Thanks Nigel. The legislation I mentioned goes beyond cybersquatting as it has extensively used in copyright cases, i. e. concerning the activity within the domains and not the domain as such. My question is how broad these provisions are, i.e. what other criminal activities can be prosecuted, and whether they present a potential of interference with a TLD (not a SLD), for instance if a TLD were to develop into a copyright-infringement safe-haven... Thanks and regards Jorge ________________________________ Von: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> Datum: 24. August 2017 um 17:23:16 MESZ An: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [EXTERNAL] Re: ISSUE: In rem Jurisdiction over ccTLDs Only if the ccTLD is cybersquatting someone else's name. And that's of vanishingly small likelihood. The fact is that the name is allocated not by ICANN, but by the ISO-3166 Maintainence Agency, and even in the odd one or two cases where there is a trademark in the two letter combination (I can only think of Bhutan) there is clearly no conflict, since that country isn't selling phone service to UK customers. On 24/08/17 15:46, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
Excuse again my ignorance, but is the legislation under 18 U.S.C. § 981(b)(2), which provides a legal framework for property seizures by the government, not general enough to allow for the seizure of a TLD if it is considered as an asset or property being used for committing crimes that may be prosecuted in the US?
Let’s say a ccTLD or a gTLD evolve in a way that they may be considered under that act as such asset/property – could it not be seized with theOly if fact that they are registered under ICANN’s root being a sufficient connection?
Thanks for any specific hint and regards
Jorge
*Von:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Mueller, Milton L *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 24. August 2017 16:39 *An:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Betreff:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [EXTERNAL] Re: ISSUE: In rem Jurisdiction over ccTLDs
Yes, Becky this is correct, ACPA is an anti-cybersquatting law for trademark protection and was written with second-level domains in mind.
I guess it is possible that a gTLD would be subject to ACPA – but if and only if someone managed to cybersquat a trademark in the TLD level. And since ICANN’s TLD awarding process is so heavily biased toward trademark owners, it is unlikely that a TM-violating TLD (say, giving .IBM to Parminder) would ever happen. But if it did, I supposed it could be applied. I can’t see how it could ever be applied to a ccTLD.
*From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Burr, Becky via Ws2-jurisdiction *Sent:* Tuesday, August 22, 2017 7:02 PM *To:* Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>; thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br <mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [EXTERNAL] Re: ISSUE: In rem Jurisdiction over ccTLDs
Fwiw, to the extent that US courts have in rem jurisdiction over domain names, my recollection is that is a function of very specific anti-squatting trademark law and is extremely unlikely to apply to ccTLDs.
*J. Beckwith Burr**** **Neustar, Inc.***/**Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW DC 20006 *Office:***+1.202.533.2932 *Mobile:***+1.202.352.6367
_______________________________________________ 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