<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"> <style></style> </head> <body lang="EN-GB" link="blue" vlink="purple"> <div class="WordSection1"> I think Julius is right on the process. I'm still going through the detail, but in short: as this is from an e-commerce perspective, enforcement would come from consumer protection / fair trading agencies (as determined by each national Government) which are usually involved in e-commerce redress matters, and targeted at traders. There are existing specific processes for making intra-EU complaints, seeking redress for instance on non-delivery of goods ordered online from another EU country, which are not MLATS, but 'Mutual Assistance Mechanisms'. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> The novelties are explained on page 13 of the proposed Regulation:<o:p></o:p> 'Compared to the current Regulation, further minimum powers have been added, such as the power to make test purchases and carry out mystery shopping, power to adopt interim measures, block websites and the power to impose penalties and to safeguard consumer compensation in a cross-border context.' <o:p></o:p> (full text here:<o:p></o:p> <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_rights/unfair-trade/docs/cpc-revision-proposal_en.pdf">http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_rights/unfair-trade/docs/cpc-revision-proposal_en.pdf</a>). <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> It is detailed under Chapter III for the MAMs, then in Article 8.2 which details the powers of the authorities, including to suspend a website where it is stipulated that the authority in charge (the German consumer protection agency, on request from the Dutch agency, in Julius’s example) can :<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 'l) close down a website, domain or similar digital site, service or account or a part of it, including by requesting a third party or other public authority to implement such measures;'. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Unless there's further wording which I haven't got to yet, that would likely mean that each national authority would be able to define who would be deemed a 'third party' able to block a website, whether a network operator / ISP, or another relevant entity (a TLD registry??). <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> (on the example of a Dutch user being scammed by a German trader but that particular practice is not illegal in Germany, I’m not sure if the German authority would want / have to shut down the whole website, or just the Dutch webpages / access from NL?)<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> This proposal would normally now go to both the European Parliament and the EU Council (of Governments) for consideration, so there will be a number of hearings and committee discussions coming up, including the opportunity, one would expect, for relevant organisations (like EuroISPA) to air their views.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Note that this is part of the ambitious package of new legislations across the digital sector, such as a proposal for a Digital Content Directive which includes proposals around liability for Internet intermediaries for example (see links to the texts on the Commission webpage, or there's various statements by industry players issued this week, eg <a href="http://www.digitaleurope.org/DesktopModules/Bring2mind/DMX/Download.aspx?Command=Core_Download&entryID=2184&PortalId=0&TabId=353"> http://www.digitaleurope.org/DesktopModules/Bring2mind/DMX/Download.aspx?Command=Core_Download&entryID=2184&PortalId=0&TabId=353</a>) <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> JJ<o:p></o:p> <a name="_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></a> From: cooperation-wg [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Julius ter Pelkwijk Sent: 25 May 2016 15:01 To: Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> Cc: Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com>; cooperation-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] European Commission proposes new e-commerce rules<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> <div> That I am unsure about. I just noted that this can cause issues, since certain items in Holland are "banned" while they are allowed to be sold freely by other member states. A nice example would be buying 'prohibited items' in Germany or even Poland (think airsoft weapons for example): They can legally be sold in certain member countries, but shipping them to Holland is illegal. A Dutch "consumer agency" may force those websites to be shut down, even though the fireworks can be sold legally there.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> I believe that the call is not passed across borders. The consumer protection agency may act "on behalf" of the other member state to take down that website. In the case of a scammer located in Germany and aiming Dutch citizens, the Dutch consumer protection agency may force the German ISP to cease all activity from that user, even if the practice is considered to be legal in Germany.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> Basically said, with the "harmonization" it means that any state may act "on behalf" of the other state to shut down a website.<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> <div> <div> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 3:34 PM Patrik Fältström <<a href="mailto:paf@frobbit.se" target="_blank">paf@frobbit.se</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p> </div> <blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm"> How is the take down call passed across borders, i.e. how is the flow of action from detection via decision to messaging and action? Patrik On 25 May 2016, at 15:32, Julius ter Pelkwijk wrote: > What this means is that governmental "consumer agencies" have the right to take down websites in other EU states that sell illegal stuff to their country. A website like a fireworks store or even ebay can be taken down in all member states of the EU without prior notification, regardless of where the crime has been committed. This is very useful in certain cases like the "free promo scam" that they had in Holland a couple of years ago: A scammer had a website where they promoted free stuff worth 20 euro, but you had to pay shipping costs (6.95 euro). The website was even heavily promoted on radio and television channels, until they realized that they had been included in the scam (the cheque bounced). The total damage was unknown, but it ranged from 300k to 1 million euro in total. It took consumer organisations a few days to get the server taken down, mainly because the site looked legitimate in the first place and the ISP was not willing to take down a legitimate site. > > Its like some form of "Cease to Exist" letter that governmental agencies can send to the ISP, without having to go to court first to get the website taken down (and to prevent further damage). > > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 2:49 PM Patrik Fältström <<a href="mailto:paf@frobbit.se" target="_blank">paf@frobbit.se</a>> wrote: > >> On 25 May 2016, at 14:28, Gordon Lennox wrote: >> >>> Today’s e-commerce package is composed of: >> >>> • order the immediate take-down of websites hosting scams; >> >> Can someone explain what it implies to have something in a package like >> this? One of the main issues in Europe is that MLAT processes are extremely >> slow, and I am worried if what is in this package will be something else >> than "optimize the MLAT processes so that they are fast(er)". >> >> To get efficient MLAT might in turn might require ratification of the >> cybercrime convention etc, or? >> >> Anyone up for guessing what this might imply? >> >> Patrik >> >><o:p></o:p> </blockquote> <div> <o:p></o:p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </body> </html>