[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Session #18 31 March

Dr Eberhard W Lisse el at lisse.na
Mon Apr 6 10:13:18 UTC 2015

Dear Co-Chairs,

the case does not pertain to .NK (which does no exist) but to .KP, .IR and .SY.

Does not pertain to gTLDs but ccTLDs. 

Does not pertain to Registrars but to the ccTLD Managers.

Does not pertain to change the ccTLD Manager per se but to attachment of an asset to satisfy a judgement of same court (which might, or might not, lead to a change in the root zone).

Does not predict at all what other courts will do, because it focuses quite narrowly on a technicality of DC law. As you know, if there is no Federal Law on an issue, a Federal Court has to use the State Law of the State it finds itself. And the judge decided that, as pleaded, the ccTLDs are not subject to attachment under DC law and did not decide anything further.

My understanding is that other States have other Laws.

I have now read the gentleman's blog entries (and some others) which lead me to the conclusion that I will probably not read (m)any more.

His notion that a ccTLD belongs (in the sense of property) to a country (as in an entity) by default, shows a worrisome lack of depth, even though in these three particular instances a case can be made that the owners are state entities, and it would follow as far as attempts of satisfying an existing judgement against the three countries are concerned they would seem to be legitimate targets.

The matter at hand, is under appeal, by the way, which may become a Stress Test of its own.

Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

> On Apr 6, 2015, at 02:21, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
> Dear Eberhard
> I am shocked and dismayed that you don’t read all of my blog posts on the Lawfare Blog, where I wrote all about it …. J  In any event, a link to the district court decision is here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/order-memo-granting-motion-to-quash-writs-10nov14-en.pdf.  Not exactly on point, but indicative, in my view, of the unlikelihood of US courts interfering ….
> Paul
> Paul Rosenzweig
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
> Link to my PGP Key
> <image001.jpg>
> From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse [mailto:el at lisse.na] 
> Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2015 2:58 PM
> To: CCWG Accountability
> Cc: directors at omadhina.net
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Session #18 31 March
> Paul,
> as an aficionado of court judgements, could you kindly point me towards the one you are
> aware of, below?
> el
> -- 
> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
> On Apr 5, 2015, at 18:03, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
> With respect, if we are going to have a discussion of jurisdiction it at least needs to be based on facts.  Every country on your list that has applied for a gTLD has been granted one, not to mention many others, like North Korea, including all countries on any list maintained by the US government (and, I might add, the UN) of countries subject to sanction.   The one court case of which I’m aware rejected, pretty summarily, an effort to force ICANN to change the .nk gTLD registrar. The bogey-man of unilateral action to divest countries of the gTLDs is pure myth. 
> Paul
> Paul Rosenzweig
> [...]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150406/9fd54388/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list