<div dir="ltr"><div><div>Guru,<br><br></div>You would best take JC's "facts" with a grain of salt.<br><br></div>I will attempt to point out his major errors, having no time for the minor ones.<br><br><br><div class="gmail_extra">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 6:59 AM, Guru गुरु <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Guru@itforchange.net" target="_blank">Guru@itforchange.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I thought this posting on another list may be useful to the
discussion on the IGC thread "Some more legal tangles for ICANN"<br>
regards,<br>
Guru<br>
<br>
-------- Original Message --------
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap valign="BASELINE">Subject: </th>
<td>[Members] US District Court for DC - IRAN/SYRIA - ICANN</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap valign="BASELINE">Date: </th>
<td>Mon, 30 Jun 2014 13:14:12 +0200</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap valign="BASELINE">From: </th>
<td>Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <a href="mailto:jc.nothias@theglobaljournal.net" target="_blank"><jc.nothias@theglobaljournal.net></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap valign="BASELINE">Reply-To:
</th>
<td><a href="mailto:members@justnetcoalition.org" target="_blank">members@justnetcoalition.org</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap valign="BASELINE">To: </th>
<td>Member Just_Net_Coalition <a href="mailto:members@justnetcoalition.org" target="_blank"><members@justnetcoalition.org></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
Dear JNC members,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I thought I would wrap-up some facts and appreciation of a new
case where Plaintiffs have requested the US District Court for the
district of Columbia to turn to ICANN in order to seize whatever
money, property, credit IRAN and Syria have at ICANN. This is a
'first', and worth to be looked at. Even though we are not legal
expert for US law, it is a very interesting issue to look at in an
Internet Governance perspective. Like anything related to US law
and jurisdiction, this might take years before a conclusion can be
reached - right now these judgements have been made by default as
Iran and Syria did not show up to the Court to defend themselves.
Still the case is showing that the asymmetric role of the US in
terms of Internet Governance is under critical challenge. It also
shows that much of what is related to the management of the root
zone (address book for the dot_something (.XYZ) is still missing
international definition and agreements. This is part of the fact
that IG has been into US hands</div></div></blockquote><div><br><br></div><div>Only a small corner of IG. The first big case of this nature was due to a French court decision many years ago. (France v. Yahoo IIRC). That case had a much larger impact on the Internet than the current case ever will.<br>
</div><div><br><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div>, at least under the current form
since 1998 when ICANN was incorporated and when Jon Postel's job
at the root zone level was doing until then through IANA was also
transfer to ICANN under the same acronym. The new IANA became part
of the ICANN that same year Being an 'authority' and a
'department' of ICANN, IANA has no bylaws but is under strict
supervision of the US Department of Commerce, through NTIA.
