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

[parminder]

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170824/8458fae3/attachment-0001.html>