sense and also as a figure or speech) to anybody seeking higher quality of education
without necessarily using traditional ways (visits to museums, access to libraries
located far away etc.).
There are three long-standing assumptions on these orphan works:
Orphan work issue is linked to the lack of appropriate attribution of authorship in
many creative sectors, especially in the area of visual art and photography;
Orphan works were mainly qualified as older works where copyright term by far
exceeds their “commercial” life;
The less commercially successful a work proved to be, the more administrative
effort was necessary to search for possible authors.
Questions concerning the fee to be paid for the digital use of an orphan waiting
for a valid answer with the new Directive:
Whether a collecting society should in fact be able to represent right owners
who are unknown;
Whether a collecting society, after having received the license fee for the use of an
orphan would have any incentive to actively search for the orphan.
Whether a distinction should be made between uses that are for commercial
purposes and those that are exclusively for research and education;
Whether a distinction should be made between published and unpublished orphan
works;
Whether a distinction should be made between published and unpublished orphan
works;
How to ensure that the costs of whatever constitutes a "reasonable" due diligence
search do not outweigh the benefits of digitising the orphan work.
Coupled with these issues is the fact that each sector (books, music, film, sound
recordings, photographs, visual art) exhibit their own specific characteristics so that a
one-size fits all approach to orphan works may not be feasible.
Libraries - notably EBLIDA and the British Library - call for a legislative solution or a
statutory exception:
They further identified the need to couch the problem in terms that would make a
distinction between commercial uses and non-commercial uses such as those for
education and research. This was especially pertinent in view of the fact that much
of what is contained in library collections and archives is in fact material that does
not have an intrinsic commercial value or appeal but whose value is more
academic or cultural.
Both sides acknowledge difficulties relating to rights clearance for orphan works
and further recognise that a reasonable, good-faith due diligence search to locate
the owner of an orphan and/or their heirs should be undertaken prior to using an
orphan work in the context of online libraries.
Both sides recognize that users of orphan works should be protected from liability
for copyright infringement in the event that a right holder would reappear.

8. 8
MEO: KA1(2)/cont.
The Commission should deal with a complex matrix of intentions, from the user and
creators perspective. Either or both intentions can be commercial, academic or non-
commercial, and therefore a single solution to orphan works may not fit everyone
equally well.
On the question of payment and license, therefore the evaluation should start from a
perspective that:
The common objective is the greatest dissemination of works possible;
That overheads to any scheme should be small;
That the intentions of creators are very important, be they public, private,
commercial or non- commercial;
That academic, non-commercial or commercial intent of the user may create
different public policy objectives;
That despite this inherent complexity, solutions should be clear, simple and work
across Europe with as few barriers as possible
On these grounds, we would favour legislation to establish a copyright exception to
allow copyrighted works to be republished in certain special circumstances.
We would favour a solution where:
An exception would require a publisher would have to show that they had made
reasonable efforts to search for the rights holder through specified European rights
data bases, and also in the general public realm;
An exception would then free a publisher from liability for damages if he has failed
despite these reasonable efforts to identify the owner of the rights in a previously
published work;
An exception would allow rights holders to identify themselves and claim royalties
forward of that date for their works;
An exception would allow commercial reuse of commercial works, arguably
including some payment, possibly kept in escrow for the rights holders for a
specified period;
An exception would respect that works previously published under non-commercial
licenses or circumstances would remain non-commercial;
The reuse of a work should be for reproduction only, in a manner which is sensitive
to and in keeping with the original intent; and,
The reuse must respect the moral rights of the authors.
Works that have never been intentionally published have to be treated very
sensitively. Privacy questions as well as historical value of works would be particular
concerns.
On the question of payment for use of commercial orphan works, the Commission
should evaluate the option of selecting the principle of payment, but I have very big
doubts that the payments will reach their creators’ bank accounts.
As a private opinion, I consider that the Commission should avoid a general, paid-for
solution delivered through existing collecting societies. This is for a number of reasons:
Firstly, there are 27 member states – without legislation, which means 279 cross
border licences. This is impractical.

9. 9
KA1(3): By 2012, review the Directive on Re-Use of Public Sector Information, notably
its scope and principles on charging for access and use;
MEO: KA1(3)
Large availability of public sector information allows for the dissemination of good
practices and it should be favoured and encouraged by all means. Supplementary, the
re-use of public sector information leads to reduction in resource consumption,
acceleration of providing solutions to problems and to the possibility of enlarging the
scope of public activities in the citizen’s benefit.
Directive 2003/98/EC on the re-use of public sector information (PSI Directive):
encourages EU Member States to make as much public sector information available for
re-use as possible. Representing an attempt to remove barriers that hinder the re-use of
public sector information throughout the Union, actually the common legislative
framework provided by this directive seems to become obsolete, mainly because of the
enormous technological step forward done by ICT sector during the last 7 years.
All 27 EU Member States have implemented the PSI Directive into their national legal
orders, each of them introducing in local legislation, of course, a “National touch”!
PSI covers all sorts of data generated by public sector bodies - e.g. maps, meteorological,
legal, traffic, financial and economic information - that can be re-used by anyone else in
innovative products such as car navigation systems, weather forecasts, and travel
information applications ("apps") that can be downloaded on smart phones.
Public data that is reused (for free or for a fee) generates an estimated market turnover
of at least € 27 billion in the EU every year, from which: “Only the mobile apps market,
partly based on PSI-generated data, could grow to € 15 billion by 2013” - according with
the declaration of H.E. Mrs Nelie Kroes, EU Commission Vice-President and European
Commissioner for the Digital Agenda.
MEO: KA1(2)/cont.
A licensing solution through collecting societies would re-erect territorial boundaries
member state by member state - this goes against everything the internet is, and
everything the European Union is attempting to achieve. With the Union about to
establish full competency over intellectual property issues, we should be looking to
harmonise our approach to copyright, and remove the obvious barriers to trade it
currently imposes.
Monitoring and ensuring value for money from collecting societies across Europe
could prove to be impossible. I do not believe this is a task the Commission wishes to
take on.
Overall, it is a must to restate that this is a complex issue, but one that must be
addressed.
The underlying problems with copyright should be addressed, such as term and
registration.
The academic, cultural and economic benefits of an orphan works solution could be
very high, and the changes is technology demand that a solution to the problem of
orphan works be found.
As a final remark, I consider that the Broadcasters' archives need a different
(regulatory) solution than orphan works.

10. 10
The Commission should act to realise the full potential of PSI for the EU economy,
imposing to EU Member States to remove remaining barriers to re-use. These include:
discrimination between potential users;
excessive charges for public sector information;
re-use and complex licensing policies;
lack of awareness of what public sector information is available;
public sector bodies fail to understand the real economic potential of their data.
The Governments can stimulate content markets by making public sector information
available on transparent, effective and non-discriminatory terms. This is an important
source of potential growth of innovative on-line services
KA1(4): After an extensive stakeholder dialogue, report by 2012 on the need for
additional measures beyond collective rights management allowing EU citizens,
online content services providers and right-holders to benefit from the full
potential of the digital internal market, including measures to promote cross-
border and pan-European licenses, without excluding or favouring at this stage
any possible legal option;
KA1(5): In preparation thereof, issue a Green Paper addressing the opportunities and
challenges of online distribution of audiovisual works and other creative
content by 2010;
KA1(6): On the basis of the review of the Directive on the Enforcement of Intellectual
Property Rights, and following extensive stakeholder dialogue, report by 2012 on
the need for additional measures to reinforce the protection against persistent
violations of intellectual property rights in the online environment, consistent with
the guarantees provided in the Telecoms Framework and fundamental rights on
data protection and privacy.
MEO: KA1(4) This requires a careful approach, since benefiting freely of availability of
information in digital form might infringe on the intellectual property rights or might hinder
some delicate security issues, especially in connection to the person’s rights to privacy. We
speak about Internet market and we know that anything could be sold, but selling of
sensitive information in the name of freedom of access might have grave consequences!
MEO: KA1(5) This should be a mandatory regulatory instrument, properly dealing with
rights and obligations in connection to the access to information, whatever its form
and purpose.
MEO: KA1(6) - This is a very serious challenge. The wide availability of piracy, practiced at
international scale and encouraged by the uniform pricing policy (e.g. a genuine copy of a
computer operating system has the same price in Germany as in Romania, despite the fact
that the average income of a German is ten fold higher than that of a Romanian - hence the
tendency to use and even abuse of pirate software; the same approach is also applicable in
the entertainment and in other sectors).

11. 11
GENERAL REMARKS ON KA1(4-to-6):
MEO: KA1(4…6)
Copyright laws have been standardized to some extent through international
conventions such as the Berne Convention. Although there are consistencies among
nations' intellectual property laws, each jurisdiction has separate and distinct laws and
regulations about copyright, resulting huge discrepancies between the EU member
states. It is the duty of the Commission to prepare and promote a new set of measures
perfectly fitting, without any discrimination, the rights of the intellectual property
owners from all Community members.
(1) The performance, (2) the reproduction and (3) the distribution of the same musical
works, even when the performance, reproduction and distribution all take place in
the course of a single transmission.
Any solution to the crisis in music licensing must make it easy for licensees to obtain,
from a single source or at least a manageable number of sources, all the necessary
rights for all the musical compositions licensees wish to offer to the public. Such “one-
stop shopping” is essentially available today with respect to performance
rights. However, nothing approaching “one-stop shopping” exists with respect to
reproduction and distribution rights. True “one-stop shopping” would involve: (1) all
the musical compositions one wishes to license, and (2) all necessary rights one wishes
to license.

