Hence the age-old question: locate offices in jurisdictions that don’t protect free speech as an outreach? Or stay out of those offices as an informal sanction? Can .cat apply to the European Court of Human Rights with a claim against the Spanish government based on the European Convention on Human Rights? It appears that many of their judgments are not enforced by national governments but it would still be good to get the judgment anyway, wouldn’t it? Hard to see how ICANN could enforce a Human Rights violation by an EU government. Squarely in the realm of the EU Court of HR I would think. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image002.png@01D332CF.585C9D40] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 6:57 AM To: 'Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira'; 'farzaneh badii'; 'Nigel Roberts' Cc: 'ws2-jurisdiction'; ws2-hr@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: .cat Actually, that’s wrong Thiago, but you know that. The facts are that .cat has physical offices in Spain – hence its offices could be raided. That is true irrespective of whether or not the .cat owners are corporate domiciled in Spain or in France or anywhere else in the world. The same is true of ICANN’s offices in Turkey, which have not been raided by Turkish police and (we all fervently hope never will be). While I join everyone in dismay at the action of the Spanish authorities they prove my point, as Nigel said. Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 www.redbranchconsulting.com<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 8:47 AM To: 'farzaneh badii' <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>>; Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>; ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: [Ws2-hr] .cat Dear all, Farzaneh is right in disagreeing with Nigel. The .CAT case only confirms that the territorial State, that is the State in which territory a legal entity is based (in this case the .CAT registry), is in the unique position to enforce its prescriptions against that legal entity. Notice that the action of "raiding" the .CAT registry was undertaken by Spanish law enforcers, and only they could have undertaken it (at least until such time as Spain consents to foreign officials' exercising forceful actions within Spanish territory). In sum, the "police raid" by Spain happened because the .CAT registry, being located in Spain, was subject to the territorial jurisdiction of Spain, notably its exclusive enforcement jurisdiction. In the case of ICANN, the lessons the .CAT case teaches us (as if anyone really needed this case to be convinced of the following) is that the United States, the country in whose territory ICANN is based (as well as where are located its DNS management activities), is in the unique position to enforce law prescriptions against ICANN, to enforce its sanctions regime against ICANN, to shutdown ICANN, to interfere with ICANN's DNS management activities. No other country is in a position to do so, and this should be remedied. Best regards, Thiago De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] Em nome de farzaneh badii Enviada em: quarta-feira, 20 de setembro de 2017 08:51 Para: Nigel Roberts Cc: ws2-jurisdiction; ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [Ws2-hr] .cat Farzaneh On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote: I think this all clearly proves Paul Rosenzweig's point that ICANN's jurisdiction is irrelevant as national police forces and judicial authorities can apply national law to particular registries. Under the Treaty of Rome, incidentally, the .CAT registry has the complete right to move it's operations to any of the other 27 Member states (soon to be 26) of the Union. If it did that, would ICANN itself then come in the firing line from the Spanish courts, perhaps? I disagree. ICANN's jurisdiction is the most relevant when it comes to delegation-redelegation of ccTLDs and accreditation of regirars and approval of registries. This case does not prove the point that ICANN's jurisdiction is totally irrelenat under all circumstances. As we clearly demonstrated at the jurisdiction group. On 20/09/17 09:58, Thomas Rickert wrote: Hi all, you might find this article interesting. https://www.internetnews.me/2017/09/20/dotcat-registry-offices-raided-spanis... Best, Thomas _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
