<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);"><div>HI Parminder,</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><font face="Verdana">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. </font></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Speaking as a lawyer and a ccTLD manager a) I would be wary of drawing �points of law� from a news story and b) even if the report is accurate, the decision does not have any implication to the legal and jurisdictional status of ICANN.<div><br></div><div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><blockquote cite="mid:3EA10232-FE80-492E-B100-4C08AD57D61E@internet-ecosystem.org" type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><font face="Verdana" style="font-size: 16px;">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 :)</font></blockquote></blockquote></div></blockquote><br></div><div>Again as a lawyer, I have learnt that it is unwise to predict what courts may or may not do. However, FWIW, I think the decision is likely to be overturned for a number of reasons, mainly to do with the definition of assets. </div><div>
<style type="text/css">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px}
p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Verdana; color: #9443fb}
p.p3 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Verdana; color: #9443fb; min-height: 16.0px}
</style>
<p class="p1"><br></p>
<p class="p1"><br></p>
<p class="p2">Cheers,</p>
<p class="p3"><br></p>
<p class="p2">Chris</p>
</div>
<br><div><div>On 28 Jun 2014, at 18:46 , parminder <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Friday 27 June 2014 04:38 PM, Nick
Ashton-Hart wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:3EA10232-FE80-492E-B100-4C08AD57D61E@internet-ecosystem.org" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
Dear Parminder,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.. <br>
<br>
I will repeat. The point of law is best illustrated in the following
quote from the news story. <br>
<br>
<font face="Verdana">"</font><font face="Verdana">The United State
District Court decided that the<span id="e2bd3055-f21f-4730-a26a-1903f35c4152" class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark"> .ir</span> domain name, along with
Iran�s IP addresses ..... were assets that could be seized to
satisfy judgments (of US courts)....".<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
</font><br>
regards, parminder <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:3EA10232-FE80-492E-B100-4C08AD57D61E@internet-ecosystem.org" type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.<br>
<br>
<div>
<div>On 27 Jun 2014, at 12:52, 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"><font style="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;" face="Verdana">For an global IG discussion, the operative
part in the<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-us-terror-victims-now-own-irans-internet/">news
story</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>is
this<br>
<br>
"</font><font style="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;" face="Verdana">The United
State District Court decided that the<span id="e2bd3055-f21f-4730-a26a-1903f35c4152" class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark"><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>.ir</span> domain
name, along with Iran�s IP addresses ..... were assets
that could be seized to satisfy judgments (of US
courts)....".<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
<br>
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 :)</font></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>discuss mailing list<br><a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a><br>http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</blockquote></div><br></div></span></body></html>