Yes, I agree. It will be interesting to watch the developments. Especially in light of how the European Court of Justice views the relevant laws.
Which relevant laws?
*Analysis of relevant European Law*
“In the famous Costa-Enel case (6/64) the Court of Justice of the European Community has ruled that European law is an integral part of the national legal system of the EC member countries and takes precedence over national law. Therefore one cannot fully ascertain the applicable law without researching the relevant European law[1]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s.tamanikaiwaimaro/My%20Documents/Connect/Impact%20of%20New%20York%20decision%20on%20RIRs%20all%20over%20the%20world%20and%20considerations%20for%20Connect.doc#_ftn1>”. *European Ministerial Declaration on the Management of the Internet Protocol Address Resources in the Public Interest* The Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on the management of the Internet protocol address resources in the public interest (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 29 September 2010 at the 1094th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)[2]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s.tamanikaiwaimaro/My%20Documents/Connect/Impact%20of%20New%20York%20decision%20on%20RIRs%20all%20over%20the%20world%20and%20considerations%20for%20Connect.doc#_ftn2> is relevant. […]Paragraph 11 of the Ministerial Text where the Committee of Ministers, therefore, declares the following:- *- Internet protocol address resources should be regarded as shared public resources and allocated and managed in the public interest by the entities entrusted with these tasks, taking into account the present and future needs of Internet users; * *Prioritisation of Rights* *European Court of Justice* Recently the European Court of Justice ruled that EU law precludes the imposition of an injunction by a national court which requires an Internet Service Provider (ISP) to install a filtering system with a view to preventing the illegal downloading of files in a Press Release[3]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s.tamanikaiwaimaro/My%20Documents/Connect/Impact%20of%20New%20York%20decision%20on%20RIRs%20all%20over%20the%20world%20and%20considerations%20for%20Connect.doc#_ftn3>. The actual Judgment was released on the 24th November, 2011[4]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s.tamanikaiwaimaro/My%20Documents/Connect/Impact%20of%20New%20York%20decision%20on%20RIRs%20all%20over%20the%20world%20and%20considerations%20for%20Connect.doc#_ftn4> . Actually the significance of this Judgment is in relation to how they dealt with the prioritisation of rights, that is the rights if intellectual property owners, the rights of ISPs to conduct their business freely, the freedom to receive and impart information and the rights of consumers to privacy. "The injunction requiring installation of the contested filtering system involve a systematic analysis of all content, [ISPs cannot afford this and at the end of the day, this cost would be borne by customers somehow] and the collection and identification of users' IP addresses from which unlawful content on the network is sent. Those addresses are protected personal data because they allow those users to be precisely identified". (Highlighted portion is mine) The consideration in how the Judges arrived at their decision is on [para 52, 53] where there is no guarantee that lawful content would not be blocked. After considering all the rights stemming from the Directives listed in para 55, the courts held in favour of "privacy" of consumers that is fundamental rights trumping when reading all of the Directives together. Although the European Court of Justice recommended that harmonization take place. *European Court of Human Rights* Two interesting cases from the European Court of Human Rights include the following:- 1. Case of Klass and Others v. Germany[5]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s.tamanikaiwaimaro/My%20Documents/Connect/Impact%20of%20New%20York%20decision%20on%20RIRs%20all%20over%20the%20world%20and%20considerations%20for%20Connect.doc#_ftn5>(a leading case, 1978) ; 2. Case of the Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev V. Bulgaria[6]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s.tamanikaiwaimaro/My%20Documents/Connect/Impact%20of%20New%20York%20decision%20on%20RIRs%20all%20over%20the%20world%20and%20considerations%20for%20Connect.doc#_ftn6>. see: More information on Article 8 can be found in the fact sheet / summary provides an overview of Article 8 case law[7]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s.tamanikaiwaimaro/My%20Documents/Connect/Impact%20of%20New%20York%20decision%20on%20RIRs%20all%20over%20the%20world%20and%20considerations%20for%20Connect.doc#_ftn7> . ------------------------------ [1]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s.tamanikaiwaimaro/My%20Documents/Connect/Impact%20of%20New%20York%20decision%20on%20RIRs%20all%20over%20the%20world%20and%20considerations%20for%20Connect.doc#_ftnref1> http://www.llrx.com/features/dutch2.htm [2]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s.tamanikaiwaimaro/My%20Documents/Connect/Impact%20of%20New%20York%20decision%20on%20RIRs%20all%20over%20the%20world%20and%20considerations%20for%20Connect.doc#_ftnref2> https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1678299&Site=CM&BackColorInternet=C3C3C3&... [3]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s.tamanikaiwaimaro/My%20Documents/Connect/Impact%20of%20New%20York%20decision%20on%20RIRs%20all%20over%20the%20world%20and%20considerations%20for%20Connect.doc#_ftnref3> http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2011-11/cp110126en.p... [4]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s.tamanikaiwaimaro/My%20Documents/Connect/Impact%20of%20New%20York%20decision%20on%20RIRs%20all%20over%20the%20world%20and%20considerations%20for%20Connect.doc#_ftnref4> http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=EN&Submit=Submit&numaff=C... [5]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s.tamanikaiwaimaro/My%20Documents/Connect/Impact%20of%20New%20York%20decision%20on%20RIRs%20all%20over%20the%20world%20and%20considerations%20for%20Connect.doc#_ftnref5> http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695387&por... [6]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s.tamanikaiwaimaro/My%20Documents/Connect/Impact%20of%20New%20York%20decision%20on%20RIRs%20all%20over%20the%20world%20and%20considerations%20for%20Connect.doc#_ftnref6> http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&hi... [7]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s.tamanikaiwaimaro/My%20Documents/Connect/Impact%20of%20New%20York%20decision%20on%20RIRs%20all%20over%20the%20world%20and%20considerations%20for%20Connect.doc#_ftnref7> http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/4FCF8133-AD91-4F7B-86F0-A448429BC2CC/0/FICHES_Protection_des_données_EN.pdf
In other words, ISC asking RIPE NCC to do something to someone else's IP space would be the same as if you or I had asked them to do the same.
The only difference here is that it is not ISC asking, they are only
acting out the Judge's orders. This brings back the question, whether
they
have the authority?
I would say no, the only party that has any standing with the RIPE NCC is the Dutch police IMO.
I agree -- Cheers,
McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851