12. 12
The Single Euro Payment Area (SEPA)
and the interoperable European
eInvoicing - by :
KA2(7): Ensure the completion of the
Single Euro Payment Area (SEPA)
and facilitate the emergence of an
interoperable European eInvoicing
framework through a
Communication.
- Key Action 2 -

13. 13
ACTIONS
The Commission will:
Key Action 2: KA2(7): Ensure the completion of the Single Euro Payment Area (SEPA),
eventually by binding legal measures fixing an end date for migration
before 2010 (It’s Mid-October!) and facilitate the emergence of an
interoperable European eInvoicing framework through a Communication
on eInvoicing and by establishing a multi-stakeholder forum;
MEO (KA2-7): Apart from eInvoicing framework, suitable attention must be given to
payment instruments and, especially, to the security and safety of electronic transactions. It
seems to me that eInvoicing is of a secondary importance since the huge increase of
eCommerce. Here, the rules of the game have been established long time ago in the U.S.
and Europe had no choice but follow suit.
Although Europe has a common currency, it does not have a single market for
electronic payments. Cross-border online transactions are complicated by technical and
legal snags, such as refusal of non-domestic credit cards.
Two key actions designed to facilitate cross-border transactions are proposed:
 To complete the Single Euro Payment Area (SEPA) with binding legal measures.
Member States will also be encouraged to implement swiftly the key directives
supporting the Digital Single Market and to transpose by 2013 the VAT Directive;
 To review the eSignature Directive in order to create an EU – wide secure
eAuthentication system.

14. 14
- Key Action 3 -
KA3(8): REVISION OF THE
eSignature DIRECTIVE AND
INTEROPERABILITY OF SECURE
eAuthentication SYSTEMS:
KA3(9): Impact of the eCommerce
Directive on online;
KA3(10): Implement the Key
Directives supporting the Digital
Single Market;
KA3(11): Transpose the VAT
Directive ensuring equal
treatment for eInvoicing ;

15. 15
KA3(8): In 2011 propose a revision of the eSignature Directive with a view to provide a
legal framework for cross-border recognition and interoperability of secure
eAuthentication systems;
Other actions:
KA3(9): Evaluate by end 2010 the impact of the e-Commerce Directive on online markets
and make proposals.
MEO: KA3(8)
Ordinary people are still afraid that the personal details involved in communicating
over Internet will be intercepted and misused. Authentication could use characteristics
which cannot be mimicked or faked, such as biometric features, but this is still regarded
as an invasion into a person’s privacy and the number of those who are reluctant in
providing biometric samples is and it will remain high, despite the offered improvements
regarding security.
In this respect, the Commission should cooperate with civil society representative
organizations, which can play the role of mediator, dismantling the false perception of
the citizens on eSignature and eAuthentication. This is the only one way to convince the
ordinary people to accept and to support these two performance and indispensable
tools of the future generation of European eCitizen.
The first step of the Directive’s revision should include a number of Citizen’s Debates
Forums to be organized by the DG INFSO mainly in the less developed Member States,
presenting the benefits of these technologies supporting the implementation and the
safe use of the G2C and G2B applications – as basic components of the complex,
universal and never-ending application “eServices” - targeting a better life for the EU
citizens.
MEO: KA3(9)
Please see the comment at Point 8. Again, much is to be learned (not necessarily
copied) from the U.S. experience in the field.
To stimulate online purchasing by consumers and SMEs, European e-Commerce must
be reliable and easy to use, with safe and reliable payment systems and uniform EU
complaint procedures. The Commission should consider an EU-wide system of online
trader certification, similar to system in The Netherlands.
In addition, when making cross-border purchases citizens need confidence that their
personal data is secure; privacy must be guaranteed and personal data must be
stored safely.
Main focus to be put on e-Commerce involving children, with appropriate rules on
Codes of Conduct.
A special attention should be paid to Online Gambling, which is currently outside of
the scope of the Directive and, in relation to which, there are a number of complaints
concerning cross-border activities – i.e. the requests of the authorities from DK, DE, IT
and NL demanding the online gambling service providers from other Member States
to block access to their websites for citizens living in those states. It is the duty of the
Commission to initiate the appropriate action to deal with these complaints and, to
examine the need for and scope of a possible new Community initiative.

16. 16
Member States should:
KA-3(10): Implement swiftly and coherently the key Directives supporting the digital
single market, including the Services Directive, Unfair Commercial Practices
Directive and the Telecoms Framework;
KA-3(11): Transpose by 2013 the VAT Directive ensuring equal treatment for eInvoicing
with paper invoices.
MEO: KA3(10)
The notion should be properly defined and applied. Digital Single Market can easily
convert into monopoly if free competition is not allowed to not only exist, but also
develop. Without this, Digital Single Market will become yet another bureaucratic
exercise.
MEO: KA3(11)
This is part of a far more complex and large issue, namely gradually replacing
paperwork with electronic documents. This is a desirable action in any organization
one could name:
Government;
Education;
Health care;
Justice;
Local administration;
Inter – state relationship.
In many cases, a document is initially issued in paper form. To circulate it, review,
amend etc. multiple copies of the same original are produced and distributed; tracking
their circulation throughout an organization, even if small in size, becomes an ordeal,
let alone the work required to collect and implement amendments, comments a.o. The
alternative of electronic documents relieves the organizations from such burdens and,
whenever needed, either a hard copy is made and authenticated or an electronic
document endorsed by a proper digital signature is generated.
This application can be developed and implemented only in connection with
eSignature, eStamp and eBanking, and using strong encryption algorithms.

17. 17
- Key Action 4 -
KA4(12): Review the EU Data Protection
Regulatory framework
KA4(13): An optional contract law instrument
complementing the Consumer Rights Directive;
KA4(14): An EU-wide Online Dispute Resolution
system for eCommerce transactions;
KA4(15): Proposals in the field of Collective
Redress;
KA4(16): Issue a Code of EU Online Rights;
KA4(17): Create a stakeholder platform for EU
online Trust Marks;
KA4(18): An increased harmonisation of
numbering resources for provision of Business
Services across Europe;
KA4(19): Improve the European Radio Spectrum
Policy Programme;
KA4(20): Investigate the cost of non-Europe in
Telecommunication Markets.

18. 18
ACTIONS
The Commission will:
KA4(12): Review the EU data protection regulatory framework with a view to enhancing
individuals' confidence and strengthening their rights, by the end of 2010;
Other actions:
KA4(13): Propose by 2012 an optional contract law instrument complementing the
Consumer Rights Directive to overcome the fragmentation of contract law, in
particular as regards the online environment;
KA4(14): Explore by 2011, via a Green Paper, initiatives on Consumer Alternative Dispute
Resolution in the EU with a view to making proposals for an EU-wide Online
Dispute Resolution system for eCommerce transactions by 2012;
KA4(15): Explore proposals in the field of collective redress, based on stakeholder
consultation;
MEO: KA4(15)
Collective redress is a mechanism to seek redress when multiple consumers are harmed
by the same or a similar practice of a trader (e.g. by regularly overcharging all their
customers). In the EU, 76% of consumers would be more willing to defend their rights in
court if they could join together with other consumers.
MEO: KA4(12)
This is a MUST. It is obvious that, up to now, despite efforts made by those in charge
with disseminating knowledge on data protection and providing lucrative tools to
those interested has failed to convince the population at large about the benefits
derived from enforcing strict data protection by using the fast developing ICT
infrastructure and instruments.
The Commission should cooperate with civil society representative associations,
organizing a number of Citizen’s Debates Forums mainly in the less developed
Member States, presenting the benefits of the ICT technologies and reinforcing the
trust of citizens in eServices.
MEO: KA4(13)
We believe in the benefits brought about by transposing into reality this proposal. The
consumer is often unaware of existing provisions defending his rights and, given the
fragmentation and non-uniformity of the legislation in the field, he/she is unable to
defend his/her legitimate rights. Unitary law instruments, widely advertised, would
prevent the consumer falling into various traps set, at the boundary of law, by
unscrupulous goods or service providers.
MEO: KA4(14)
Should be accompanied by special IT training programs for the judges of the
Commercial Courts and for the referees of the Commercial Disputes Courts with the
National Chambers of Commerce and Industry.

