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

Thu Sep 21 19:41:47 UTC 2017

The EU doesn't have a human rights court.

The European Court of Justice in Lux. is the highest court on matters of 
EU law.

The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg is not an EU 
institution. It provides declaratory judgments on infringements by 
signatories (47 countries, see 
http://www.coe.int/en/web/about-us/our-member-states ).

As a condition of opening a case in the ECHR one must have exhausted 
domestic legal remedies first.

>
> It appears that many of their judgments are not enforced by national
> governments but it would still be good to get the judgment anyway,
> wouldn’t it?
>
>
>
> Hard to see how ICANN could enforce a Human Rights violation by an EU
> government.   Squarely in the realm of the EU Court of HR I would think.
>
>
>
> Anne
>
>
>
> *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
>
> Of Counsel
>
> 520.629.4428 office
>
> 520.879.4725 fax
>
> AAikman at lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>
>
> _____________________________
>
> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
>
> One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
>
> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
>
> lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
>
>
>
> *From:*ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Paul Rosenzweig
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 20, 2017 6:57 AM
> *To:* 'Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira'; 'farzaneh badii'; 'Nigel Roberts'
> *Cc:* 'ws2-jurisdiction'; ws2-hr at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-hr] [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: .cat
>
>
>
> Actually, that’s wrong Thiago, but you know that.  The facts are that
> .cat has physical offices in Spain – hence its offices could be raided.
> That is true irrespective of whether or not the .cat owners are
> corporate domiciled in Spain or in France or anywhere else in the
> world.  The same is true of ICANN’s offices in Turkey, which have not
> been raided by Turkish police and (we all fervently hope never will be).
>
>
>
> While I join everyone in dismay at the action of the Spanish authorities
> they prove my point, as Nigel said.
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
>
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>
> www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>
>
> My PGP Key:
> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684
>
>
>
> *From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Thiago Braz
> Jardim Oliveira
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 20, 2017 8:47 AM
> *To:* 'farzaneh badii' <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
> <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>>; Nigel Roberts
> <nigel at channelisles.net <mailto:nigel at channelisles.net>>
> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>>; ws2-hr at icann.org
> <mailto:ws2-hr at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: [Ws2-hr] .cat
>
>
>
> 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>
> [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 <mailto: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
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
> individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this
> message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee
> or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the
> intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
> distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
> notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information
> transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is
> intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended
> recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
> 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.