[CCWG-ACCT] premature jurisdiction debates

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

Other than that the two cases are different, nothing else is correct.


The claimants against Iran, Syria and North Korea, have obtained (if only by default) enforceable judgements against Iran, Syria and North Korea and are entitled to enforce the judgements against Iran, Syria and North Korea. Which they are doing against Iran, Syria and North Korea. Not against ICANN, which is not a party to the suit.

If you owed me money and I got a court to agree I can ask the court to order a bank to transfer funds from your account to satisfy the judgement. The bank then can try and resist, as ICANN is trying to, but still that doesn't make the bank a party or can be called  interfering with the bank.


And while indeed the two "competing" applicants have a dispute about the delegation, that is not what the court case is about, from which ZACR has been dismissed as not being a party to the dispute. DCA has obtained an ex-parte Temporary Restraining Order, under relaxed standards of proof of merits (none, allegations are sufficient) against ICANN, not against ZACR.

While I believe DCA will resoundingly fail, on the merits, when it reaches the stage of looking at the merits, as they did against ZACR, they must be entitled to seek protection from ICANN "creating facts" which are difficult to undo (but not impossible, which ICANN initially alleged, but now has admitted it can be done).

The issue is not whether a court is "interfering" with ICANN but whether ICANN is accountable. Which in DCA's case they almost certainly were not, one must admit, even if Sockpuppy is quite over the top with her allegations. Never mind that she might have had to allege fraud in order to be able to overcome the non-suing clause in the Guidebook.

el
-- 
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini 4

> On 22 Jun 2016, at 21:36, 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160622/ce93810f/attachment.html>