19. 19
KA4(16): Issue a Code of EU Online Rights by 2012 that summarises existing digital user
rights in the EU in a clear and accessible way, complemented by an annual
sweep of breaches of online consumer protection law and appropriate
enforcement measures, in coordination with the European Network of Consumer
Protection Agencies;
MEO: KA4(15)
Putting in place a policy mix of tools which can be either non-binding or binding. The
option combines;
Promoting collective mediation or arbitration;
Recommending to Member States that they allow consumers to bring small mass
claims under their small claims procedure:
Enabling consumer public authorities who are members of the EU enforcement
network to require traders to compensate consumers or to skim off the profit of
the traders;
Encouraging business to improve complaint handling schemes and raising
consumers’ awareness.
Proposing a non-binding or binding EU measure to ensure that a judicial collective
redress procedure exists in all Member States. This would mean that every consumer
throughout the EU would be able to obtain adequate redress in mass cases.
EU legal systems are very different from the US legal system, which is the result of a
combination of several elements (punitive damages, contingency fees, opt-out, pre-trial
discovery procedures etc.).
US practice will be not introduced in Europe being inappropriate to EU traditions,
generally encouraging a competitiveness culture and not a litigation one.
Impact on business:
Removing the unfair competitive advantage;
Legal certainty;
A EU solution will eliminate legal uncertainty with one EU wide system for the Single
Market.
MEO: KA4(16)
Again, this is a MUST. On one hand, it will become easier to know, understand and
properly use existing legislation, some provisions of which might be hidden in unexpected
other legislative documents. On the other hand, the production of a Code of EU Online
Rights will give the opportunity to account for and critically analyse the domain
legislation in full, which would emphasize missing parts, contradicting parts or
overlapping parts.
THE MAIN PROBLEM: How to best convince the consumers to trust on the Web in order to
start using intensively digital services such as online tax payment, car registration, shopping
and banking?
 European consumer will become a fan of online services only if he will trust the
technology he is using.
 The need of information about their online rights under EU law is crucial for the success
implementation of the program.
 In this respect it is the duty of the Commission to set up a.s.a.p. a Code of EU Online
Rights informing EU citizens in an understandable manner about their Digital Rights.

20. 20
MEO: KA4(19)
Following a June decision by Obama Administration in the US to free up its 500 Mhz
band as part of its wireless broadband initiative, in November 2009, the Parliament and
the Council agreed to modify EU telecoms rules and called on the Commission to propose
a multi-annual Radio Spectrum Policy Programme (RSPP).
The objective of the programme is to “set out the policy orientations and objectives for
the strategic planning and harmonization of the use of radio spectrum”. The EU
spectrum policy, to be unveiled today, tells Member States to wind down analogue
services to make way for more digital services, thus freeing up bandwidth to higher
broadband penetration in rural areas, for example. The policy will also accommodate
demand for mobile and wireless services, like satellite positioning system on smart
phones.
Switching from Analogue to Digital - the Digital Switchover: Brussels proposed to
allocate the 790 – 860 MHz sub-band to telecom operators to allow them to exploit the
“Digital Dividend”. The 800 MHz band ranks among the most valuable freed
frequencies, since it travels long distances and through buildings.
KA4(17): Create a stakeholder platform by 2012 for EU online trust marks, notably for
retail websites.
ACTIONS
The Commission will:
KA4(18): Propose measures for an increased harmonisation of numbering resources for
provision of business services across Europe by 2011;
KA4(19): On the basis of the European Radio Spectrum Policy Programme, coordinate
the technical and regulatory conditions applying to spectrum use and, where
necessary, harmonise spectrum bands to create economies of scale in equipment
markets and allow consumers to use the same equipment and avail themselves
of the same services across the EU.
MEO: KA4(17) - This might be one of the best ways to encourage people to use electronic
preponderantly facilities as opposed to classical ways of procuring goods and services.
People often believe in others’ experience and “good practices” are readily embraced by
many. The danger that some villain businesses will intoxicate the public information with
biased opinion still exist (see the blogs associated to press releases etc., on which a flood of ill
intended comments could contribute by modifying the sense of the initial, genuine piece of
information), but this can be fought against by using tight control on the access to trust
mark site and processes and verifying opinions which look too far away from a decent
average. Anyway, common sense should prevail.
MEO: KA4(18)
The action is not only desirable, but also needed. Registration will allow easier tracking
of those offering business services in an electronic form by using specific protection
instruments (electronic signature, secured communication channels, authentication by
trusted agencies etc.).

21. 21
MEO: KA4(19)/cont.
The EU has laid down two deadlines in its RSPP :
 Member States should have completed the transfer from analogue to digital
broadcasting by January 2012;
 Freed spectrum should be available for wireless services by 2013.
In rural and remote areas in particular, wireless and mobile networks will play a
fundamental role in bridging the gap between the digital “haves” and “have not”.
Those rural areas that are not connected could be the focal point of public funding, but
only if it does not distort healthy infrastructure competition.
The Commission preference for wireless services has riled some interest groups, who
argue that a push for wireless will tip the market in mobile operators’ favour.
Actually we can conclude that the EU’s telecom market is not competitive enough.
There are fears that the competitive situation will significantly worsen if measures are
not take to prevent discriminatory conduct in the delivery of the next-generation
services, where current evidence in a number of countries is not encouraging.
Our service providers deploy between 100 and 200 Mb speeds throughout Europe.
Reaching potentially over 100 Million European households, cable can help achieve
50% of the ”Digital Agenda”.
The spectrum enabling high speed mobile broadband should be divided between
operators in a fair and pro-competitive manner to ensure choice and affordability in
mobile broadband services for consumers.
The Commission’s 2013 objective of “Broadband for All” can only be met if satellite
plays an integral role: satellite operators are already connecting thousands of users per
month to broadband Internet. Satellite operators are also capable of providing 30
Mbps services, if market demand supports it. It is unfortunate that the Broadband
Communication did not recognize that only through satellite coverage can these
services be extended to all citizens in Europe, a strength which is, by contrast well –
recognized in the RSPP Communication.
An additional spanner in the works is that of interference – a buzzing noise – on
devices. Questions: (1) What constitutes harmful interference? (2) How much of this will
hit TV and radio once mobile gets hold of more of their spectrum?
Making more and harmonized spectrum available quickly throughout the Union is
crucial for mobile broadband. Opening up additional spectrum for mobile broadband
services is essential to bridge the Digital Divide and to meet rapidly consumer demand.
Considering the growing importance of mobile ICT, Europe should move quickly
towards a more market-based approach to spectrum management, with more
empowerment of market actors and the introduction of more widespread spectrum
trading, and with less national bureaucratic prescription on bandwidth allocation.
The Commission must be mindful to protect the interests of the citizens when working
with global ICT companies to implement the Digital Agenda, because the interests of
European citizens and those of the global ICT companies are not always aligned.
As a general principle of policy, the public interest – the "public good" – should have
primacy over private and business interests. It is clear that the market alone cannot
properly regulate itself for the benefit of the public good. Therefore, a strong regulatory
framework is needed to promote the interests of the greater number of citizens, as
intended by the 2020 strategy.

22. 22
MEO: KA4(19)/cont.
The Commission should take any possible measures to ensure that Member States
rigorously enforce the Regulatory Framework for Electronic Communications and that
implementation is even, balanced and universal in all 27 member states.
Member States should be encouraged by the Commission to assert their national
interests in the development and use of trunk-level transmission and switching
networks for the achievement of national policy objectives: like closing the broadband
gap. This can be achieved by working with Telco’s in Public - Private Partnerships.
The European Union should vest responsibility in an appropriate regulatory authority,
including members of the European Agency for Fundamental Rights, to implement
effectively the Critical Information Infrastructures Protection (CIIP) across the EU.
KA4(20): Conduct by 2011 an investigation into the cost of non-Europe in
telecommunication markets to take further measures to reinforce the benefits
of the single market.
MEO: KA4(20)
This seems to be a formidable task, albeit very useful. Non - EU market is very difficult
to discover, let alone to evaluate. Globalization of electronic services and the huge
and diverse arsenal of tools used by non-EU players can represent major obstacles in
bringing to a successful end this project.

23. 23
- Key Action 5 -
KA5(21): Reform the rules on implementation of ICT
standards in EU
KA5(22): Appropriate rules for essential intellectual property
rights and licensing conditions in standard-setting, including
for ex-ante disclosure;
KA5(23): Link between ICT standardisation and public
procurement to help public authorities to use standards to
promote efficiency and reduce lock-in;
KA5(24): Adopting a European Interoperability Strategy and
European Interoperability Framework;
KA5(25): Measures to lead significant market players to
license Interoperability Information ;
KA5(26): Apply the European Inter-operability Framework
at national level;
KA5(27): Implement commitments on interoperability and
standards in the Malmö and Granada Declarations.

