You can make such assertions all you like, but it doesn't make it necessarily so. The best I can offer by way of certainty in the matter is "we don't really know, but we can take some guesses". The difference between the DNS and spectrum is that spectrum exists per se. The DNS only exists becuase it was designed and constructed. I could start a different DNS tomorrow. It would not get wide use, but it would not differ in any way from the existing DNS. Furthermore possible new technologies can outdate the current DNS (I'm thinking of blockchain) just like SMTP outdated and made X.400 useless. On 23/08/17 11:52, Arasteh wrote:
Dear All ccTLD at any level shall not be considered as property or attachment at all. gTLD including ccTLD are resources like orbital /spectrum which are not at possession of any entity but could be used under certains rules and procedure established for such use Any action by any court to consider it as attachment is illegal and illegitimate as DNS shall not be used as a political vector or means against any people covered under that DNS. Being located in a particular country does I no way grant / provide any legal or administrative or judicial right to that country . DNS is a universal resources belong to the public for use under certains rules and procedure and shall in no way be used asa vehicle for political purposes. We need to address this issue very closely and separate political motivation from technical use. Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 23 Aug 2017, at 08:52, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear all,
please excuse my ignorance, but have domain names not be seized as "assets" or "property" in the US under the application of domestic law?
Wikipedia info is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_In_Our_Sites
If a second level domain is subject to potential seizure, why not a TLD?
Regards
Jorge
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Nigel Roberts Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. August 2017 08:44 An: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] ISSUE: In rem Jurisdiction over ccTLDs
Milto
There is no authority at all for this Claim, in law, as I suspect you know.
As I suspect you also know very well, the nearest evidence that might support such a Claim is that one of the contentions in /Weinstein/ was that a ccTLD (three of them, if I remember correctly) could be garnished under the "state law" of DC. (I know technically, DC is not a state of the Union, but I don't know the US correct term-of-art for 'state or capital region')
Unfortunately or fortunately (depending on one's point of view) it was not necessary for the Court to decide on this claim by the Judgment Debtor. This means that the idea that US courts might either have either or both of :-
(a) legal jurisdiction over the ownership of the rights represented by a ccTLD delegation
(b) the desire to exercise such (lack of desire to address a particular contention usually leads judges in common-law systems to be able conveniently to find a creative ratio that finds other reasons that the case can be decided
remains a completely open question.
It seems to me that additional hints for future litigants (as you know, common-law judges do that too) appear to have been given in the Weinstein judgment as to whether the rights in law enjoyed by a ccTLD manager (whatever they might be) MIGHT constitute property or not, but this remarks don't even amount to /obiter dictum/ - they are just hints at a possible road of future judicial travel and any court seised of a future Claim is entirely free to ignore them.
And, even so, those hints don't address the question of /in rem/ at all.
As you can see, I (along with some others in the ccTLD community) havefollowed, and analysed this case carefully and in some detail.
We are aware of no other possible legal authority that addresses whether ccTLDs are property (let alone whether that property, if it is property, is subject to /in rem/ jurisidiction).
Unless others have additional information?
Nigel Roberts
PS: I would also commend others to read Farzaneh and Milton's ccTLD paper.
On 22/08/17 22:31, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
Issue 3: In rem Jurisdiction over ccTLDs
Description: US courts have in rem jurisdiction over domain names as a result of ICANN's place of incorporation
What is the evidence for this claim?
--MM
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction