[discuss] Some more legal tangles for ICANN

Sun Jun 29 04:06:34 UTC 2014

At 12:42 27/06/2014, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
>ICANN has no jurisdiction over .IR, hence all the rest of the point 
>you are making, irrespective of its merits otherwise, is irrelevant 
>in this case.

You just confirm that ICANN has no jurisdiction over TLDs. This 
sounds as "period!". So, why does it behave as it had?

ICANN has only signed contracts with some entities to maintain the 
zone metadata of the name they chose in their "IN" ICANN/NTIA VGN 
root; that most still use as a default referent because they also 
list the ISO 3166-1 codes and their ccTLD nameservers IPs.

Incertitude about the legal vulnerability of this ccTLD listing to US 
Judges, calls for a contingency plan. There can be several of them. 
Two seem pretty simple to implement.

1. an ITU "UN" sponsored Class list that could be implemented by 
several ITU Member Root Server System.
2. a grassroots "IU" (inter-user) list that people could use as 
HomeRoots.Probably supported by he WIPO.

>On 27 Jun 2014, at 12:38, parminder 
><<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>>The basic issue is that the US courts, at all levels, from the 
>>lowest onwards, have full jurisdiction over ICANN - its activities, 
>>assets, relationships, finances and so on. This is of course quite 
>>evident without having to go through the papers of this case,

No one can be sure that a Sheriff will not oblige Verisign to 
implement an US ".ir" (or any other country) like ICE does for non-US 
hosted domain names.

The problem is that business' first demand is stability, surety.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140629/80490cde/attachment.html>