24. 24
ACTIONS
The Commission will:
KA5(21): As part of the review of EU standardisation policy, propose legal measures on ICT
interoperability by 2010 to reform the rules on implementation of ICT standards
in Europe to allow use of certain ICT for a home and consortia standards;
Other actions:
KA5(22): Promote appropriate rules for essential intellectual property rights and licensing
conditions in standard-setting, including for ex-ante disclosure, in particular
through guidelines by 2011;
KA5(23): Issue a Communication in 2011 to provide guidance on the link between ICT
standardisation and public procurement to help public authorities to use
standards to promote efficiency and reduce lock-in.
MEO: KA5(21)
PROPOSAL: Regarding the future Procurements for Computer Parts, Peripherals (also
including Home Appliances and Real Estate) by Administration, companies and
individuals, we should set up and implement a new EU Standard on Energy
Consumption and Efficiency (SECE) for ICT hardware, home appliances, also homes
and buildings.
As EU replica of the US “Energy Star” Joint Program, SECE - as a pure European
Extended Program for Energy Efficiency covering the IT&C, home appliances
industries including lighting, also domestic, industrial, commercial & office homes and
buildings - will allow EU Citizens and Community Business to choose properly their
acquisitions in order:
 to reduce the overall energy bill;
 to protect the Environment through Energy Efficient Products and Practices.
The main tasks of SECE will be:
 to define new EU power consumption & energy efficiency – standards;
 to classify and label according to those new standards, all existing IT&C and home
appliances manufacturers, equipments and models.
During the development process of SECE, the specialists should take into
consideration two major critical factors:
 The attempt to bridge the gap between ICT experts and Decision Makers on a
political & economic standpoint is in this regard crucial;
 The actual amplitude of “Digital Divide” phenomenon at the EU level - the
enormous differences between countries inside Europe, despite the fact that WE
share the same Legal Framework!
MEO: KA5(23)
What can expect different categories of users from SECE, covering the hardware areas of
IT&C, home & office appliances industries - incl. lighting, and domestic, industrial,
commercial & office real estate and public buildings?
SECE for domestic habitations:
 Help Citizens to make Energy efficient choices;

25. 25
MEO: KA5(23)/cont.
 Energy efficient choices potentially allows families to save one third of their
Energy bill;
 Offers tools and resources to individuals looking for major improvements in
their homes, reducing the energy bills and increasing home comfort.
SECE for Business Community and for Public Authorities:
 A strategic approach to Energy Management, saving money on two sides: the
bottom line and environment—as typical approaches;
 Will also help to measure current energy performance, to set goals and track
savings;
 Offer a proven energy management strategy;
KA5(24): Promote interoperability by adopting in 2010 a European Interoperability
Strategy and European Interoperability Framework;
KA5(25): Examine the feasibility of measures that could lead significant market players to
license interoperability information to report by 2012.
MEO-KA5(24):
INTEROPERABILITY is, perhaps, the main issue in effectively implementing the full set of
EU policies. Based on guide lines available, the EU Member States have adapted existing
systems as to comply with EU recommendations and regulations.
However, given the large spectrum of such systems, extreme diversity in economic power,
culture and traditions and based on the need to keep restrictions to a minimum, the
interoperability issue has been left so far as a rather second priority preoccupation.
With the expansion of the freedom of movement, the effective materialization of the
possibility of any EU citizen to seek employment anywhere within the community, it
became evident that some sectors and services suffer from the lack of proper
interoperability strategy and cannot operate in the proper manner. Healthcare and
education systems are two obvious examples.
Consequently, adoption of an Interoperability Strategy at European level will represent a
great leap forward towards not only speaking about a united Europe, but also fully
enjoying the benefits emerging from this reality.
MEO: KA5(25)
This matter is in tight connection to the previous point. Licensing interoperability cannot
be governed only by market and competition forces; the minimal requirements
provided in the Interoperability Strategy adopted by all member states is the solid
background on which licensing interoperability could be performed.
Consequently, adoption of an Interoperability Strategy at European level will represent
a great leap forward towards not only speaking about a united Europe, but also fully
enjoying the benefits emerging from this reality.

26. 26
Member States should:
KA5(26): Apply the European Interoperability Framework at national level by 2013;
MEO: KA5(26)
The need is too obvious to require further comments. Once a strategy in the field is
approved, several frameworks (meant to accommodate the diversity of economic
development and cultural specificities exhibited by the member states) shall be
recommended and each state will be in a better position to choose what it suits best local
conditions, WITHOUT conflicting with EU adopted regulations concerning Interoperability
Defining a set of recommendations and guidelines for eGovernment services so that
public administrations, enterprises and citizens can interact across borders, The European
Interoperability Framework (EIF – 2004) established that the following principles, of a
general nature, should be considered for any eGovernment services to be set up at a
pan-European level:
 Accessibility;
 Multilingualism;
 Security;
 Privacy;
 Subsidiarity;
 Use of Open Standards;
 Assess the benefits of Open Source Software;
 Use of Multilateral Solutions;
Version 2 of the EIF is currently the subject of a political debate, where main
technology/commercial issues relate to the role of lobbying for proprietary
software;
What are we expecting from EIF v2:
To serve as the basis for European seamless interoperability in public services
delivery thereby providing better public services at EU level;
To support the delivery of pan-European eGovernment services by furthering
cross-border and cross-sector interoperability;
To supplement the various National Interoperability Frameworks in the pan-
European dimension;
Further non-technology obstacles that stand in the way of greater EIF adoption
include the facts that EU Member States currently differ widely in terms of:
Scope of Government - services provided, degree of state ownership of businesses,
scale of armed forces, police and border control operations;
Structure of Government - central/local government balance, what departments
exist, how departments interact;
Citizen / State Interaction models - processes related to key life events
Structure of Government - central/local government balance, what departments
exist, how departments interact;
Use of Open Standards;
Assess the benefits of Open Source Software;
Use of Multilateral Solutions;

27. 27
MEO: KA5(26)/cont.
Speaking from an eGovernment perspective, INTEROPERABILITY refers to the
collaboration ability of cross-border services for citizens, businesses and public
administrations. Exchanging data can be a challenge due to language barriers,
different specifications of formats and varieties of categorizations. Many more
hindrances can be identified.
Hence eGovernment applications need to exchange data in a semantically
interoperable manner. This saves time and money and reduces sources of errors.
Fields of practical use are found in every policy area, be it justice, trade or
participation etc. Clear concepts of interpretation patterns are required.
All the organizations dedicated to interoperability have in common that they
want to push the development of the World Wide Web towards the semantic
web. Some concentrate on eGovernment, eBusiness or data exchange in general.
In Europe, for instance, the European Commission and its IDABC programme
issue the European Interoperability Framework. They also initiated the Semantic
Interoperability Centre Europe (SEMIC.EU). A European Land Information
Service (EULIS) was established in 2006, as a consortium of European National
Land Registers. The aim of the service is to establish a single portal through which
customers are provided with access to information about individual properties,
about land and property registration services, and about the associated legal
environment.
KA5(27): Implement commitments on interoperability and standards in the Malmö and
Granada Declarations by 2013.
MEO: KA5(27) - This action could be taken ONLY after all EU member states participated
in the process of generating and adopting a common Interoperability Strategy, detailed by
sectors of activity, had the choice of framework best applicable in a specific country and,
henceforth can commit themselves to implement the provisions of the interoperability
strategy and emerging standards
MALMO Ministerial Declaration on e-Government (18 November 2009) – main
aspects: (1) Joint Vision and Policy Priorities for 2015; (2) Mobility in the Single Market
reinforced by seamless eGovernment services for the setting up and running of a business and
for studying, working, residing and retiring anywhere in the European Union; (3) Efficiency
and effectiveness is enabled by a constant effort to use eGovernment to reduce the
administrative burden, improve organizational processes and promote a sustainable low-
carbon economy; (4) The implementation of the policy priorities made possible by
appropriate key enablers and legal and technical preconditions; (5) Joint Governance and
Implementation of the Policy Priorities.
GRANADA Ministerial Declaration on The European Digital Agenda (19 April 2010) –
main subjects included: (1) Infrastructures; (2) Advanced use of the Open Internet, Security
and Trust; (3) Digital User Rights; (4) Digital Single Market; (5) Public Digital Services; (6)
Strengthening the Competitiveness of Europe's ICT sector; (7) International dimension of the
Digital Agenda; (8) Benchmarking.
The commitments on INTEROPERABILITY and STANDARDS perfectly fit both
Declarations, as basic modules supporting the reinforcement of the Mobility in the
Single Market by seamless eGovernment services for the setting up and running of a
business and for studying, working, residing and retiring anywhere in the European
Union.

28. 28
Integrating these two modern eTools into the complex construction supporting the
success of both targeted Shared Objectives by 2015 and Digital Agenda, Citizens and
businesses will reach a better understanding and a high level of practical skills
regarding the large portfolio of eGovernment services designed around users’ needs
and developed in collaboration with third parties, as well as an increased access to
public information, strengthening transparency and effective means for involvement
of stakeholders in the policy process.

29. 29
- Key Action 6 -
KA6(28): Measures aiming at
a reinforced and high level
Network and Information
Security Policy - including:
Legislative initiatives such
as a modernised European
Network and Information
Security Agency (ENISA);
Measures allowing faster
reactions in the event of
Cyber Attacks, including a
CERT for the EU institutions.

