On 08/04/2016 00:57, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
The issue around domain seizures has nothing to do with ICANN. Any domain seizure cases I’ve seen (including the examples cited by Parminder) were all made either at the registrar or registry level. I haven’t see any cases where ICANN has been involved directly (though they often get named in cases)
You're absolutely correct. And the only "seizures" that were requested, were those of Top Level Domains: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-28582478 There are many other sources that describe the case in detail. The judge sided with ICANN in saying that "they are not property subject to attachment under District of Columbia Law". In this case, it is actually a good thing that the case had to go in front of a US court since jurisprudence already existed. Kindest regards, Olivier