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 Follow Neustar: LinkedIn / Twitter Reduce your environmental footprint. Print only if necessary. ________________________________ The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 4:54 AM To: "jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>>, "thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>" <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>>, "ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>" <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] ISSUE: In rem Jurisdiction over ccTLDs Dear Jordan and all, I do not think that the issue proposed and the CCNSO process and safeguards are mutually exclusive. Kind regards Jorge Von: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Jordan Carter Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. August 2017 11:59 An: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] ISSUE: In rem Jurisdiction over ccTLDs Dear Thiago, dear all, Dispute resolution regarding ccTLD matters is currently the subject of a PDP in the ccNSO. This isn't the perfect link but does give some info: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccnso-pdp-retirement-review-2017-05-24-en<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2Dcomments_ccnso-2Dpdp-2Dretirement-2Dreview-2D2017-2D05-2D24-2Den&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=6UMw5W3o6Xx5QJKKIUurAnSRhv7XWWGu4c3ho3etkBY&s=wLQxqkwvhqeqyjWE8leDJdAQ32Q2O5qdN5z2FjU9LU0&e=> While the existence of the PDP does not prevent this sub-group of the CCWG discussing this matter, my understanding of ICANN's bylaws is that the Board would not be able to accept any WS2 recommendation on this subject. That is a hard won protection of our ccTLD independence that has been a feature of the ICANN system since the ccNSO was formed. As such, the Jurisdiction group may prefer to focus its effort and energy on matters where implementable recommendations can be made by the CCWG. Hope this helps, Jordan On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 at 1:32 PM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>> wrote: Dear All, For your consideration: 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, and US courts and US enforcement agencies could possibly exercise its exclusive enforcement jurisdiction over ICANN to compel it to re-delegate ccTLDs. This is contrary, in particular, to paragraph 63 of the Tunis Agenda: "Countries should not be involved in decisions regarding another country's country-code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD). Their legitimate interests, as expressed and defined by each country, in diverse ways, regarding decisions affecting their ccTLDs, need to be respected, upheld and addressed via a flexible and improved framework and mechanisms." It is to be noted that while paragraph 63 may not state that States have sovereignty over ccTLDs, it does establish that States should not interfere with ccTLDs. Further, an obligation on States not to interfere with certain matters, as ccTLDs, need not be based on the principle of sovereignty to exist, nor does it suppose that the matter is one subject to the sovereignty of States. For States can simply agree to limit their ability to interfere with ccTLDs delegated to other countries, and this is the principle embodied in Paragraph 63 of the Tunis Agenda. Proposed solution: ICANN should seek jurisdictional immunities in respect of ICANN's activities relating to the management of ccTLDs. In addition, it should be included in ICANN Bylaws an exclusive choice of forum provision, whereby disputes relating to the management of any given ccTLD by ICANN shall be settled exclusively in the courts of the country to which the ccTLD in question refer. A similar exclusive choice of forum clause shall be included in those contracts ICANN may have with ccTLD managers, where such a contract exists. Best regards, Thiago _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_ws2-2Djurisdiction&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=6UMw5W3o6Xx5QJKKIUurAnSRhv7XWWGu4c3ho3etkBY&s=EopAb2PVfPM02VuYSAhh7AdJA8Q6g1wK9YlBamfjwhU&e=> -- Jordan Carter | Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
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
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. Also, as I pointed out, this In Rem jurisdiction is completely independent of ICANN's incorporation and even its existence. 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> [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
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> [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
With the .IR decision in the DC Circuit as precedent, the probability of a US court seeking to order ICANN to take adverse action against a ccTLD at the top level approaches zero. Further, and this is a personal view, other than perhaps .KP, if a US court was ever going to take adverse action against a ccTLD it would have been against .IR yet it chose not to do so - in large part because, as Milton pointed out, "the court decided that court-ordered seizure of the ccTLD would impair the interest of ICANN in a globally acceptable delegation process and possible also impair the interest of its registrants". Indeed, one could say that ICANN's US domicile and historic (pre-transition) relationship with the US government benefitted the .IR ccTLD. As for second level ccTLD domains, under the ACPA there can be no effective exercise and enforcement of its In Rem proceedings unless the ccTLD's operation is conducted by a US-based registry operator or the domain registrant has chosen to utilize a US-based registrar. So there is no issue for ccTLDs operated by or within their associated nation where the domains are registered via a non-US party. While nothing is ever impossible, IMHO this WG should not expend continued time and resources addressing highly improbable scenarios when it is flirting with being declared a failed policy exercise if it does not up its game and meet certain benchmark requirements by ICANN 60, which is only two months away. 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 parminder Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 12:16 PM To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [EXTERNAL] Re: ISSUE: In rem Jurisdiction over ccTLDs 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> [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<mailto: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> [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<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
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 the 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
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
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
I think I made the exact same point a day or two ago . .
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
participants (6)
-
Burr, Becky -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Mueller, Milton L -
Nigel Roberts -
parminder -
Phil Corwin