30. 30
ACTIONS
The Commission will:
KA6(28): Present in 2010 measures aiming at a reinforced and high level Network and
Information Security Policy, including legislative initiatives such as a
modernised European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA), and
measures allowing faster reactions in the event of cyber attacks, including a
CERT for the EU institutions;
MEO: KA6(28)
EU can successful approach a high level of cyber security based on a common
framework only through close co-ordination and co-operation of both public and
private sector, i.e. governments and industry.
Moreover, an increasing number of services are available online for consumers,
service providers, governments; they all expect online services to be available
securely, at all times, in all places. The citizens need to trust governments in order
for them to create an effective legal framework and to guarantee legal protection
against data theft, as an ante-condition to use eServices, including eCommerce,
eBanking etc.
This includes a perfectly functioning communications infrastructure to support the
demands of the Digital Society. Moreover, the service and infrastructure
components will need to actively cooperate to provide a reliable environment for
increasingly complex, interdependent and mashed-up services.
We can not develop high quality IT systems and infrastructure without having
globally applicable standards and easy-to-implement procedures.
The wish of enhancing NIS can be obtained only by promoting the best practices
and by raising the affordability of Internet technologies within the public-at-large,
avoiding any discrimination.
ICT is the backbone of both the European economy and its society.
Securing Europe’s CII as well as its systems is vital to facilitate the smooth
functioning of the Internal Market and to create a culture of NIS in Europe and
globally. Recently the Agency identified the most five relevant research areas of
network and information security within the next three to five years:
cloud computing;
real-time detection and diagnosis systems;
future wireless networks;
sensor networks;
supply chain integrity.
ENISA should continue its efforts in assisting the European Commission to develop
a solid approach in CIIP, undertaking a number of new important tasks related
to: Establishment of a Pan European Forum on Good Practices Exchanges;
Establishment of a strategic Public Private Partnership for Resilience;
Development of national CERT capabilities;
Planning and execution of the first pan European Exercise.
Recently the Agency has produced 20 recommendations to different target
audiences, e.g.:
Member States should establish a national information sharing platform and
co-operate with other Member States and Allies;
Private sector should be more transparent in sharing information, improve
preparedness measures based on information exchanged;

31. 31
MEO: KA6(28)/cont.
Research and Academia should quantify the benefits and costs of participating
in platforms; undertaking case-study research into where attacks might have
been prevented, or their impact lessened;
The EU Institutions and ENISA should establish a pan European information
sharing platform for Member States and private stakeholders. The EU
Commission’s European Public - Private Partnership for Resilience (EP3R) is the
main policy initiative in this area.

32. 32
- Key Action 7 -
KA7(29): Measures aiming at a
reinforced and high level Network
and Information Security Policy -
including:
Legislative initiatives such as a
modernised European Network
and Information Security Agency
(ENISA);
Measures allowing faster
reactions in the event of cyber
attacks, including a CERT for the
EU institutions.

33. 33
KA7(29): Present measures, including legislative initiatives, to combat cyber attack
against information systems by 2010, and related rules on jurisdiction in
cyberspace at European and international levels by 2013;
MEO: KA7(29)
Ref. Critical / weak aspects of actual situation and the threats of large-scale cyber-attacks
on CII – GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS :
To speed up the implementation of “Five Pillar Action Plan”:
1. preparedness and prevention: to ensure preparedness at all levels;
2. detection and response: to provide adequate early warning mechanisms and to
minimize the counter - reaction time;
3. mitigation and recovery: to reinforce EU defence mechanisms for CII’s;
4. international cooperation: to promote EU priorities internationally;
5. criteria for the ICT sector: to support the implementation of the Directive on the
identification and designation of EU CII;
Every Member State should have an organisation whose job it is to inform, educate
and support the SME sector on issues regarding cyber security. The large firms can
easily acquire the knowledge they need, but SME’s need support.
EU should appoint an official with responsibility, and sufficient power, to implement
effective protection for CII across the EU.
All Member States should permanently act in order to improve the professional
performances of the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) affiliated with EU
Governmental Emergency Response Teams Group (EGC)
The Commission should accelerate its work on the establishment of the European
Public Private Partnership for Resilience (EP3R) and integrate it with the work of
ENISA & EGC.
Risk Management Best Practice should be the driver of the CIIP policy at all levels. In
particular, potential cost of security and resilience failures should be quantified and
made known to the relevant
responsible stakeholders.
Financial and other penalties should be imposed on stakeholders who fail to fulfil
their responsibilities under a CIIP policy, proportionate to risk and cost of system
failures due to their negligence.
MEO - PROPOSALS ON KA6&7:
Although many EU countries may already have multiple security solutions in place,
proper risk assessment may require the help of an experienced partner – a EU high –
mobility CYBER COUNTER – ATTACK SPECIAL TASK FORCE including top - level
experts with proven expertise in securing government environments.
The need to BUILD UP TO OUR EXPERTS CYBER-ATTACK SKILLS because if they will
know how to attack, we’ll obtain a major improvement of our defense because the way
of operation used by the terrorist will look familiar to our technicians.
BROADEN THE USE OF VIRTUAL PRIVATE NETWORKS (VPNS) – reduce mobile users’
exposure to eavesdropping at Wi-Fi hotspots by implementing a VPN, which allows
secure network accessibility for remote access and mobile computing.
WE SHOULD CHANGE THE CURRENT TRAINING METHOD
DEVELOPING OUR EXPERTS ONLY AS DEFENDERS!

34. 34
MEO: KA7(30)
It might be possible. However, there are great chances that it will consist of merely
documents without proper instruments to contain cybercrime. Cybercrime is nowadays
close to perfection, the variety of means employed overtakes the most vivid
imagination. It is, virtually, impossible to predict the occurrence and characteristics of
new cybercrime attacks in order to prevent them.
By consequence, the main role of the European Cybercrime Platform would be that of
LIMITING the damage produced by an attack and, at the same time, elaborating arms
to prevent occurrence of the SAME KIND OF ATTACK in the future. Even the most
accurate and effective intelligence surveillance and activity cannot efficiently prevent
the launching of cybercrime attacks not previously encountered.
Some main aspects concerning the above-mentioned criminal activities:
The organized crime is a very flexible phenomenon. It would “always go where
the money is and the least risk”. This would require a flexible approach to the new
trends, including large – scale use of Cyber Crime methods.
As regards money laundering, there is a need to differentiate between acts of
money laundering committed by organized crime groups and those committed
by individuals or companies. Concerning the area of counterfeiting and product
piracy, we should outline the importance of these areas, because it is first of all up
to the trademark and copyright owners to protect their rights through preventive
measures. Thus, national, European and international professional associations
could supervise markets and new trends in counterfeiting and piracy by creating
databases or cooperating with public authorities. This practice could be extended
also to other public bodies, like customs authorities, police etc. I want to outline
also the importance of training measures and of information campaigns.
Other actions:
KA7(30): Establish a European Cybercrime Platform by 2012;
MEO - PROPOSALS ON KA6&7/cont.
BROADEN THE USE OF VIRTUAL PRIVATE NETWORKS (VPNS) – reduce mobile users’
exposure to eavesdropping at Wi-Fi hotspots by implementing a VPN, which allows
secure network accessibility for remote access and mobile computing.
CONTINUE TO USE DATA ENCRYPTION – avoiding the nightmare of handling the
expiring keys and/or when employees leave or recovering keys and/or when users forget
their passcode key information, maintaining strong encryption mechanisms is a must.
The Governments should pay a SPECIAL ATTENTION DURING THE POLITICAL
CAMPAIGNS, mainly because the increasing reliance of political campaigns on web sites
for fundraising and organizing opens the door to serious security risks, including:
 Diversion of online campaign donations or donor information;
 Web site hacking to present misinformation about candidates’ positions and conduct;
 Crashing of Web site at a crucial time.
ANY CYBER-ATTACK AGAINST EU, NATO AND ALLIED COUNTRIES
SHOULD BE PUNISHED!
 EU and US should sign a common declaration, warning the Cyber Terrorists that:
“IN THE CASE OF A CYBER ATTACK AGAINST THEM OR AGAINST THEIR ALLIES,
THE RESPONSES WILL BE NOT LIMITED TO THE CYBER DOMAIN AND CAN ALSO
INCLUDE STRONG MILITARY PUNISHING ACTIONS“!

35. 35
FOR A BETTER UNDERSTANDING – SUPPORTING KA6 AND KA7:
To fight Cyber Crime first of all it is necessary to identify the sectoral types of
economic and financial crime generating an exponential growth of this
phenomenon. Without implying any order of priority, we should examine the
following clusters of crime, being organized or non-organized:
Corruption;
Fraud, notably with regard to product counterfeiting and piracy and the
fraudulent use of non-cash means of payment;
Theft in the area of intellectual property;
Money laundering;
Other major Cyber Crime issues.
According with the same recent studies, corporate organizations did not want to
share their bad experience because of fear for their reputation. Surprisingly, two
thirds of crime-affected companies did not see the need to change their control
procedures, which had apparently failed. Therefore, it proved difficult to persuade
companies to introduce additional fraud prevention techniques. Cyber Crime issues
turned out to be an ever-growing concern for the companies.
Concerning Data Protection, we should highlight that a balanced approach of
respecting these rules on the one hand and allowing data collection for investigative
and preventive purposes would be indispensable. As regards the need to respect
legitimate interests of private sector, we are obliged to take into account the fact
that some professional groups are not determined by profit making. Also, the
specificities of all independent professions should be respected. The business
community should be strongly recognized as a partner in Cyber Crime prevention,
working voluntarily mainly in three directions: applying business security practice
and principles; issuing self-regulation in each commercial sector; adopting self-
regulation code in a single corporation, which means an internal compliance system
with ethical guidelines and control.
More and more companies had to deal with infiltration of illicit activities and to face
the penetration of their IT systems by intruders - on the one hand and the higher
expectation of the consumers and of the public opinion - on the other hand, to
provide not only quality goods and services, but also to do this in a sustainable and
ethical way. The private sector should try to meet these new trends with self-
regulation mainly.
MEO: KA7(30)/cont.
The issue of companies as victims of Cyber Crime had become a growing
concern among stakeholders. Whilst “good management” had recognized the
need for effective in-house fraud prevention through more accountability and
transparency using ICT methods in order to limit the reputation damage, many
small and medium-sized enterprises still did not have any anti-fraud
mechanisms in place. Others are concerned rather about profit making than
expensive crime prevention. Also, there is a trend only to comply with law-
imposed action such as in the field of money laundering. Voluntary measures on
the other hand in the field of fraud prevention are still perceived like as a non-
value cost.

