Hi all, you might find this article interesting. https://www.internetnews.me/2017/09/20/dotcat-registry-offices-raided-spanis... Best, Thomas
This, no doubt, will be the subject of appeals and legal proceedings at a number of rights under the ECHR are engaged, for both registry and registrants. And there is no doubt that ECHR rights are legally enforceable in Spain. Art 10 (free expression) Art 6.1 (right to fair hearing) Art 8 (right to privacy) Art 1 of Prot 1 (right to property) and possibly even Art 3 of Prot 1 as well (although the allegations of the Spanish state is that the referendum is not "in accordance with law") In fact this case engages all the fundamental rights that ICANN needs to be concerned about. It's a pity, however, that ICANN shied away from embracing and defending human rights, hiding behing the 'applicable law' figleaf, since as it stands, it seems to be that there is neither any obligation on ICANN to do anything, nor any power to do anything. It's also instructive to note that .CAT is an ICANN-created gTLD (governed by gNSO based policy and contractual agreements) and not a ccTLD (to which subsidiarity applies), yet (as I predict will prove correct) ICANN and the gNSO have no standing or intervention in this action by the Spanish central authority. 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? 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Dear Nigel To what you referring by saying "THIS" in other words to what subject you referred as "THIS" Tks Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 20 Sep 2017, at 14:24, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
This, no doubt, will be the subject of appeals and legal proceedings at a number of rights under the ECHR are engaged, for both registry and registrants.
And there is no doubt that ECHR rights are legally enforceable in Spain.
Art 10 (free expression) Art 6.1 (right to fair hearing) Art 8 (right to privacy) Art 1 of Prot 1 (right to property)
and possibly even Art 3 of Prot 1 as well (although the allegations of the Spanish state is that the referendum is not "in accordance with law")
In fact this case engages all the fundamental rights that ICANN needs to be concerned about.
It's a pity, however, that ICANN shied away from embracing and defending human rights, hiding behing the 'applicable law' figleaf, since as it stands, it seems to be that there is neither any obligation on ICANN to do anything, nor any power to do anything.
It's also instructive to note that .CAT is an ICANN-created gTLD (governed by gNSO based policy and contractual agreements) and not a ccTLD (to which subsidiarity applies), yet (as I predict will prove correct) ICANN and the gNSO have no standing or intervention in this action by the Spanish central authority.
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?
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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
"This" is what is described in the article that Thomas posted to ws2-jurisdiction, which is quoted at the end of my post. Happy to be of service. On 20/09/17 12:12, Arasteh wrote:
Dear Nigel To what you referring by saying "THIS" in other words to what subject you referred as "THIS" Tks Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 20 Sep 2017, at 14:24, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
This, no doubt, will be the subject of appeals and legal proceedings at a number of rights under the ECHR are engaged, for both registry and registrants.
And there is no doubt that ECHR rights are legally enforceable in Spain.
Art 10 (free expression) Art 6.1 (right to fair hearing) Art 8 (right to privacy) Art 1 of Prot 1 (right to property)
and possibly even Art 3 of Prot 1 as well (although the allegations of the Spanish state is that the referendum is not "in accordance with law")
In fact this case engages all the fundamental rights that ICANN needs to be concerned about.
It's a pity, however, that ICANN shied away from embracing and defending human rights, hiding behing the 'applicable law' figleaf, since as it stands, it seems to be that there is neither any obligation on ICANN to do anything, nor any power to do anything.
It's also instructive to note that .CAT is an ICANN-created gTLD (governed by gNSO based policy and contractual agreements) and not a ccTLD (to which subsidiarity applies), yet (as I predict will prove correct) ICANN and the gNSO have no standing or intervention in this action by the Spanish central authority.
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?
