[At-Large] US v John Doe 1 & Others [Defendants]

Mon Nov 28 05:41:32 UTC 2011

>
>
> > Yes, I agree. It will be interesting to watch the developments.
> Especially
> > in light of how the European Court of Justice views the relevant laws.
>
> Which relevant laws?
>
> *Analysis of relevant European Law*

“In the famous Costa-Enel case (6/64) the Court of Justice of the European
Community has ruled that European law is an integral part of the national
legal system of the EC member countries and takes precedence over national
law. Therefore one cannot fully ascertain the applicable law without
researching the relevant European
law[1]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s.tamanikaiwaimaro/My%20Documents/Connect/Impact%20of%20New%20York%20decision%20on%20RIRs%20all%20over%20the%20world%20and%20considerations%20for%20Connect.doc#_ftn1>”.

*European Ministerial Declaration on the Management of the Internet
Protocol Address Resources in the Public Interest*

The Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on the management of the
Internet protocol address resources in the public interest (Adopted by the
Committee of Ministers on 29 September 2010
at the 1094th meeting of the Ministers'
Deputies)[2]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s.tamanikaiwaimaro/My%20Documents/Connect/Impact%20of%20New%20York%20decision%20on%20RIRs%20all%20over%20the%20world%20and%20considerations%20for%20Connect.doc#_ftn2>
is
relevant.

[…]Paragraph 11 of the Ministerial Text where the Committee of Ministers,
therefore, declares the following:-

*- Internet protocol address resources should be regarded as shared
public resources and allocated and managed in the public interest by the
entities entrusted with these tasks, taking into account the present and
future needs of Internet users;

*

*Prioritisation of Rights*

*European Court of Justice*

Recently the European Court of Justice ruled that EU law precludes the
imposition of an injunction by a national court which requires an Internet
Service Provider (ISP) to install a filtering system with a view to
preventing the illegal downloading of files in a Press
Release[3]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s.tamanikaiwaimaro/My%20Documents/Connect/Impact%20of%20New%20York%20decision%20on%20RIRs%20all%20over%20the%20world%20and%20considerations%20for%20Connect.doc#_ftn3>.
The actual Judgment was released on the 24th November,
2011[4]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s.tamanikaiwaimaro/My%20Documents/Connect/Impact%20of%20New%20York%20decision%20on%20RIRs%20all%20over%20the%20world%20and%20considerations%20for%20Connect.doc#_ftn4>
.

Actually the significance of this Judgment is in relation to how they dealt
with the prioritisation of rights, that is the rights if intellectual
property owners, the rights of ISPs to conduct their business freely, the
freedom to receive and impart information and the rights of consumers to
privacy. "The injunction requiring installation of the contested filtering
system involve a systematic analysis of all content, [ISPs cannot afford
this and at the end of the day, this cost would be borne by customers
somehow] and the collection and identification of users' IP addresses from
which unlawful content on the network is sent. Those addresses are
protected personal data because they allow those users to be precisely
identified". (Highlighted portion is mine)

The consideration in how the Judges arrived at their decision is on [para
52, 53] where there is no guarantee that lawful content would not be
blocked. After considering all the rights stemming from the Directives
listed in para 55, the courts held in favour of "privacy" of consumers that
is fundamental rights trumping when reading all of the Directives together.
Although the European Court of Justice recommended that harmonization take
place.

*European Court of Human Rights*

Two interesting cases from the European Court of Human Rights include the
following:-

1.       Case of Klass and Others v.
Germany[5]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s.tamanikaiwaimaro/My%20Documents/Connect/Impact%20of%20New%20York%20decision%20on%20RIRs%20all%20over%20the%20world%20and%20considerations%20for%20Connect.doc#_ftn5>(a
leading case, 1978)
 ;

2.       Case of the Association for European Integration and Human Rights
and Ekimdzhiev V.
Bulgaria[6]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s.tamanikaiwaimaro/My%20Documents/Connect/Impact%20of%20New%20York%20decision%20on%20RIRs%20all%20over%20the%20world%20and%20considerations%20for%20Connect.doc#_ftn6>.
see:

More information on Article 8 can be found in the fact sheet / summary
provides an overview of Article 8 case
law[7]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s.tamanikaiwaimaro/My%20Documents/Connect/Impact%20of%20New%20York%20decision%20on%20RIRs%20all%20over%20the%20world%20and%20considerations%20for%20Connect.doc#_ftn7>
.

------------------------------

[1]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s.tamanikaiwaimaro/My%20Documents/Connect/Impact%20of%20New%20York%20decision%20on%20RIRs%20all%20over%20the%20world%20and%20considerations%20for%20Connect.doc#_ftnref1>
http://www.llrx.com/features/dutch2.htm

[2]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s.tamanikaiwaimaro/My%20Documents/Connect/Impact%20of%20New%20York%20decision%20on%20RIRs%20all%20over%20the%20world%20and%20considerations%20for%20Connect.doc#_ftnref2>
https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1678299&Site=CM&BackColorInternet=C3C3C3&BackColorIntranet=EDB021&BackColorLogged=F5D383

[3]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s.tamanikaiwaimaro/My%20Documents/Connect/Impact%20of%20New%20York%20decision%20on%20RIRs%20all%20over%20the%20world%20and%20considerations%20for%20Connect.doc#_ftnref3>
http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2011-11/cp110126en.pdf

[4]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s.tamanikaiwaimaro/My%20Documents/Connect/Impact%20of%20New%20York%20decision%20on%20RIRs%20all%20over%20the%20world%20and%20considerations%20for%20Connect.doc#_ftnref4>
http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=EN&Submit=Submit&numaff=C-70/10

[5]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s.tamanikaiwaimaro/My%20Documents/Connect/Impact%20of%20New%20York%20decision%20on%20RIRs%20all%20over%20the%20world%20and%20considerations%20for%20Connect.doc#_ftnref5>
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695387&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649

[6]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s.tamanikaiwaimaro/My%20Documents/Connect/Impact%20of%20New%20York%20decision%20on%20RIRs%20all%20over%20the%20world%20and%20considerations%20for%20Connect.doc#_ftnref6>
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=bulgaria%20%7C%208%20%7C%20surveillance&sessionid=74457679&skin=hudoc-en

  [7]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s.tamanikaiwaimaro/My%20Documents/Connect/Impact%20of%20New%20York%20decision%20on%20RIRs%20all%20over%20the%20world%20and%20considerations%20for%20Connect.doc#_ftnref7>
http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/4FCF8133-AD91-4F7B-86F0-A448429BC2CC/0/FICHES_Protection_des_données_EN.pdf

>
> >
> >>
> >> In other words, ISC asking RIPE NCC to do something to someone else's
> >> IP space would be the same as if you or I had asked them to do the
> >> same.
> >>
> >> The only difference here is that it is not ISC asking, they are only
> > acting out the Judge's orders. This brings back the question, whether
> they
> > have the authority?
>
> I would say no, the only party that has any standing with the RIPE NCC
> is the Dutch police IMO.
>
> I agree
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>

-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala

Tweeter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Cell: +679 998 2851