I think the arrangements you describe would be sufficient to protect the third party interests of registrants under a TLD. More could also be done to ensure that
in any such delegation, the new owner doesn’t impair the property and service interests of SLD registrants.
What I don’t understand is the court’s feeling that ICANN’s interest in the stability and interoperability of the DNS would be impaired by a legally mandated
redelegation. I think that argument is just plain false. A redelegation does not create a compatibility issue. I don’t think the court understands what ICANN does and was overly swayed by hysterical USG amicus brief that claimed that the whole “model of internet
governance” would be destroyed by a pro-plaintiff decision.
--MM
From: Diego R. Canabarro [mailto:diegocanabarro@nic.br]
Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2016 2:30 PM
To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Cc: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>; Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>; David Post <david.g.post@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Weinstein v. Iran
Excellent post, Milton. Do you think the ruling would have been different in case ICANN had any sort of direct access to the database (e.g.: through a escrow
service provider)? Put it differently: in case ICANN had access to a full replication of the ccTLD database and could keep things running smoothly, do you the ruling should be different?
Best
Diego
--
Diego R. Canabarro
Equipe de Assessoria do CGI.br / CGI.br Advisory Team <http://cgi.br/>
Núcleo de Informação e Coordenação do Ponto BR - NIC.br <http://nic.br/>
+55 11 5509 4116 | 5509 1855
PGP Key 007A14F5
Em qui 04 ago 2016, às 18:15:56, Mueller, Milton L escreveu:
> As some of you know we've been doing some serious research on this topic and
> here is our take on the court decision:
>
http://www.internetgovernance.org/2016/08/04/plaintiffs-cant-seize-ir-court
> -rules/
>
> From:
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Phil
> Corwin Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 5:46 PM
> To: David Post <david.g.post@gmail.com>
> Cc: 'CCWG-Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Weinstein v. Iran
>
> Paul:
>
> Greg Shatan raised the same quibble in a comment posted at the website, and
> I replied as follows-
>
> Greg:
> Thanks for the positive review of a hastily composed article. You are
> correct that the court expressed an assumption that a ccTLD constituted an
> attachable property interest, but did not decide that it was. While that
> assumption might be cited in a future case involving TLD matters it
> certainly has little to no weight. Further, courts might well decide that a
> nation's interest in its ccTLD, which is independent of any contractual
> relationship with ICANN, differentiates ccTLDs from gTLDs, which are
> dependent on being awarded such a contract by ICANN and can be lost if the
> registry operator commits a material breach of the registry agreement.
> Finally, whether or not ccTLDs or gTLDs constitute some type of property
> interest is a separate question from whether second level domains
> constitute a form of property. So yes, it was a very interesting outcome
> but in no way determinative on the TLD as property issue. Best, Philip
>
> You are correct that the Court took no position one way or another on
> whether a TLD constitutes property, and leaves that issue for another case
> at a later date.
>
> Very best, Philip
>
> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
> Virtualaw LLC
> 1155 F Street, NW
> Suite 1050
> Washington, DC 20004
> 202-559-8597/Direct
> 202-559-8750/Fax
> 202-255-6172/Cell
>
> Twitter: @VlawDC
>
> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>
> From: David Post [mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 5:37 PM
> To: Phil Corwin
> Cc: Paul Rosenzweig; 'CCWG-Accountability'
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Weinstein v. Iran
>
> At 09:37 AM 8/3/2016, Phil Corwin wrote:
> Content-Language: en-US
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>
> boundary="_000_8E84A14FB84B8141B0E4713BAFF5B84E21188D2AExchangesierrac_"
>
> FYI, yesterday I published a short article on the decision which can be
> found at
>
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20160802_court_of_appeals_avoids_doomsday_eff
> ect_in_iran_cctld_decision/
>
>
> One small-ish quibble: you write:
>
> "In reaching its decision, the Court opined (but did not decide) that a top
> level domain constitutes an attachable property interest."
>
> Not sure that's strictly correct. I think "opined" implies that the court
> expressed an opinion about the matter (without actually deciding it). But
> I don't think it did express an opinion one way or the other; it simply
> said that it would "assume" that the ccTLDs constitute property, without
> really considering the matter, because it would have no impact on the
> outcome. I know it's a nit ... but the question of whether TLDs are
> "property" is sure to come up again, and I don't think this opinion is any
> support at all - even weak support - for the notion that they are. David
>
>
>
> In it I state:
> In my view, this result avoids the possibility of a major erosion of
> confidence and participation in ICANN by ccTLD operators by making clear
> that a respected Court of Appeals in the U.S. possesses adequate technical
> understanding of the DNS to avoid a legal decision that could lead to
> technical and political instability many nations would not wish to
> continue in a DNS coordinated by a U.S. non-profit corporation if it could
> be ordered by a U.S. court to transfer control of any nation's ccTLD. This
> decision will also hopefully tamp down calls by some parties for ICANN's
> place of incorporation to be moved outside of the U.S. by demonstrating
> that ICANN's jurisdiction does not create a threat to other nation's
> ccTLDs. Remaining jurisdiction issues will be addressed in work stream 2 of
> ICANN's ongoing accountability process.
>
> Best regards to all
>
> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
> Virtualaw LLC
> 1155 F Street, NW
> Suite 1050
> Washington, DC 20004
> 202-559-8597/Direct
> 202-559-8750/Fax
> 202-255-6172/Cell
>
> Twitter: @VlawDC
>
> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>
> From:
>
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cros
>
s-community-bounces@icann.org> [
>
mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul
> Rosenzweig Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 9:28 AM
> To: 'CCWG-Accountability'
> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Weinstein v. Iran
>
> For those following along in the effort to attach the .ir (and other)
> ccTLDs, the appellate court issued an opinion yesterday affirming the
> decision of the court below rejecting the effort to attach the domain
> (albeit on different grounds). Here is a link to the opinion:
>
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/D35ACE5F0E9673C08525800
> 3005094AE/$file/14-7193.pdf
>
> Paul
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
> 509 C St. NE
> Washington, DC 20002
>
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchcons
> ulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>
www.redbranchconsulting.com<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>
>
www.paulrosenzweigesq.com<http://www.paulrosenzweigesq.com/>
> My PGP Key:
http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/
>
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG -
www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 2016.0.7690 / Virus Database: 4627/12704 - Release Date: 07/29/16
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Communi
>
ty@icann.org>
>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
> *******************************
> David G. Post
> Volokh Conspiracy Blog
http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
> Book (ISO Jefferson's Moose)
http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
> <http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0> Music
>
https://soundcloud.com/davidpost-1/sets
> Publications & Misc.
http://www.ssrn.com/author=537
> <http://www.ssrn.com/author=537%A0%A0>
>
http://www.davidpost.com<http://www.davidpost.com/>
> *******************************
> ________________________________
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG -
www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 2016.0.7690 / Virus Database: 4627/12704 - Release Date: 07/29/16