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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
Farzaneh On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Nigel Roberts <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-offic es-raided-spanish-police/
Best, Thomas
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
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] 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 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
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 <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: 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>; Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>; 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
Dear Paul, While I think it may not have been your intention, your email constitutes a direct attack against my dignity. You said that I'm wrong and that I know I'm wrong, or in other words that I'm deliberately portraying as truth something I know to be false. I'd kindly ask you to abide by ICANN expected standards of behaviour and withdraw that assertion. Thank you. As to the substance of your comment, my point is that Spanish authorities might have been able to effectively take down .cat domain names - with worldwide implications - provided that .cat registry's offices it raided operated the infrastructure for the .cat domain name. And provided these offices were within Spain, only Spanish authorities had the necessary authority to take forceful measures against these offices in ways that affect the worldwide services operated from within these offices. (This is at least the jurisdictional principle involved, and we need not debate on the facts of this particular registry case) Now the same principle applies to ICANN as to any other entity located in the territory of any other country. The local authorities, and only the local authorities, will be able to enforce prescriptions affecting services that an entity provides worldwide but which are operated from within the local country. Hence I reiterate my previous assertion: 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. Best regards, Thiago -----Mensagem original----- De: Paul Rosenzweig [mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com] Enviada em: quarta-feira, 20 de setembro de 2017 10:57 Para: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira; 'farzaneh badii'; 'Nigel Roberts' Cc: 'ws2-jurisdiction'; ws2-hr@icann.org Assunto: RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: [Ws2-hr] .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 <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> From: 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>; Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>; 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] 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 Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [Ws2-hr] .cat Farzaneh On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Nigel Roberts <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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
I certainly have no intention of attacking your dignity. If you think I have done so, I apologize for giving you that impression. Nevertheless, you are still in error. You have been asserting incorrectly that ICANN's presence in the US uniquely gives US authority over its operations. It does not do so uniquely (except for issues relating to corporate governance under California non-profit law). ICANN is, and remains, subject to law in every country in which it operates -- and that includes both locations where it has a physical presence (e.g. Turkey and Singapore) as well as every country where it conducts operations. To build on your example, since ICANN operates multiple roots several of which are not in the United States there are at least 4 countries that could currently exercise the power over infrastructure that you are positing exists. Likewise there are 3 countries with physical control of ICANN operational offices. And, beyond that, there are countless other countries where ICANN operates where it can be subject to legal process and compelled by courts of competent jurisdiction to modify its behavior. While I certainly understand why you want to portray the US as having a unique power, it simply isn't the case. Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 -----Original Message----- From: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira [mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br] Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 1:14 PM To: 'Paul Rosenzweig' <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>; 'farzaneh badii' <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>; 'Nigel Roberts' <nigel@channelisles.net> Cc: 'ws2-jurisdiction' <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>; ws2-hr@icann.org Subject: RES: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: [Ws2-hr] .cat Dear Paul, While I think it may not have been your intention, your email constitutes a direct attack against my dignity. You said that I'm wrong and that I know I'm wrong, or in other words that I'm deliberately portraying as truth something I know to be false. I'd kindly ask you to abide by ICANN expected standards of behaviour and withdraw that assertion. Thank you. As to the substance of your comment, my point is that Spanish authorities might have been able to effectively take down .cat domain names - with worldwide implications - provided that .cat registry's offices it raided operated the infrastructure for the .cat domain name. And provided these offices were within Spain, only Spanish authorities had the necessary authority to take forceful measures against these offices in ways that affect the worldwide services operated from within these offices. (This is at least the jurisdictional principle involved, and we need not debate on the facts of this particular registry case) Now the same principle applies to ICANN as to any other entity located in the territory of any other country. The local authorities, and only the local authorities, will be able to enforce prescriptions affecting services that an entity provides worldwide but which are operated from within the local country. Hence I reiterate my previous assertion: 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. Best regards, Thiago -----Mensagem original----- De: Paul Rosenzweig [mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com] Enviada em: quarta-feira, 20 de setembro de 2017 10:57 Para: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira; 'farzaneh badii'; 'Nigel Roberts' Cc: 'ws2-jurisdiction'; ws2-hr@icann.org Assunto: RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: [Ws2-hr] .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 <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> From: 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>; Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>; 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] 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 Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [Ws2-hr] .cat Farzaneh On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Nigel Roberts <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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
Good afternoon: The actions by the Spanish authorities as described in this article are incompatible with the principles of free speech. Also, any Registry would rightly expect a clear legal basis before implementing the requested actions. If this is allowed to pass in the circumstances as described, it would create an unwelcome precedent. Regards Christopher Wilkinson Member of the Internet Society Chapter for Catalunya.
