[discuss] Some more legal tangles for ICANN

Fri Jun 27 11:08:52 UTC 2014

Dear Parminder,

I don't think you are getting the point I am trying to make. Let me try and make it somewhat differently, perhaps that will work.

ANY court anywhere in the world could render exactly the same judgment, and it would be equally applicable as this one: that is to say, totally not applicable. it doesn't matter in real terms what this court, or any higher US court, says, or doesn't say, about this judgment.

It doesn't matter that ICANN is a US-HQed organisation. It has no control over, ownership in, stake in, control over, ability to compel, etc a ccTLD. Any ccTLD. In any country. Regardless of what any court, anywhere, says or doesn't say. 

Again, this is without prejudice to your points about jurisdiction in general in other contexts. In this context, there is no jurisdictional nexus between ICANN and a ccTLD.

On 27 Jun 2014, at 12:52, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> For an global IG discussion, the operative part in the news story 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 :)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140627/06ae2c38/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 841 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140627/06ae2c38/signature.asc>