<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">Snipped a lot for brevity<div><br></div><div>Parminder:</div><div><br></div><div>ICANN has no jurisdiction over .IR, hence all the rest of the point you are making, irrespective of its merits otherwise, is irrelevant in this case.</div><div><br><div><div>On 27 Jun 2014, at 12:38, parminder <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span style="font-family: OpenSans; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); float: none; display: inline !important;">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 f</span></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>