[discuss] Some more legal tangles for ICANN

Nick Ashton-Hart nashton at consensus.pro
Sat Jun 28 11:46:31 UTC 2014

If you see something patronizing in my comments I am afraid that is what 
you are looking for. It seems you are also looking for a reason why this 
situation endorses the view you want to have of it. You are free to believe 
what you like of course, but in this situation you are simply seeing what 
you want rather than what is there: the point of law you mention simply is 
not a point of law for the reasons previously noted by me and others here. 
You thinking it is one dies not make it so.

There is and are legitimate questions regarding nexus of law and ICANN. To 
conflate this with it is a defocus from those issues which deserve 
discussion the their actual merits.

On 28 June 2014 10:47:12 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 
> <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 :)
> >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140628/41dcec08/attachment.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list