[Ws2-jurisdiction] ISSUE: In rem Jurisdiction over ccTLDs

[parminder]

Thanks Jorge. Very interesting and relevant information. Importantly,
also speaks to DN as property question, with clear legal codification in
this regard.

These domain seizures are no less an important issue than OFAC, and
cannot simply not be addressed by this group. And it has been argued
from practically the first day in this group, but has been completely
neglected.

What such seizures actually become are wholly inappropriate means of
extension of US law globally. This has been done most till now for
enforcement of extremely stringent US intellectual property laws
globally, but can be done for other things. What it creates is a
chilling effect, entities, including business, begin to make sure that
they work within US laws, even when they may not have US as a main or
significant place for doing business, or even not at all. This of course
is wholly inappropriate, and to repeat, makes DNS an illegal weapon for
global domination and control by the US.

It must be noted that domain names have been seized even in cases where
a business had no US based end. This is a case of seizure by US gov of
domain name of a Spanish travel company selling Cuban trips to a British
citizen, though with embargo related intentions.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2008/03/us-interferes-with-travel-to-cuba/

US has made, or arranged for, property seizures in areas other than DNS,
especially wrt trade in generic drugs, even when the business was being
carried out between non US parties and never touching US territory.

I dont see how can this group simply ignore this most significant issue.

And I also see no case-by-case remedy for it. Only general immunity
under the IOI Act, with the required negative list of exceptions, can
address it.

parminder



On Wednesday 23 August 2017 08:34 PM, Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch wrote:
>
> "The domain name seizure process used by Operation In Our Sites was
> codified in 18 U.S.C. § 981(b)(2), which provides a legal framework
> for property seizures by the government. Before the seizure,
> government officials are supposed to investigate suspected websites to
> find out if they actually purchase or access counterfeit items. The
> government then contacts the copyright holders to confirm ownership of
> the intellectual property and suspected infringement. Following the
> investigation, ICE and NIPRCC officials present the resulting evidence
> to the U.S. Attorneys, and check the domain name registration.
>
> If the domain name was registered in the U.S., the government
> petitions a magistrate judge to issue a seizure warrant for the domain
> name. With the warrant, the domain name's title and rights are
> transferred to the U.S. government. After the seizure, the government
> is supposed to send a written notice of the forfeiture deadline to the
> website operator within 60 days from the seizure date. The website
> owner can file the claim against the government within 35 days after
> receiving the notice. If the owner files a claim, the government has
> 90 days to prove that the property is subject to forfeiture. If the
> owner does not make a claim against the seizure, or the government
> successfully proves a valid seizure, the domain name is forfeited to
> the government.[9][10]"
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170824/1480469b/attachment.html>