[discuss] Some more legal tangles for ICANN
Shatan, Gregory S.
GShatan at ReedSmith.com
Mon Jun 30 19:05:48 UTC 2014
I think it would help to disentangle two issues here:
1. Are the .ir ccTLD and Iran's IP addresses assets of Iran that can be seized to satisfy a court judgment?
2. What is the proper method for such seizure, i.e., is ICANN the proper entity to use to make the seizure happen?
The court could have the answer to the first question right, and then (through misinformation about ICANN's roles and responsibilities) have the answer to the second question wrong. (I haven't read any of the court papers, so I have no well-informed view on the matter.) If that's the case, the plaintiffs will need to bring in a different entity or entities to enforce the judgment.
I am curious to see if ICANN is going to make an appearance in the case, perhaps to explain how things actually work and to state whether or (more likely) not ICANN can (and/or will) be able to take actions necessary to make the seizure happen.
From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Barry Shein
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 1:37 PM
To: Nick Ashton-Hart
Cc: 1Net List
Subject: Re: [discuss] Some more legal tangles for ICANN
Having been involved in a few law suits the reactions are always roughly the same. They seem to mimic the Kubler-Ross stages of grief somewhat.
1. This is ridiculous who are these people?
2. They have no right!
3. That can't proceed, the facts are a mess!
4. They are absolute idiots and understand nothing of the law.
5. I have found a detail, a coup de grace, which completely
invalidates their case!
6. Perhaps we'd better settle.
That's all I'm trying to say.
I don't find such analyses much more useful than a flip of a coin in practice.
Unfortunately many, many civil suits / judgements in the US at least aren't settled by wrangling over substantive issues.
More often your phone rings and your attorney explains they are willing to take $100,000 (pick a number) cash right now without prejudice or you can spend $200,000 minimum to fight with them and no that's not recoverable if you win. And of course you might lose -- courts can be fickle and/or you could be wrong or missing something, some ace up their sleeve so to speak.
(A more cynical surmise of that same moment is: I have extracted all the legal fees out of you I believe you are prepared to spend, and the other party's attorney feels the same about their client, so let's just bury this one right now -- bird in hand you know, my bird that
Or they are thrown out due to some lack of jurisdiction or procedural error.
So if you think I am disputing your assessment of the substantive issues I assure you I am not other than pointing out that it's probably a lot fuzzier than is being presented (see #5 above.)
The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org
* * *
This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered
confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in
error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply
e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or
use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other
person. Thank you for your cooperation.
* * *
To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we
inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax
advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1)
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state
and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
More information about the discuss