The precedent created by the decision is that a court-ordered seizure of a ccTLD would impair the interest of ICANN in a globally acceptable delegation process and possibly also impair the interest of its registrants. That supports and is consistent with the global multi stakeholder model. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW DC 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 Follow Neustar: LinkedIn / Twitter Reduce your environmental footprint. Print only if necessary. ________________________________________ The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. On 8/30/17, 9:00 AM, "ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Nigel Roberts" <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org on behalf of nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
No, it doesn't.
The words "without deciding" are highly relevant, here, and you are overlooking them.
This is common practice in courts where a decision can be made without deciding a matter that is alleged.
The court, in this case, at first instance, DECIDED that the DC attachment statute does not permit attachment of intangible property.
Upon appeal, the court dismissed the Claimants' appeal on different reasoning, without deciding whether domain names are attachable property.
Thus there is simply no ratio to that effect that you claim that may be relied upon even in DC, let alone act as persuasive in any other state or common-law jurisdiction.
On 30/08/17 13:47, parminder wrote:
Nigel, I quote below Milton Mueller's email of the 24th in full, but putting in bold some relevant text, which negates your position below on tlds as property or not , parminder
Some people have shown a lack of awareness of the nature of the Appeals Court decision regarding the .IR ccTLD Paul is discussing below. So here is our summary of its import:
The latest decision in the ICANN case departed sharply from prior legal precedents. The court looked beyond the narrow issue of whether the .IR ccTLD was attachable property. /*It assumed, ³without deciding,² that ³the ccTLDs the plaintiffs seek constitute Œproperty¹ under the Foreign Sovereigns Immunity Act*/ and, further, that the defendant sovereigns have some attachable ownership interest in them.² Thus ICANN¹s weak arguments against the property status of TLDs had no impact on the decision. Instead, the court refused to allow the .IR domain to be seized because:
³the court has the ³authority² to ³prevent appropriately the impairment of an interest held by a person who is not liable in the action giving rise to a judgment² ‹ i.e., we are expressly authorized to protect the interests of ICANN and other entities. Because of the enormous third-party interests at stake‹and because there is no way to execute on the plaintiffs¹ judgments without impairing those interests‹we cannot permit attachment.²
By ³requiring ICANN to delegate Œ.ir¹ to the plaintiffs,² the court opined, the plaintiffs ³would bypass ICANN¹s process for ccTLD delegation² and this would have a harmful impact on the global DNS and on ICANN itself.
So, to summarize: /*TLDs may well be attachable property,*/ but in this case, and in most conceivable ccTLD redelegation cases, the court decided that court-ordered seizure of the ccTLD would impair the interest of ICANN in a globally acceptable delegation process and possible also impair the interest of its registrants.
--MM
On Wednesday 30 August 2017 06:03 PM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
On 30/08/17 12:44, parminder wrote:
The court took up jurisdiction, and also accepted to treat gtld as sieze-able property, these are the two most important facts of the case.
The first contention is correct. The second is demonstrably incorrect.
This case did not involve either gTLDs or domains registered under them. It involved the ccTLDs of three countries. .IR, .SY and .KP.
And the court explicitly stated that domain names (of any kind) were NOT seizable (attachable).
A different answer might be given under the law of a different jurisdiction, of course.
But those are facts in that case. _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_listinfo_ws2-2Djurisdiction&d=DwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFO ifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=6eXlg-a2FUnHwDLROR3Pw6_6o6am46qa Q3G8F5cfOXc&s=fXGqZaisry0UForgNEPK0lJ0ZGx1x9aq9H-fRQsI7yg&e=
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_ws2-2Djurisdiction&d=DwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=6eXlg-a2FUnHwDLROR3Pw6_6o6am46qaQ3G 8F5cfOXc&s=fXGqZaisry0UForgNEPK0lJ0ZGx1x9aq9H-fRQsI7yg&e=
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_ws2-2Djurisdiction&d=DwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm 6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=6eXlg-a2FUnHwDLROR3Pw6_6o6am46qaQ3G8F5 cfOXc&s=fXGqZaisry0UForgNEPK0lJ0ZGx1x9aq9H-fRQsI7yg&e=