Nothing can be change at the root zone level for TLDs (gTLDs or
ccTLDs) without the consent of the US DoC. This helps to
understand by the same token the role of IANA, as a department of
ICANN under a double US oversight, ICANN being itself under
contract with the US DoC.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It's only one oversight, the IANA authorisation role is part of the contract.<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Some debate took place into the IGC list, and I would start
from there.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><font color="#fe2617">1_</font></div>
<div>It started here</div>
<div><a href="http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-us-terror-victims-now-own-irans-internet/" target="_blank">http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-us-terror-victims-now-own-irans-internet/</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><font color="#fe2617">2_</font></div>
<div>A subscriber to the Civil Society Governance Caucus- IGC elist
(Joly McFie) wrote on June 25:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div><font color="#2098fc">"ICANN
licenses the TLDs to different world governments who then are
permitted to appoint agents who sell the domain names and
their country specific internet suffixes to individuals,
businesses and organizations."<br>
<br>
1/ Is this strictly true? </font></div>
<div><font color="#2098fc">2/ Does ICANN
have a licence over ccTLDs?</font></div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Some honorable subscribers of the IGC list reacted, among
others:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>From Daniel Kalchev</div>
<div><i><font color="#2098fc"><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>- most
ccTLDs were delegated before ICANN was even an idea and most
ccTLDs managers are in fact not been appointed by any
government.</font></i></div>
<div><i><font color="#2098fc"><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>- After
all, Internet was, is and will be an worldwide private
network.</font></i></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>From Wolfgang Kleinwächter:</div>
<div><i><font color="#2098fc"><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>- This
is nonsense. The author of this piece does not understand,
how the DNS works. </font></i></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>From McTim:</div>
<div><i><font color="#2098fc"><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>- This
won't go anywhere... Just a lawyer trying to get attention
for his case.</font></i></div>
<div><i><font color="#2098fc"><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>-
The fees paid to ICANN from Iran are exactly zero</font>.</i></div>
</div>
<div><i><br>
</i></div>
<div><font color="#fe2617">3_</font></div>
<div><i>
<div style="font-style:normal">Then I posted On June 28 to
the same IGC list the following information:</div>
<div style="font-style:normal"><br>
</div>
<div>
<div style="font-style:normal">Here are the 6 "<a href="https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_dOI5puxRA9M3hweE9Eel9mVTQ/edit?pli=1" target="_blank">Writs
of Attachment</a>" (5 vs IRAN; 1 vs Syria) as of June 24,
2014, notified to ICANN/IANA by the US District Court for
the District of Columbia.</div>
<div style="font-style:normal"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-style:normal"><img src="cid:part6.04090703.04080008@ITforChange.net" height="52" width="612"></div>
<div style="font-style:normal"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-style:normal">So no "if" and no
"apparently" as some doubted on the list.</div>
<div style="font-style:normal"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-style:normal"><font color="#fe2617">4_</font></div>
<div style="font-style:normal">There would be postings with
opposing views, ones saying that there was nothing to worry
about - ICANN would simply answer 'no'- and others saying
that this was critical issue for the first-level domain for
countries (ccTLD: country-code for Top Level Domain).</div>
<div style="font-style:normal"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-style:normal"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-style:normal"><font color="#fe2617">5_</font></div>
<div style="font-style:normal"><i>
<div style="font-style:normal;display:inline!important">
<div style="display:inline!important">
<div style="display:inline!important">
<div style="display:inline!important">First, to
be frank, I would say that I was a bit
disappointed with the comments on the IGC list.
Some participants were supposedly able to provide
a better perspective on the case. For example, <i>
<div style="font-style:normal;display:inline!important">
<div style="display:inline!important">
<div style="display:inline!important">
<div style="display:inline!important">I
believe that Wolfgang Kleinwächter,
specially since he is working at ICANN,
should have provided a better answer to
Joly's question. "Non sense" means
little if nothing. Sharing and
distributing understanding is always
