[discuss] Some more legal tangles for ICANN

Fri Jun 27 10:52:03 UTC 2014

For an global IG discussion, the operative part in the news story 
<http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-us-terror-victims-now-own-irans-internet/> 
is this

"The United State District Court decided that the.ir domain name, along 
with Iran's IP addresses ..... were assets that could be seized to 
satisfy judgments (of US courts)....".

I dont see on what basis can this point of law be struck down by an 
higher court... It is kind of obvious. Has always been obvious. The news 
story is just being cited to try to force the obvious on those who are 
so thoroughly intent on not seeing the obvious :)

parminder

Read more: Israeli, US terror victims could 'own' Iran's Internet | The 
Times of Israel 
<http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-us-terror-victims-now-own-irans-internet/#ixzz35pr9cHtn> 
http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-us-terror-victims-now-own-irans-internet/#ixzz35pr9cHtn 

Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter 
<http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=dQLttcC2Wr45Q7acwqm_6r&u=timesofisrael> | 
timesofisrael on Facebook 
<http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=dQLttcC2Wr45Q7acwqm_6r&u=timesofisrael>

On Friday 27 June 2014 04:08 PM, parminder wrote:
>
> On Friday 27 June 2014 03:34 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
>> - the double posting for real this time.
>>
>> I'm sorry Parminder, but this case has nothing to do with the point 
>> you are making. The court - and the plaintiff's solicitor - simply 
>> don't understand that a ccTLD and ICANN don't exchange money, ICANN 
>> doesn't license them or anything of the sort. This is a 
>> non-enforceable judgment based upon flawed information at a very 
>> fundamental level.
>
> Nick
>
> 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, or a few others 
> that US courts have picked up reg ICANN (like the one on whether .xxx 
> is compatible with commerce related laws of the US). This case simply 
> further highlights the obvious control that the US jurisdiction and 
> law has over the ICANN, in all respects, and fully. Whether cctld 
> makes no payment is a minor point - an Iran based gtld, which does 
> make payments, could be in the 'accused box' on some other issue....
>
> In a recent write up, I used the example of, say, a private gtld of an 
> Indian company which sells generic drugs. Lets call it dot 
> genricdrugs...  Its business may be completely legitimate in India and 
> most of the world, but lets say a US pharma takes its business model 
> to a US court, and the court finds it running foul of the stupidly 
> severe US IP protections, and similarly, as in the quoted case, asks 
> ICANN to seize both the payments made to ICANN as well as possibly the 
> gltd from the root server itself. I consider this not only very 
> plausible but a round the corner scenario. Can you show me how this is 
> not possible. Why should Indian companies and citizens be at the mercy 
> of US law and institutions? That is the point. And that point is 
> rather strongly accentuated by the court judgement being discussed 
> currently, whether in its specific elements it is enforceable or not.
>
> As you can perhaps well judge, no one here is interested in the 
> specfic subject of this judgement, but on the very important global 
> Internet governance issue that it raises. And this issue goes to the 
> heart of ICANN oversight transition issue. ICANN oversight is foremost 
> about figuring out the legitimate political domain that it should be 
> anchored in and responsible to... But of course we can put aside such 
> real issues and sink back again into the comfort zone of all the 
> ICANN-ic trivialities that IMHO have filled up the ICANN oversight 
> transition discussion.
>
> parminder
>
>
>>
>> On 27 Jun 2014, at 11:53, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>
>>> Many of us have been saying for years now that ICANN as a global 
>>> governance body is simply not sustainable to remain under US 
>>> jurisdiction, and must be incorporated under international law with 
>>> host country immunities.... And we have said a thousand times that 
>>> it is not just the issue of what the US executive decides, but also 
>>> what any court in US could decide any day on any issue, which could 
>>> unravel the whole structure and its plausibility.... Sorry for the 
>>> 'I told you so' sentiment, but well, we need to wake up. Even 
>>> now.... parminder
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday 27 June 2014 02:54 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>>>> On Jun 27, 2014, at 2:22 AM, michael gurstein<gurstein at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-us-terror-victims-now-own-irans-internet/  
>>>> For those not following on NANOG:
>>>>
>>>> http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Subpoena-Ben-Haim-02-1611-with-Schedule-A.pdf
>>>>
>>>>                                  -Bill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140627/065a1b65/attachment-0001.html>