36. 36
 The need to improve the co-operation between all actors concerned, users and
consumers, industry and law enforcement;
 the need for ongoing industry and community – led initiatives.
My proposal is referring to the acceptance by consensus of the General Principles which can
be applied successfully for all the sectors under the Cyber Crime threats - as guidelines for
the future activity. Briefly, we should impose to all in-charge players and potential victim –
authorities, companies or individuals - the need to respect:
1. the rights and freedoms of individuals
2. the applicable data protection rules
3. competition and public procurements rules
4. the legitimate interests of the industries and services involved
5. the rights and obligations of independent professions
6. the duties and competencies of the interest public authorities, in particular law
enforcement and public regulatory and control bodies.
Also, the need:
1. to have a fair share of responsibilities between public authorities and private sector in
the implementation of crime prevention schemes
2. for partnerships based on voluntary approaches allowing for regular assessment of
commitments and of results achieved with a view to permitting adjustments.
KA7(31): Examine the feasibility by 2011 to create a European Cybercrime Centre;
MEO: KA7(31) - Please see also the next remarks on the KA7(30…33)
It might be possible to examine, by 2011, the feasibility and issue directions to be followed
to build an European Cybercrime Centre. In my opinion, the time is too short and the
actors are insufficiently prepared to have, indeed, such a Centre fully operational in 2011!
MEO: KA7(30…33) - PROPOSAL FOR A NEW KEY ACTION
There are more and more complex crimes through computers and these threats
represents an incredible challenge for law enforcement. Actually can be defined 3 large
components:
Cyber Crime, which is somebody using a computer to commit crime, to make
money, to commit fraud or murder.
Cyber-terrorism, which would be terrorists using computers to attack, to bring
down the electrical grid, to attack air traffic control, those kinds of things.
Information warfare – the most interesting, creative and difficult out of three.
US and the European Union are the world's biggest targets. Nobody knows how much
was lost, the estimation varying around hundreds of billions, which is probably pretty
reasonable. Unfortunately, the Businesses won't report it and, generally speaking,
nobody wants to talk about it. It's a major problem. We can't solve it on our own and
we need to try to get other countries worldwide on board with us because it's
international. In Cyber Crime, borders don't count!

37. 37
Internet-related crime, like any other crime, should be reported to appropriate law
enforcement investigative authorities at the local, national and Community levels,
depending on the scope of the crime. It is the duty of the Commission to set-up a
dedicated entity at the Union level – as part of ENISA or as an independent unit -
giving the victims of cyber crime a convenient and easy-to-use reporting mechanism
that alerts authorities of suspected criminal or civil violations. For law enforcement and
regulatory agencies at the Community, national and local level, this unit should
represent the central referral mechanism for complaints involving Internet related
crimes in EU space.
 Each of National Law Reinforcement Agencies acting in the area of Cybercrime
should have offices conveniently located country – wide, to which crimes may be
reported. Contact information regarding local and national offices should be found
in local telephone directories. In general, cyber crime may be reported to the local
office of the national law enforcement agency by using a telephone hotline and by
requesting the "Duty Complaint Agent". Depending on the scope and the amplitude
of crime, the citizens can also directly report to National Alert Platform or to
Community Call Center by using dedicated public hotlines.
 In this respect, the Commission should create a new independent entity - “The EU
Internet Crime Complaint Center - EU-IC3
”- the Community Central Focal Point,
including the EU - level Central Calling Center - based on the partnership between
the Member States’ Law Reinforcement Agencies acting in the area of cyber crime
and hierarchically placed under the authority of the Commission as an independent
unit. In this respect the EU-IC3
should include in his structure a high – mobility EU
Task Force for rapid reaction and countermeasures against reported major threats.
 EU-IC3
's mission is to serve as a vehicle to receive, develop, and refer criminal
complaints regarding the rapidly expanding arena of cyber crime, having also the
capabilities to take active measures to neutralize and eliminate the reported
threats. The EU-IC3
gives the victims of cyber crime a convenient and easy-to-use
reporting mechanism that alerts authorities of suspected criminal or civil violations.
For law enforcement and regulatory agencies at the Community, member state,
and local level, IC3 provides a central referral mechanism for complaints involving
Internet - related crimes.

KA7(32): Work with global stakeholders notably to strengthen global risk management
in the digital and in the physical sphere and conduct internationally
coordinated targeted actions against computer-based crime and security
attacks;
MEO: KA7(32)
An obvious need. It will be difficult to select the partners, given that interests are
sometimes diverging and the objectives might not necessarily be given the same
priority. Not all countries outside the EU, although victims of Cybercrime, are willing to
commit themselves to an all-out war against this plague. If strong and resourceful
potential partners (in this particular domain of interest), such as Russia, China, India do
not want to participate in the initiative, the task accomplishment will encounter major
obstacles.
On 17 September 2010, US has urged the EU to make Cyber Security a larger
priority as Washington begins to up the ante on its own defences. Basic reasons:

38. 38
MEO: KA7(32)/cont.
The US military services face over 100 threats a day;
The Transatlantic partners should revive their Cold War alliance in fending off
threats to network security in the Western world;
NATO should build a Cyber Shield to protect the Transatlantic Alliance from
network threats, in particular threats to its military and economic resources;
The US recently devised a new strategy to tackle threats which would try to
monitor and track down network intruders and retaliate more quickly and
effectively;
Threats are usually manifested in malware attached to innocuous-looking files;
The networks are the country’s fifth domain of warfare after land, sea, air and
space;
The possible outcomes of a cyber attack could range from the crashing an entire
country’s electricity grids to the infection of high-tech military equipment
According with the Commission, the cost of cybercrime in the EU reached the
value of Euro 750 Bn annually, vastly exceeding drug trafficking and is
equivalent to 1% of global GDP.
According with the Convention on Cybercrime adopted in 2001 by the Council of
Europe, the EU countries could adopt a common position on practical issues such as
blocking IP addresses and revoking domain names.
Though Cyber Security has been more of a peripheral issue in the EU, recently
policymakers have begun work on beefing up the bloc’s resources to fight possible
attacks.
In April 2010, EU ministers meeting in Luxembourg asked the Commission to
“assess the feasibility” of setting up a single centre on cybercrime to pool Member
States’ efforts and resources to fight Internet crime.
Though network insecurity is commonly understood as a national security threat,
academic and experts have been urging policymakers that cyber warfare does
not know national borders.
I highly appreciate and fully support the proposal of Prof. John Howorth from UK
– quote: “EU SHOULD ESTABLISH (1) A EUROPEAN SECURITY COUNCIL, (2) A
FORMAL COUNCIL OF DEFENCE MINISTERS, (3) A EUROPEAN WHITE BOOK
ON SECURITY AND DEFENCE AND (4) AN INTEGRATED INTELLIGENCE
AGENCY” – end of quote.
KA7(33): Support EU-wide cyber-security preparedness exercises, from 2010;
MEO: KA7(33)
Actually there is a critical need of information exchange on how Member States
handle ICT incidents at national level and how they are protecting the CII.
Moreover, the experts should define in a rigorous way what a Pan - European
approach to a CIIP crisis management could be.
The first Pan - European Exercise on CIIP in accordance with Tallinn Ministerial
Declaration will represent a major step forward in this critical domain.
The most important details of the exercise are referring to: (1) the establishment of
the final list of events in the scenario, (2) the monitoring and evaluation, (3) the