worth the effort.</div></div></div></div></i></div></div></div></div></i></div></div></i></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm trying, but JC doesn't seem to want to understand the facts unless they conform to his world view.<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div><i><div><div style="font-style:normal"><i><div style="font-style:normal;display:inline!important">
<div style="display:inline!important"><div style="display:inline!important"><div style="display:inline!important"><i><div style="font-style:normal;display:inline!important"><div style="display:inline!important"><div style="display:inline!important">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</i></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</i></div>
<div>
<div style="font-style:normal">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Daniel is quite right in his first assumption (Jon
Postel did most of the delegation work prior to the
NewCo ICANN/IANA, established in 1998). I would not be
overly certain that the majority of ccTLDs mangers are
not being appointed by governments. That could be
investigated. A ccTLD being considered by governments as
part of their "national sovereignty" I would challenge
this assertion. </div></div></div></div></i></div></div></blockquote><div><br><br></div><div>Gov'ts do think they have "sovereignty" over their ccTLD, in some cases they do not.<br><br><br></div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div><i><div><div><div style="font-style:normal">
<div>
National realities are often more
subtile. More of a concern in my view is Daniel's idea
of a "<b>worldwide private network</b>". This has little
if no reality. Networks belong to Telecom Operators for
the largest part, some being <b>public</b>, some <b>private</b> (under
governmental regulations). Autonomous Systems do also
belong to <b>public</b> or <b>private</b> entities. What
can be seen as <b>worldwide</b> is "<b>interconnectivity</b>"
- one can say that nobody owns the Interconnectivity</div></div></div></div></i></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Sure they do. Interconnects are overwhelmingly done by private parties, not public authorities.<br>
</div><div><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div><i><div><div><div style="font-style:normal">
<div>,
something essentially untrue when we speak of
'Internet'. A "<b>private</b>" thing? I do not see
anything else than a <b>public space</b> here, where <b>private</b> <b>interests</b> might
indeed be <b>dominant</b>.</div>
</div>
<div style="font-style:normal"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-style:normal">McTim underestimates the
"where" the Court request is leading. A simple "no" by
ICANN/IANA/NTIA would not be the end for the US District
Court to act. </div>
<div style="font-style:normal">McTim is right about the
fact that Iran and Syria pay no fees to ICANN, but still
this does not evacuate the idea, as per the Court
appreciation and own view, that a ccTLD has great value.
McTim has acknowledged this fact.</div></div></div></i></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This doesn't mean that the .ir zone is the "property" of the Islamic Republic.<br><br><br></div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div><i><div><div>
<div style="font-style:normal"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-style:normal">Back to Joly's "ICANN
Licenses the ccTLDS..." Strictly true? ICANN having a
license over ccTLDs</div>
<div style="font-style:normal"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-style:normal">IANA, which is not an
incorporate non profit, is a "<i>department of ICANN</i>".</div></div></div></i></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It is a "function" that ICANN carries out.<br></div><div><br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div><i><div><div><div style="font-style:normal">
It is an 'authority' with no legal ground, no bylaws in
the US, nor any International recognition. Still it has
quite many responsibilities. One major constraint for
ICANN/IANA regarding the root zone is that nothing can be
changed in the root zone file without an approval by DoC
(through NTIA).</div></div></div></i></div></div></blockquote><div><br><br></div><div>He conveniently forgets this will go away sometime around September.<br><br><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div><i><div><div>
<div style="font-style:normal">The new IANA (part of the
new ICANN) has taken over the continuity of handling the <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/delegation-2012-02-25-en" target="_blank">delegation</a> of
the ccTLDs to registries since Jon Postel died in 1998,
days before ICANN was incorporated with Vint Cerf as first
president. By then IANA was funded by the US Department of
Defense. We should all remember that Postel came to Geneva
in 1997 where he intended to establish a non profit, with
an international recognition from governments, a non
profit that would handle the civilian root zone for the
planet. His project was opposed by US diplomats in Geneva
at the time.</div>
<div style="font-style:normal"><br>
</div>
<div><span style="font-style:normal">So to anwser Joly: </span><b>Yes, IANA, a
department of ICANN delegates (the verb to license would
not be strictly right) each ccTLD to a unique
entity/registry, but only after the US DoC approval.
