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

[Nigel Roberts]

Milto

There is no authority at all for this Claim, in law, as I suspect you know.

As I suspect you also know very well, the nearest evidence that might 
support such a Claim is that one of the contentions in /Weinstein/ was 
that a ccTLD (three of them, if I remember correctly) could be garnished 
under the "state law" of DC. (I know technically, DC is not a state of 
the Union, but I don't know the US correct term-of-art for 'state or 
capital region')

Unfortunately or fortunately (depending on one's point of view) it was 
not necessary for the Court to decide on this claim by the Judgment 
Debtor. This means that the idea that US courts might either have either 
or both of :-

(a) legal jurisdiction over the ownership of the rights represented by a 
ccTLD delegation

(b) the desire to exercise such (lack of desire to address a particular 
contention usually leads judges in common-law systems to be able 
conveniently to find a creative ratio that finds other reasons that the 
case can be decided

remains a completely open question.

It seems to me that additional hints for future litigants (as you know, 
common-law judges do that too) appear to have been given in the 
Weinstein judgment as to whether the rights in law enjoyed by a ccTLD 
manager (whatever they might be) MIGHT constitute property or not, but 
this remarks don't even amount to /obiter dictum/ - they are just hints 
at a possible road of future judicial travel and any court seised of a 
future Claim is entirely free to ignore them.

And, even so, those hints don't address the question of /in rem/ at all.


As you can see, I (along with some others in the ccTLD community) 
havefollowed, and analysed this case carefully and in some detail.

We are aware of no other possible legal authority that addresses whether 
ccTLDs are property (let alone whether that property, if it is property, 
is subject to /in rem/ jurisidiction).

Unless others have additional information?




Nigel Roberts

PS: I would also commend others to read Farzaneh and Milton's ccTLD paper.


On 22/08/17 22:31, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> What is the evidence for this claim?
>
> --MM
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>