39. 39
MEO: KA7(35)
In line with the periodic review by the Commission of the functioning of the five
directives comprising the existing regulatory framework for electronic communications
networks and services, in order to establish the need for modification in the light of
technological and market developments.
The competent national authorities should promote the interests of citizens by ensuring a
high level of protection of personal data and privacy. To this end, competent national
authorities should have the necessary means to perform their duties, including
comprehensive and reliable data about security incidents that have led to the personal
data of individuals being compromised.
Providers should therefore maintain an inventory of personal data breaches to enable
further analysis and evaluation by the competent national authorities.
Software that surreptitiously monitors the actions of the user or subverts the operation of
the user’s terminal equipment to the benefit of a third party (spyware) poses a serious
threat to the privacy of users, as do viruses.
A high and equal level of protection of the private sphere of users needs to be ensured,
regardless of whether unwanted spying programmes or viruses are inadvertently
downloaded via electronic communications networks or are delivered and installed in
software distributed on other external data storage media, such as CDs, CD-ROMs or
USB keys.
Member States should encourage the provision of information to end-users about
available precautions, and should encourage them to take the necessary steps to protect
their terminal equipment against viruses and spyware.
The implementation and enforcement of the provisions of the document often require
cooperation between the national regulatory authorities of two or more Member States,
for example in combating cross-border spam and spyware. Such procedures will also
allow the resulting obligations of market actors to be harmonised, contributing to the
creation of a level playing field in the Community.
technical implementation and (4) the efficiency of the tools the ENISA has at its
disposal.
KA7(34): As part of the modernisation of the EU personal data protection
regulatory framework to make it more coherent and legally certain, explore the
extension of security breach notification provisions;
MEO: KA7(34) - This point, as well as the next three, requires a massive campaign to
better inform the public about their rights concerning privacy. This notion does not
encompass bank accounts or life within family. It also concerns information about
visited sites, habits and routines used when searching the net. Many features embedded
in the cookies so often infiltrated in the software represent genuine invasion into a
person’s privacy. Another aspect on which attention is to be focused is the employers’
tendency to expand supervision of employers at work, under the cover that, while at
work, employees’ activity should be dedicated exclusively to the purpose. Regulations
should be issued related to the use of cameras, microphones, authentication etc. at
work. Only after the ordinary citizens know and understand their rights and what are
the possible dangers and ways of infringing with their security breach notifications
acquire meaning and substance.
KA7(35): Give guidance by 2011 for the implementation of new Telecoms Framework
with regard to the protection of individuals' privacy and personal data;

40. 40
MEO: KA7(35)/cont.
Technological progress allows the development of new applications based on devices for
data collection and identification, which could be contactless devices using radio
frequencies. For example, the wide use of RFIDs can bring considerable economic and
social benefit and thus make a powerful contribution to the internal market, if their use
is acceptable to citizens.
It is necessary to ensure that all fundamental rights of individuals, including the right to
privacy and data protection, are safeguarded. When RFID devices are connected to
publicly available electronic communications networks or make use of electronic
communications services as a basic infrastructure, the relevant provisions of Directive on
privacy and electronic communications, including those on security, traffic and location
data and on confidentiality, should apply.
Support reporting points for illegal content online (hotlines) and awareness campaigns on
online safety for children run at national level and enhance pan-European cooperation
and sharing of best practice in this field.
The new Act includes major Amendments to the Directive on privacy and electronic
communications – as:
 A precise and rigorous definition of the main tasks of the Directive:
 To provide the required level of harmonisation of the national provisions;
 To ensure an equivalent level of protection of fundamental rights and freedoms,
and in particular the right to privacy and confidentiality, with respect to the
processing of personal data in the electronic communication sector;
 To ensure the free movement of such data and of electronic communication
equipment and services in the Community;
 Ref. ‘Security of processing’, new specifications was included with respect to the
processing of personal data:
 To follow closely the use of IP addresses with regard to the Processing of Personal
Data established by Article 29 of Directive 95/46/EC.
 Ensure that personal data can be accessed only by authorised personnel for legally
authorised purposes;
 Protect personal data stored or transmitted against accidental or unlawful
destruction, accidental loss or alteration, and unauthorised or unlawful storage,
processing, access or disclosure;
 Ensure the implementation of a security policy with respect to the processing of
personal data.
MEO (KA7-36): Please see Remarks on KA7(30…33).
KA7(36): Support reporting points for illegal content online (hotlines) and
awareness campaigns on online safety for children run at national level and
enhance pan-European cooperation and sharing of best practice in this field;

41. 41
KA7(37): Foster multi-stakeholder dialogue and self-regulation of European and
global service providers (e.g. social networking platforms, mobile
communications providers), especially as regards use of their services by
minors.
MEO: KA7(37) - A lot of abuse is committed under the need to properly defend
national security or to protect private property. Surveillance of all kind, gathering
information while almost breaching legal provisions represent threats to freedom and
democracy which should be subject to counteraction, including the domains within the
scope of the Digital Agenda.
Member States should:
KA7(38): Establish by 2012 a well-functioning network of CERTs at national level
covering all of Europe;
MEO: KA7(38) - CERTs (CSIRTs, IRTs, other kinds of the CERT teams)
CERT stands for Computer Emergency Response Team. There exist various
abbreviations for the same sort of teams:
• CERT or CERT/CC (Computer Emergency Response Team / Coordination Centre)
• CSIRT (Computer Security Incident Response Team)
• IRT (Incident Response Team)
• CIRT (Computer Incident Response Team)
• SERT (Security Emergency Response Team)
Recently the experts has warned that a broad array of network equipment used on
the Internet -- including switches, routers, hubs, printers and operating systems --
may be vulnerable to an SNMP-related attack that could cause equipment to fail
or allow an attacker to take control of it.
 The problem relates to half-dozen vulnerabilities discovered in Simple Network
Management Protocol (SNMP) v1, a fundamental IP-based protocol for
managing networks. The vulnerabilities, reveal precisely how SNMPv1, which is
widely used by the network industry, can be exploited to disrupt systems through
a denial-of-service attack or to allow a hacker to gain control of equipment.
 Attackers could exploit technical weaknesses related to six classes of vulnerability
-- overflow exceptions, format-string exceptions, bit-pattern exceptions, basic
encoding rules, missing symbol exceptions and integral-value exceptions -- to
knock equipment offline or gain control of it.
KA7(39): In cooperation with the Commission carry out large scale attack simulation
and test mitigation strategies as of 2010;

42. 42
MEO: KA7(40) Unless these hotlines are properly organized, with adequate measures to
prevent hoax calls, the use of hotlines might be not as beneficial as theoretically possible.
Failure in securing success in this action could disappoint bona fide users and compromise
the effort.
MEO: KA7(41) I have doubts regarding the start of Platform in 2010 (unless we speak about
a formal start), since such action needs preparation at EU level (the discussion about the
need for interoperability should not be set aside).
MEO: KA7(39) - In order to be successful, such simulations should be well prepared. An
essential element to be considered is the level of the infrastructure development and
adequacy in each participant country. Such attacks are likely to be directed towards
countries which have created and are currently in operation large and complex
informatics systems. By no means the economic implications of such simulations (in
terms of human resources, money and ICT infrastructure) should be overlooked.
KA7(40): Fully implement hotlines for reporting offensive or harmful online content,
organise awareness raising campaigns on online safety for children, and offer
teaching online safety in schools, and encourage providers of online services to
implement self-regulatory measures regarding online safety for children by
2013;
KA7(41): Set up or adapt national alert platforms to the Europol Cybercrime platform,
by 2012, starting in 2010.

43. 43
- Key Action 8 -
Key Action 8 (42): Adopt a Broadband
Communication that lays out a common
framework to meet the Europe 2020 broadband
targets, including:
 Reinforce and rationalise the funding of high-
speed broadband.
 Attract capital for broadband investments
through credit enhancement (backed by the
EIB and EU funds).
 Set up “European Spectrum Policy
Programme”.
 Encourage investment in competitive NGA
networks.
 Develop and make operational National
Broadband Plans.
 Use fully the Structural and Rural Development
Funds.

44. 44
ACTIONS
The Commission will:
Key Action 8:
KA8(42): Adopt in 2010 a Broadband Communication that lays out a common
framework for actions at EU and Member State to meet the Europe 2020
broadband targets, including:
MEO: KA8(42) – The major ideas to be included, imposed by the international practices:
Open a wireless broadband pipe to each individual home after clearing
spectrum currently used by UHF-TV stations and dedicating it to wireless
broadband.
Encourage fibre to the home A comprehensive broadband plan for EU would
copy the successes in Korea, Japan and elsewhere that were based on modest but
effective government support to national communications companies, so as to
create effective business cases for deploying fibre to homes. Wireless broadband is
not the only solution to putting all of EU on a ubiquitous broadband network -
fiber ought to be part of the network as well.
Establish an inter-carrier transfer plan
Foster media diversity
Introduce spectrum reform A great failing of the current situation is its inability
to translate the basic principles into rules. For example, spectrum should be freely
transferable, unlimited in its use and widely available in both licensed and
unlicensed formats.
Develop an international agenda
Reconcile programming access Currently, different distribution systems have
different obligations and rights with respect to programming. Given the
competition that stems from convergence, the Commission should reconcile the
different regulatory regimes under a paradigm of neutrality.
Reform Universal Service
Outline public interest.
Introduce management reform
KA8(43): Reinforce and rationalise, in this framework, the funding of high-speed
broadband through EU instruments (e.g. ERDF, ERDP, EAFRD, TEN, CIP) by
2014 and explore how to attract capital for broadband investments through
credit enhancement (backed by the EIB and EU funds);
MEO: KA8( 42 & 43)
Ubiquitous high-speed connectivity must be included within the scope of the
Universal Service definition. All citizens in the Union should have the legal right to
access, at affordable prices, fast Internet connections as soon as possible. EU

