[CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement

[Nigel Roberts]

With great respect, I do not think that word means what you think it 
means ... irrespective of whether the case is on appeal or not (and, as 
Eberhard note, it IS on appeal  it is only the rationale of the case 
itself (which lawyers call the 'ratio decidendi') which is of any 
precedential value, and even then only in the jurisdiction in which it 
was decided.

[[For information on the latest status on the appeal -- see
http://www.domainpulp.com/legal/icann-next-round-in-terrorism-case-set-to-move-to-d-c-jurisdiction/ 
  --- all the documents in the ongoing case may be found on ICANN's 
website --- 100% for transparency there!]]

The rationale of the case contains absolutely NOTHING significant about 
ICANN's statutory or other authority over TLDs. If you think it does, 
I'd be much obliged it you could direct me to the relevant paragraphs in 
the judgment, please.

We are rather oversupplied with lawyers and legal academics in this WG, 
but I will risk correction and re-education and public excoriation and 
will venture to brief the case and submit that the rationale of the case 
as decided at first instanct, is,rather,  as set out below:

			- - -
WEINSTEIN & ors (Applicant)

-and-

INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES/NUMBERS (Respondent/Garnishee)

FACTS: The Judgment Creditors held money judgments against three 
sovereign countries which remained unsatisfie. They issued proceedings 
naming the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 
as a Third Party Garnishee allegedly holding property belonging to the 
Judgment Debtors; specificall Internet Protocol ('IP') address blocks, 
and top-level domains including International Domain Names ('IDN TLDs')

JUDGMENT: The Judgment Creditors could not attach the IP addresses and 
TLDs that they sought to attach.

RATIO: It is not necessary to decide whether top-level domains are 
property in order to decide this case, because even if the Applicant 
contentions regarding property are true, under the law on attachment in 
the District of Columbia, they cannot be the sort of property that may 
be attached/garnished (in D.C.). Accordingly the Applicant fails.

OBITER: TLDs might indeed be intangible property, but it was not 
necessary for this Court to decide whether they are or not.

			- - -

(If anyone understands the case differenly, I would be grateful for any 
suggested amendment to the above)

And there's nothing about the IANA contract or ICANN's authority (or 
lack of it), as far as I can see.

On 31/10/15 23:41, Paul Twomey wrote:
>
>
> Why this may be important, is that judges have previously relied on the
> IANA contract with the US Department of Commerce to outline the
> authority under which the rules ICANN has put forward should be
> honoured  (Se
> http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020150105808/STERN%20v.%20THE%20ISLAMIC%20REPUBLIC%20OF%20IRAN)