Owning a name
owen at delong.com
Thu Jul 31 00:10:26 UTC 2014
On Jul 30, 2014, at 4:17 PM, Collin Anderson <collin at averysmallbird.com> wrote:
> An update, apparently writs of attachment were sent for not only .ir, but
> also .sy and .kp ccTLDs as well, based on separate cases related to support
> for terrorism. ICANN has filed a motion to quash the writs and taken the
> position that the domains are not assets.
> Court Documents:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Mark Rudholm <mark at rudholm.com> wrote:
>> On 06/26/2014 10:14 PM, Collin Anderson wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:00 PM, John Levine <johnl at iecc.com> wrote:
>>> I've been looking for the case in PACER, and don't see
>>>> anything filed this year against ICANN so the case doesn't even exist.
>>>> Seth Charles Ben HAIM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF
>>> et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 02-1811 (RCL)
>> It seems to me that even if the ccTLD delegations were removed from the
>> root DNS zone, all sysadmins in Iran would just add the ns.irnic.ir NS
>> record to their cache, effectively ignoring ICANN. I bet a lot of
>> sysadmins outside Iran would do the same thing, since it makes sense to
>> refer to IRNIC for Iranian DNS regardless of any court ruling.
>> Similarly, they'd just keep using their current network numbers. It's not
>> like ARIN would be able to give them to someone else. Nobody would want
>> them. And a lot of us would continue to route those numbers to Iran.
Pretty sure that would be a RIPE, not ARIN matter since TTBOMK, Iran et. al. are
in the RIPE region (possibly some in AfriNIC actually).
>> Courts have shown time and again that they don't understand that ICANN is
>> a coordinator, not an authority.
Wonder how long it is before we recognize the need for an international technical court for such matters where the guy on the bench has to be not just a lawyer, but a nerd, too.
More information about the NANOG