[discuss] Some more legal tangles for ICANN

"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de
Sat Jun 28 09:58:44 UTC 2014

There is a lot of nonsense in the world and in particular in this article (which was written by somebody who has knowledge on the issue and as asked sources which also have no knowledge). Part of this nonsense is here: "Like other countries, Iran pays fees to ICANN to license its Internet assets." The reality is that ccTLD registries do NOT pay licence fees to ICANN. Only gTLD registries do. For ccTLD there is an option to make a voluntary contribution.  A lot of ccTLDs have decided to pay nothing. Does somebody know what the ccTLD Manager for .ir is paying?  

BTW, both the government of the US and the government of Iran are members of the GAC and have put their authority behind the GAC ccTLD principles which are acknowledged by all parties for delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs. And please join the ongoing disucssion for a "Framework of Interpretation" (FOI) on re-delegation issues. There is a lot of work where you can join within ICANN. 


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/#ixzz35vS5wzPF 
Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: discuss-bounces at 1net.org im Auftrag von parminder
Gesendet: Sa 28.06.2014 10:46
An: Nick Ashton-Hart
Cc: discuss at 1net.org
Betreff: Re: [discuss] Some more legal tangles for ICANN

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 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>> For an global IG discussion, the operative part in thenews 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 :)

More information about the discuss mailing list