[CCWG-ACCT] premature jurisdiction debates

[Greg Shatan]

In *Weinstein v. Islamic Republic of Iran*, the plaintiffs attempted to
enforce the judgment by seizing the .ir TLD, claiming that it was an asset
of Iran.  The US Department of Justice filed a brief opposing the seizure,
stating that a TLD is not property or an asset, and that the TLD was beyond
the reach of the US law governing seizure of certain foreign assets.
 (ICANN submitted similar arguments to the court.)  The federal judge
hearing the case ruled against this attempt, siding with ICANN and DOJ.  Is
this what you are calling U.S. "interference"?  Would it have been better
if DOJ had not filed a brief?

As Phil points out, the case is currently on appeal to the D.C. Circuit.
It was argued but has not yet been decided.

Greg

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 4:36 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Rubens
>
> I think the interference in .ir and Syria case is quite different from
> .africa. , .In .ir  case the claimant had a judgment against iran which it
> had obtained through the us courts relying on US laws and wanted to enforce
> the judgement through attaching .ir  to the claimant. I call that
> interference. In .africa two competing organizations have a dispute over
> the delegation of .africa. I am not sure if we can compare the two.
> On 22 Jun 2016 22:14, "Rubens Kuhl" <rubensk at nic.br> wrote:
>
>> Dear Phil,
>>
>> I can´t fully follow your segmentation
>>
>> I’ll start that discussion by stating that it would likely include
>>> interference in ICANN’s policymaking process (outside of advocacy within
>>> the GAC) or trying to block or compel a change in the root zone, through
>>> methods that are inconsistent with the Bylaws.
>>>
>>
>> Agree
>>
>>>
>>> I don’t think it should include private litigation brought against ICANN
>>> and heard in state or federal court; or law enforcement actions, such as
>>> bringing an antitrust action if there is an allegation of illicit pricing
>>> decisions,
>>>
>>
>> why not? Who is going to hear the case set liabilities and eventually
>> compensation????
>>
>> or criminal charges against an ICANN employee for embezzlement, etc.
>>>
>>
>> Agree
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
>>> Virtualaw LLC
>>> 1155 F Street, NW
>>> Suite 1050
>>> Washington, DC 20004
>>> 202-559-8597/Direct
>>> 202-559-8750/Fax
>>> 202-255-6172/Cell
>>>
>>> Twitter: @VlawDC
>>>
>>> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>>>
>>> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
>>> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller,
>>> Milton L
>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 3:15 PM
>>> To: Guru Acharya; Roelof Meijer
>>> Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] premature jurisdiction debates
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In the reflexive approach, you would ask "what are the institutional
>>> mechanisms or procedures to ensure that jurisdiction issue can be addressed
>>> in an adverse situation where the US jurisdiction is longer tenable,
>>> however rare it may it?" In the absolute rarest of rare cases that the US
>>> legislature or judiciary try to interfere with community decisions (the
>>> black swan scenario), how would ICANN ensure that this interference is
>>> contained/minimised? What are the institutional mechanisms or procedures
>>> for addressing the situation where the US (or any other) jurisdiction is no
>>> longer hospitable/ideal for the ICANN policymaking or IANA functions? These
>>> are the questions that we should be asking in the WS2 on jurisdiction.
>>>
>>> MM: I think this is a good point. Even advocates of US jurisdiction or
>>> those who, like me, think there is just no better alternative and that the
>>> disruption and risks caused by a change are not worth the uncertain
>>> improvements, can easily agree that there should be procedures or plans for
>>> how to respond to interference by the U.S. government.
>>>
>>>
>>> Dr. Milton L. Mueller
>>> Professor, School of Public Policy
>>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> No virus found in this message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
>>> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4613/12467 - Release Date:
>>> 06/21/16
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160622/e0926474/attachment.html>