45. 45
businesses can’t continue to compete against Asian businesses with Internet 100
times faster than our own.
The key concerns of broadband users are bandwidth, ease-of-use and security.
Legal right and resonable prices are somewhat contradicting issues in a free market
economy. The reasonable price can be achieved only as result of mass use of Internet
and as result of a fair competition based on openness, transparency, fairness, quality
of service.
This service should be offered to the Citizens anytime and anywhere inside the EU
territory and legally guaranteed by a European Directive promoted by the
Commission and adopted by the European Parliament and by the Council of the
European Union, declaring the people’s right to access Internet as the second
Universal Service in the ICT area.
To speed up the evaluation and the financing of the best proposals, the
Commission should evaluate the opportunity to set up a “Joint Evaluation &
Support Team” including experts of DG “INFSO”, EIB and independents, having as
main task the reduction of the implementation period of the best projects.
KA8(44): Propose an ambitious European Spectrum Policy Programme in 2010 for
decision by the European Parliament and the Council that will create a co-
ordinated and strategic spectrum policy at EU level in order increase the
efficiency of radio spectrum management and maximise the benefits for
consumers and industry;
MEO: KA8(44)
Considering the growing importance of mobile ICT, Europe should move quickly
towards a more Market-based Approach to Spectrum Management, with more
empowerment of market players and the introduction of more widespread
spectrum trading, and with less national bureaucratic prescription on bandwidth
allocation.
The Commission must be mindful to protect the interests of the citizens when
working with global ICT companies to implement the Digital Agenda, because the
interests of European citizens and those of the global ICT companies are not always
aligned.
As a general principle of policy, the public interest – the "Public Good" – should
have primacy over private and business interests. It is clear that the market alone
cannot properly regulate itself for the benefit of the public good. Therefore, a
strong regulatory framework is needed to promote the interests of the greater
number of citizens, as intended by the 2020 strategy.
The Commission should take any possible measures to ensure that Member States
rigorously enforce the regulatory framework for electronic Communications and
that implementation is even, balanced and universal in all 27 member states.
The European Union should vest responsibility in an appropriate regulatory
authority, including members of the European Agency for Fundamental Rights, to
implement effectively the Critical Information Infrastructures Protection (CIIP)
across the EU.

46. 46
The new, five-year Radio Spectrum Policy Programme (RSPP), aimed at
harmonising the use of frequencies across EU, which proposes opening up the
valued 800 MHz band currently used by broadcasters for wireless broadband
operators, which is being freed up by switching to digital TV.
MEO: KA8(44)/cont.
In practice, however, the Commission's ultimatum can do little to change frequency
allocation plans because harmonization is a taboo word when it comes to radio
frequencies and the approval of MS is still essential to push through binding
measures on the matter.
Note: Germany is the only EU country so far to make the broadcast spectrum
available for mobile broadband. Airwaves auction were held in May, with
Deutsche Telekom and Vodafone acquiring many of the new radio frequencies.
SPECIAL REMARKS: In other countries, the entrenched interests of national
politicians and public broadcasters represent a powerful opposition lobby against
the use of spectrum for purposes other than broadcasting. The Commission should
pay a special attention to the case of Italy, where all bidders for the freed
frequencies are at present exclusively broadcasters, not Internet service providers.
KA8(45): Issue a Recommendation in 2010 to encourage investment in competitive Next
Generation Access networks through clear and effective regulatory measures.
MEO: KA8(45)
In order to boost growth in the sector, the European Commission should focus on
promoting the roll-out of new high – speed, Next Generation Access Networks
based on optical fibre and / or new wireless technologies such as WiMax—602.16a
and UWB - 802.15.3a.
Recommendations:
 Implementing the Broadband ladder of investment (i.e. local loop unbundling
and bit-stream access);
 Ensuring competitive access across the spectrum;
 Promoting wireless development for large - area coverage.
Create financial facilities in order to attract investors in PPP arrangements.
 Unfortunately, opposition to the plans already looks strong. The incumbent
operators that have invested in new fiber-based networks warn that the
proposal would give competitors easy access to their infrastructure. This would
stifle investment in the sector, according to ETNO.
 New operators, represented by the European Competitive Telecommunication
Association (ECTA), sent the opposite warning, because accessing networks may
end up being too costly if European regulators are unable to impose the right
price. ECTA stressed that this ability will remain within the competence of
national authorities.

47. 47
The deployment of Next - Generation Networks (NGNs) will further reduce Telcos'
energy consumption, whereas the real threats are represented by services and
applications which rely on new infrastructure.
Member States should:
KA8(46): Develop and make operational national broadband plans by 2012 that meet
the coverage and speed and take-up targets defined in Europe 2020, using
public financing in line with EU competition and state aid rules. The Commission
will report annually on progress as part of the Digital Agenda governance.
MEO: KA8(46)
The Broadband Strategy recognises the role of national and public authorities in order
to co-ordinate investors and to give a clear understanding when and where the
market will rely on competing infrastructures, where it will be a single commercially
deployed infrastructure and where public finance may be available. Calling for
Member States to develop a national broadband plan is the key to making this a
reality.
The Broadband Communication that sets out a coherent framework for meeting the
Digital Agenda's broadband targets and, in particular, outlines how best to encourage
public and private investment in fast and ultra-fast broadband networks.
The EU Member States should:
 introduce operational broadband plans for high and ultra high speed networks
with concrete implementing measures;
 provide guidance on how to cut investment costs,
 indicate how public authorities may support broadband investment, including
making better use EU funds.
As a must, the broadband strategy should emphasize and recognise the role of public
authorities in order to co-ordinate investors.
PROPOSAL: Following the NZ success story, the Commission should take the initiative to
set up “The EU Broadband Fund”, having as shareholders the EIB,
EUROFOUND and all Member States, as a financing tool supporting the
technological efforts at national level.
KA8(47): Take measures, including legal provisions, to facilitate broadband investment,
such as making sure that civil engineering works systematically involve
potential investors, clearing rights of way, mapping available passive
infrastructure suitable for cabling and upgrading in-building wiring;
MEO: KA8(47)
The Broadband Communication in particular should outline how best to encourage
public and private investment in fast and ultra-fast broadband networks, including
large – scale use of PPP arrangements..
The European Commission and the European Investment Bank will bring forward
broadband finance instruments, offering their services to the Member States.

48. 48
MEO: KA8(48)
The main social impact derived from freeing up the 800 MHz spectrum would be
greater broadband access for all.
The “Digital Dividend” will be a major source for financing the Broadband
implementation at EU and national scales.
PROPOSAL: Following the NZ success story, to set up “The EU Broadband Fund”, having as
shareholders the EIB, EUROFOUND and all Member States, as a financing tool
supporting the implementation of this modern technology.
PROPOSAL: Following the NZ success story, to set up “The EU Broadband Fund”, having as
shareholders the EIB, EUROFOUND and all Member States, as a financing tool
supporting the technological effort of Member States to implement the Broadband
requirements included in the “Digital Agenda”
KA8(48): Full use of the Structural and Rural Development Funds that are already
earmarked for investment in ICT infrastructures and services;
MEO: KA8(48) - With regard to individual liberties of the citizens and the development
of the local communities, using the Structural and Rural Development Funds, the
Commission should pay a great attention to the principle that Community Radio and
Multimedia Centres represents a crucially important communication and information
tool for developing communities and bringing them together.
KA8(49): Implement the European Spectrum Policy Programme, so as to ensure the co-
ordinated allocation of the spectrum needed to meet the target of 100%
coverage of 30 Mbps Internet by 2020, and the NGA Recommendation.

49. 49
- Key Action 9 -
Key Action 9 (50):
Leverage more Private
Investment
Key Action 9 (51): Reinforce
the coordination and
pooling of resources with
Member States and
industry;
Key Action 9 (52):
Measures for “Light & Fast”
access to EU research funds
in ICT

50. 50
MEO: KA9(51)
The EU should create a special programme to foster the development of European IT
companies that can compete on a global scale with US giants like Google, Microsoft and
Intel.
The Commission should pay a greater attention not only about the undoubted
differences between the US and EU in the area of R&D and of Implementation of new
Digital Technologies, but also about the actual amplitude of “Digital Divide”
phenomenon at the EU level - the enormous Differences between Countries inside.
ACTIONS
The Commission will:
KA9(50): Leverage more private investment through the strategic use of pre-commercial
procurement1
and public-private partnerships, by using structural funds for research and
innovation and by maintaining a pace of 20% yearly increase of the ICT R&D budget at
least for the duration of FP7;
MEO: KA9-50 – Universal aspects:
ICT represents a powerful driver of innovation in the EU economy as a whole;
The technologies developed for ICT provide spin-off in many different sectors;
It makes extreme demands on its products, requiring simultaneously:
• safety and reliability
• low weight
• good economics
• minimal environmental impact
• enhanced power
• high efficiency
As beneficiary of the ICT "state – of – the art" products and applications, the EU
economy has:
• delivered immense social and economic benefits to the citizens at global level;
• massively multiplied and facilitated business, leisure opportunities and cultural
exchanges;
• facilitated the development of international institutions and political
relationships.
Investing in ICT industry, Europe can reach three major objectives:
• global leadership in the sector;
• a world class operational ICT system;
• spread of new technologies and innovation to other industry sectors and services.
Other actions:
KA9(51): Reinforce the coordination and pooling of resources with Member States and
industry, and put greater focus on demand - and user - driven partnerships in EU
support to ICT research and innovation;
1
In 2011-13, the Commission will co-finance five new actions on pre-commercial procurement
involving Member States.