<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Friday 27 June 2014 07:48 PM,
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:20140627141807.GA6388@nic.fr" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">There have been, apparently, a judgment (transferring the .ir, no
less...), in the USA:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-us-terror-victims-now-own-irans-internet/">http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-us-terror-victims-now-own-irans-internet/</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Seeing the huge geo political implication of the judgement, there
can be no doubt whatsoever that the establishment will get moving
quickly, with authority and power from the highest levels, to get
this judgement annulled in some way... However, the real thing here
is the *point of law* that the judgement highlights which shows in
the following quote from the news story<br>
<br>
"<font face="Verdana">"</font><font face="Verdana">The United State
District Court decided that the<span
id="e2bd3055-f21f-4730-a26a-1903f35c4152"
class="GINGER_SOFTWARE_mark"> .ir</span> domain name, along with
Iran’s IP addresses ..... were assets that could be seized to
satisfy judgments (of US courts)....". <br>
<br>
While this point of law is quite obvious and all such, a US court
making a clear assertion of it may shake some people in slumber. <br>
<br>
parminder </font><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20140627141807.GA6388@nic.fr" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>