On 20 Sep 2017, at 10:58, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
Hi all, you might find this article interesting.
https://www.internetnews.me/2017/09/20/dotcat-registry-offices-raided-spanis... <https://www.internetnews.me/2017/09/20/dotcat-registry-offices-raided-spanis...>
Best, Thomas _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Hi all, I totally agree with Wilkinson. The unfortunate trend seems to be gathering momentum, not just from a particular region. As it is, there is a serious work for the Jurisdiction subgroup now on the basis of .CAT case. Regards, Wale On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Wilkinson <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Good afternoon:
The actions by the Spanish authorities as described in this article are incompatible with the principles of free speech. Also, any Registry would rightly expect a clear legal basis before implementing the requested actions.
If this is allowed to pass in the circumstances as described, it would create an unwelcome precedent.
Regards
Christopher Wilkinson Member of the Internet Society Chapter for Catalunya.
On 20 Sep 2017, at 10:58, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
Hi all, you might find this article interesting.
https://www.internetnews.me/2017/09/20/dotcat-registry- offices-raided-spanish-police/
Best, Thomas _______________________________________________ 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
Hello Thomas, This is an interesting article indeed and an unfortunate situation. However i think its important to note that this isn't a strange thing; certain internet services have been denied by Govt. in various countries in the past and I just think this is just yet another instance. While I have so much concern for this, I wonder what ICANN can do in a situation like this except to wish the registry all the best in putting up with the laws of her jurisdiction of incorporation. Nevertheless, on a general level, ICANN needs to continue to partner with or support other Internet organisations involved in internet freedom advocacy. That said, I think this example referenced indeed re-echos the possible impact that ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation can have on the organisation. One of the "thought" that always came to me during the CWG-Stewardship proposal development is whether the jurisdiction of ICANN is more important than that of the maintainer. The article referenced here rightly re-echos that thought (imagine if CORE was the org affected here). Overall, the reality is that an organisation has to be incorporated somewhere; its a devil we can't avoid. We just have to hope that the jurisdiction of incorporation doesn't go rogue on ICANN but necessary measures to reduce such negative impact should continue to be explored. Regards On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
Hi all, you might find this article interesting.
https://www.internetnews.me/2017/09/20/dotcat-registry-offic es-raided-spanish-police/
Best, Thomas
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
Dear Seun, Thank you for the points you raise. I'd only add that, as experience has proven, organisations incorporated under the laws of one country can still be protected (immune) from the jurisdiction of that very country, either generally or partially. So the risks associated with ICANN's place of incorporation really are not a devil we can't avoid. All it takes is will. Best regards, Thiago -----Mensagem original----- De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] Em nome de Seun Ojedeji Enviada em: quarta-feira, 20 de setembro de 2017 16:00 Para: Thomas Rickert Cc: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] .cat Hello Thomas, This is an interesting article indeed and an unfortunate situation. However i think its important to note that this isn't a strange thing; certain internet services have been denied by Govt. in various countries in the past and I just think this is just yet another instance. While I have so much concern for this, I wonder what ICANN can do in a situation like this except to wish the registry all the best in putting up with the laws of her jurisdiction of incorporation. Nevertheless, on a general level, ICANN needs to continue to partner with or support other Internet organisations involved in internet freedom advocacy. That said, I think this example referenced indeed re-echos the possible impact that ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation can have on the organisation. One of the "thought" that always came to me during the CWG-Stewardship proposal development is whether the jurisdiction of ICANN is more important than that of the maintainer. The article referenced here rightly re-echos that thought (imagine if CORE was the org affected here). Overall, the reality is that an organisation has to be incorporated somewhere; its a devil we can't avoid. We just have to hope that the jurisdiction of incorporation doesn't go rogue on ICANN but necessary measures to reduce such negative impact should continue to be explored. Regards On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote: Hi all, you might find this article interesting. https://www.internetnews.me/2017/09/20/dotcat-registry-offices-raided-spanis... <https://www.internetnews.me/2017/09/20/dotcat-registry-offices-raided-spanis...> Best, Thomas _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction> -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: <http://goog_1872880453> seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
participants (9)
-
Arasteh -
farzaneh badii -
Nigel Roberts -
Olawale Bakare -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Seun Ojedeji -
Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira -
Thomas Rickert -
Wilkinson