[Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: [Ws2-hr] .cat

[Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira]

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 at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at 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 at icann.org
Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [Ws2-hr] .cat



Farzaneh

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net<mailto:nigel at 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-spanish-police/

Best,
Thomas

_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________
Ws2-hr mailing list
Ws2-hr at icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170920/3f5a70d4/attachment.html>