[discuss] Some more legal tangles for ICANN

[Chris Disspain]

HI Parminder,

> However if you think this particular 'point of law' has no implication to the legal and jurisdictional status of ICANN and the important global governance functions that is does, I will rest my case here. 

Speaking as a lawyer and a ccTLD manager a) I would be wary of drawing ‘points of law’ from a news story and b) even if the report is accurate, the decision does not have any implication to the legal and jurisdictional status of ICANN.

>>> 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 :)

Again as a lawyer, I have learnt that it is unwise to predict what courts may or may not do. However, FWIW, I think the decision is likely to be overturned for a number of reasons, mainly to do with the definition of assets. 


Cheers,

Chris

On 28 Jun 2014, at 18:46 , parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> 
> On Friday 27 June 2014 04:38 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> To respond in kind to your patronising statement: Nick, I think you need to understand the difference between a 'point of law' - something I have stressed repeatedly as the most important element here - and 'matters of fact' related to a court judgement. I consider the 'point of law' illustrated by the judgement to be of the greatest implication for IG debate, irrespective of the validity of certain facts that are involved.. 
> 
> I will repeat. The point of law is best illustrated in the following quote from the news story. 
> 
> "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)....".
> 
> However if you think this particular 'point of law' has no implication to the legal and jurisdictional status of ICANN and the important global governance functions that is does, I will rest my case here. 
> 
> 
> regards, parminder 
> 
> PS: As for your claim of absence of any nexus between cctlds and ICANN reg delegation, de-delgation or re-delegation, that surprises me, but I have no desire to take up that discussion. 
> 
>> 
>> 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 :)
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140628/442f83c4/attachment-0001.html>