<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Friday 27 June 2014 03:34 PM, Nick
Ashton-Hart wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:8F20C6C3-1E28-406C-9B3D-E3A5CC5D285B@internet-ecosystem.org"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
- the double posting for real this time.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm sorry Parminder, but this case has nothing to do with the
point you are making. The court - and the plaintiff's solicitor
- simply don't understand that a ccTLD and ICANN don't exchange
money, ICANN doesn't license them or anything of the sort. This
is a non-enforceable judgment based upon flawed information at a
very fundamental level.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Nick<br>
<br>
The basic issue is that the US courts, at all levels, from the
lowest onwards, have full jurisdiction over ICANN - its activities,
assets, relationships, finances and so on. This is of course quite
evident without having to go through the papers of this case, or a
few others that US courts have picked up reg ICANN (like the one on
whether .xxx is compatible with commerce related laws of the US).
This case simply further highlights the obvious control that the US
jurisdiction and law has over the ICANN, in all respects, and fully.
Whether cctld makes no payment is a minor point - an Iran based
gtld, which does make payments, could be in the 'accused box' on
some other issue.... <br>
<br>
In a recent write up, I used the example of, say, a private gtld of
an Indian company which sells generic drugs. Lets call it dot
genricdrugs... Its business may be completely legitimate in India
and most of the world, but lets say a US pharma takes its business
model to a US court, and the court finds it running foul of the
stupidly severe US IP protections, and similarly, as in the quoted
case, asks ICANN to seize both the payments made to ICANN as well as
possibly the gltd from the root server itself. I consider this not
only very plausible but a round the corner scenario. Can you show me
how this is not possible. Why should Indian companies and citizens
be at the mercy of US law and institutions? That is the point. And
that point is rather strongly accentuated by the court judgement
being discussed currently, whether in its specific elements it is
enforceable or not. <br>
<br>
As you can perhaps well judge, no one here is interested in the
specfic subject of this judgement, but on the very important global
Internet governance issue that it raises. And this issue goes to the
heart of ICANN oversight transition issue. ICANN oversight is
foremost about figuring out the legitimate political domain that it
should be anchored in and responsible to... But of course we can put
aside such real issues and sink back again into the comfort zone of
all the ICANN-ic trivialities that IMHO have filled up the ICANN
oversight transition discussion. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:8F20C6C3-1E28-406C-9B3D-E3A5CC5D285B@internet-ecosystem.org"
type="cite">
<div>
<br>
<div>
<div>On 27 Jun 2014, at 11:53, parminder <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <font face="Verdana">Many
of us have been saying for years now that ICANN as a
global governance body is simply not sustainable to
remain under US jurisdiction, and must be incorporated
under international law with host country immunities....
And we have said a thousand times that it is not just
the issue of what the US executive decides, but also
what any court in US could decide any day on any issue,
which could unravel the whole structure and its
plausibility.... Sorry for the 'I told you so'
sentiment, but well, we need to wake up. Even now....
parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Friday 27 June 2014 02:54
PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:739FF646-63A2-49C3-A00F-3D79F508B3EE@pch.net"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Jun 27, 2014, at 2:22 AM, michael gurstein <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com"><gurstein@gmail.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-us-terror-victims-now-own-irans-internet/">http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-us-terror-victims-now-own-irans-internet/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">For those not following on NANOG:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Subpoena-Ben-Haim-02-1611-with-Schedule-A.pdf">http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Subpoena-Ben-Haim-02-1611-with-Schedule-A.pdf</a>
-Bill
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
discuss mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>