As the current generation of the internet will "run out of space" because of its lack of addresses, IPv6 -the sixth version of the Internet Protocol- will succeed and provide a wide range of addresses and services. It will underpin the convergence process between fixed and mobile, as well as between data, voice and video. With IPv6, addresses can be assigned to a new breed of internet-capable devices -mobile phones, car navigation systems, home appliances, industrial equipment and much more. All of these devices can be linked together, constantly communicating wirelessly. After intense developments and investments, first IPv6 deployments are happening at European and global level. The European Commission is engaging in a process of identifying the hurdles and triggers for IPv6 deployment and ultimately

During the Oxford Media Convention on 19 January 2006, Hon.Tessa Jowell, the UK Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport expressed the opinion that a European Union plan to introduce Internet regulation was unwelcome, arguing that new media were best left to govern themselves.

The statement comes at a time when the European Union is trying to overhaul the 1989 Television Without Frontiers directive, which sets out a baseline for broadcast regulation across Europe. On 13 December 2005 the Commission presented its draft directive amending the Television without Frontiers Directive (TWF). The proposed changes include amendments that refer to the transmission of the audio-visual content using mobile and internet services.

Ms. Tessa Jowel described the current text of the European Commission

In a public answer to a written question by Charlotte Cederschiöld (PPE-DE) on timeframe of the impact assessment of the Data Retention Directive, the European Commission has stated that such an assessment will not take place because " it will not provide any added value".

The European Parliament has adopted on 14 December 2005 a version of the Data Retention Directive, including in the paragraph 2 of the Resolution the necessity of a prior impact study of the directive: "Calls on the Commission for an impact assessment study covering all internal market and consumer protection issues"

The original text of the paragraph, as suggested on 28 November 2005 was " Calls on the Commission, prior to the entry into force of this Directive, to commission an impact assessment study from an independent body representing

The Directive on the legal protection of Databases was adopted in February 1996. The Directive created a new exclusive 'sui generis' right for database producers, valid for 15 years, to protect their investment of time, money and effort, irrespective of whether the database is in itself innovative ("non-original" databases).

The European Commission published on 12 December 2005 an evaluation of the protection EU law gives to databases. The evaluation focuses on whether the introduction of this right led to an increase in the European database industry. It also looks at whether the scope of the right targets those areas where Europe needs to encourage innovation.

The directive was strongly criticised for being a useless invention of the European Community, especially created to stimulate the database

In a report titled " Threatening the Open Society: Comparing Anti-terror Policies and Strategies in the U.S. and Europe" and released on 13 December 2005, Privacy International compared the anti-terrorism approaches in the U.S. with those in Europe. The report finds that on every policy involving mass surveillance of its citizens, the EU is prepared to go well beyond what the U.S. Government finds acceptable, and violates the privacy of citizens.

The report is highlighting the differences between EU and US in terms of access to communications data, retention of communications transactions data, data profiling and data mining, access to passenger reservation files and biometric registration and is concluding that in each case the EU is implementing surveillance powers well beyond those in U.S., and with far

After the European Parliament adopted the data retention directive, in many countries the debate only began about the costs. The European Parliament decided to delete the article that demanded cost reimbursement for all additional costs of retention, storage and transmission of data. In the draft directive adopted by the Civil Liberties Committee, Members had initially called for a full reimbursement of the costs.

The question everywhere is who's paying for the data retention. The costs don't just involve storing space but also the management, development and security of these data. This concern is shared not only by ISPs but also by the police in some countries, where they are obliged to reimburse the costs for the retrieval of these data.

According to Finland's Ministry of the Interior if the original proposal had

The European Parliament gave its final vote on 14 December 2005 on the European mandatory data retention directive. The Parliament approved the compromise that was reached between Council of Ministers of Justice (JHA Council), representatives from the Commission and the leaders in the European Parliament of the social-democrat and Christian-democrat groups. (see EDRI-gram 3.24)

The final text was approved with 378 for, 197 against and 30 abstentions. The two biggest parties, the PSE (socialist group) and PPE (conservative group) overwhelmingly voted in favour -only 39 PPE MEPs voted against (10 abstained) and 24 PSE MEPs voted against (2 abstained). The Green/EFA and GUE (left group) voted against while the ALDE (liberal group) split with 25 MEPs voting in favour and 37 against (including Mr Alvaro, the rapporteur).

After 5 years of fighting against plans for mandatary data retention, EDRI is deeply disappointed that a majority in the European Parliament has adopted a law decreeing very broad and long retention of telephony and internet traffic data, with access granted for all sorts of undefined crimes. Please visit the special Campaign WIKI for all details and relevant documents.