On Thursday 24 August 2017 08:14 PM, Phil Corwin wrote:

As I just pointed out in a prior email, the exercise of In Rem jurisdiction still requires some party related to the domain (registry or registrar) to be subject to US jurisdiction. So unless a nation has its ccTLD operated by a US-based entity, and unless a ccTLD registrant has opted to use a US-based registrar, this is a non-issue for ccTLDs.


That US based party is ICANN, the owner of the DNS root. This fact enables In Rem jurisdiction.

 

Also, as I pointed out, this In Rem jurisdiction is completely independent of ICANN’s incorporation and even its existence.


I am sorry if I  sound flippant, but seriously, this sentence to me appears to be in contradiction to what you say above. For, it is because DNS root owner, ICANN is in the US, and not immune from its jurisdiction, In Rem jurisdiction comes into picture, which you rightly say "still requires some party related to the domain to be subject to US jurisdiction", if only for enforcement of any judicial writ.

parminder

 

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal

Virtualaw LLC

1155 F Street, NW

Suite 1050

Washington, DC 20004

202-559-8597/Direct

202-559-8750/Fax

202-255-6172/Cell

 

Twitter: @VlawDC

 

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

 

From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 10:39 AM
To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
Subject: 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] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky via Ws2-jurisdiction
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 7:02 PM
To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; jordan@internetnz.net.nz; thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br; 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