Issue: US customs have routinely seized domain names belonging to foreign entities, whose owners in their view violate US law. This has mainly been done for alleged violation of intellectual property law, but could have been done for other laws as well, and certainly can be so done in the future. Till now all cases were such as having second level domain names with US based registries, most often Verisign, which runs the .com registry. Therefore US Custom have forced the agency that could help them seize domain names, ie the concerned US based registry". It is obvious that if the "violating" foriegn entity were to own a gTLD -- which is increasingly likely with the great onrush on gTLDs -- US Custom will force ICANN as the "registry" of gTLDs in the same way they earlier acted on US based registries. In the eyes od a US executive agency, there is no legal difference in this regard, for enforcement assistance purpose, between a US based business and a US based non profit like ICANN. Further, it is not just the actual seizure that is the problem. Law exist much more in observance than defiance, and thus visible punishment ensuing from it. Global companies that take on gTLDs, as many are expected to, will experience the "chilling effect <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect>", whereby they already begin to subject their actions to US laws fearing US enforcement powers exercised thorugh the gTLD route. Thereby the global DNS becomes an illegitimate and undemocratic way of extending US law globally. Solution: I do not think any specific exceptions to any organisation or class of actions is even theoritically available under the laws under which US custom makes these seizures. In the circumstances, the only solution is a general immunity under the US International Organisations Immunities Act, with proper customisation and exceptions for ICANN to enable to be able to perform its organisational activities from within the US. The chief exception I understand would be the application of California non profit law.