On Friday 08 April 2016 04:54 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Snip......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
You are describing a case where a private party sought seizure of a ccTLD (Iranian) on quite dubious grounds.... You are not willing to discuss all the cases in which domain names were seized through orders to the registries..... You are not ready to respond to the question on what would happen if a closed business gTLD is similarly brought to a US court, in which case ICANN ittself is the registry, as Verisign etc were registries for .com, etc, and thus the party to which earlier orders were directed. Any order for gTLD seizures would clearly be directed at ICANN. And the latter has no protection against it. The Iranian ccTLD case that you cite was dismissed inter alia with the argument that this ccTLD involved service to a wider community and thus the asked for action will be disproportionate (Although in earlier cases assets of banks and other service companies similarly servicing a wider community have been seized).. This argument does not apply for a gTLD used exclusively by a business, which business a US court may be ready to punish for it being offending to it in some way. Why the oversight transition process would want to go into such elaborate stress tests involving rather unlikely future scenarios where all governments (including the US and its allies) would gang together against some ICANN decision, but simply refuse to do a stress test for an extremely likely (actually, inevitable) future scenario in which the ICANN, as a US organisation, will be directed to remove a foreign gLTD by a US agency, most likely a court, for which evidence of closely parallel actions exist, and in huge amounts...... (And yes, the demand for such a stress test was made, but never responded to.) Does this not clearly show how the whole process is rigged? ... . Does one need a better proof? But that is less surprising to me, what is much more is that this public interest civil society group - ALAC - wants to maintain a studied silence in the subject.. parminder