</b></div></div></div></i></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Ummm, they are all already delegated.<br></div><div><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div><i><div><div><div><b>IANA is also responsible for re-delegation.</b></div></div></div></i></div></div></blockquote><div><br><br></div><div>true enough.<br><br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div><i><div><div>
<div style="font-style:normal"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-style:normal">In the case of IRAN, the
unique registry that has received the delegation to handle
the ".IR" ccTLD is THE INSTITUTE for RESEARCH in
FUNDAMENTAL SCIENCES, based in IRAN, and affiliated with
the Iranian Ministry of Science, Research, and Technology
founded in 1989 under the name of INSTITUTE for STUDIES in
THEORETICAL PHYSICS and MATHEMATICS - this tends to
document the fact that the registry for .IR
is legitimate part of the state of IRAN.</div></div></div></i></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think this is debatable.<br></div><div><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div><i><div><div><div style="font-style:normal"> What can the US
District Court do about this? Ask for the plaintiffs to
become the unique registry for .IR?</div></div></div></i></div></div></blockquote><div><br><br></div><div>They probably could, bu they didn't.<br><br></div><div>If they did, they wouldn't succeed.<br>
<br> <br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div><i><div><div><div style="font-style:normal">
The new registry would
then earn money thanks to the Iranian registrars that
would keep using the .IR. Not a bad deal.</div></div></div></i></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don't thinkthe .ir zone is a big money spinner. Very few ccTLDs are, except for the big ones.<br>
</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div><i><div><div>
<div style="font-style:normal"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-style:normal">What would IANA consider
as a possible reason to terminate the delegation of the
.IR?<br></div></div></div></i></div></div></blockquote><div><br><a href="https://www.iana.org/help/cctld-delegation">https://www.iana.org/help/cctld-delegation</a><br><br><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div><i><div><div><div style="font-style:normal"> If we look at what ICANN considers as a possible
reason to terminate a registrar accreditation <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/ra-agreement-2009-05-21-en" target="_blank">agreement</a> (see
5.3 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement, even though
it does not seem to have its equivalent with registries).</div></div></div></i></div></div></blockquote><div><br><br></div><div>There are 2 types of Registries. Generic TLDs each have a contract with ICANN.<br>
<br></div><div>ccTLDs generally do not, although some have signed MoU's.<br></div><div><br></div><div><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div><i><div><div><div style="font-style:normal">
But who said that this could not happen when it comes to a
registry issue?</div></div></div></i></div></div></blockquote><div><br><br></div><div>No one has ever said that. It has always been the case that a Registry can have a TLD removed from it's stewardship, this applies to ccTLDs and gTLDs.<br>
</div><div><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div><i><div><div><div style="font-style:normal">
Again, in the absence of an international
treaty clarifying many obscure points in terms of root
zone policy, the many vacuums could be of great amusement
to a US District Court.</div></div></div></i></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Even if there was a Treaty, I doubt the US would sign on to it (witness the ITRs), so a US District Court wouldn't worry about such a Treaty.<i><br>
</i></div><div><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div><i><div><div><div style="font-style:normal">
Again, that brings a very serious
challenge to the global, transnational governance of the
Internet. </div></div></div></i></div></div></blockquote><div><br><br></div><div>No, it doesn't. This is what WK was, I think, meaning when he said it was nonsense. the nonsense is the tempest being made in a teapot.<br>
<br><br></div><div><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div><i><div><div><div style="font-style:normal">
ICANN is now in a poor situation.</div></div></div></i></div></div></blockquote><div><br><br></div><div>Umm ICANN is in a GREAT position. it is largely managing the transition of itself away from US oversight. It is "writing it's own ticket"<br>
</div><div><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div><i><div><div><div style="font-style:normal">
Would ICANN
give way to the US District Court request, many countries
would take the opportunity to fully challenge ICANN in its
fundaments. Would ICANN pass the hot potato to someone
else (US DoC? IRFS, the Iranian registry? Nobody?) the
Court might not like that answer, and might threatened
ICANN to comply. We'll see.</div></div></div></i></div></div></blockquote><div><br><br></div><div>yes, we shall.<br><br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div><i><div><div>
<div style="font-style:normal"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-style:normal">Still we have a pending
question: what difference should be made between "to
license" and "to delegate" a ccTLD? </div></div></div></i></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The word license is not used in Registry Agreements for new gTLDs to describe the relationship between the TLD and ICANN. The word delegation is, in other words, there is no pending question.<br>
</div><div><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div><i><div><div>
<div style="font-style:normal"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-style:normal">Nobody really owns a
domain name, and there are many indications that it could
considered in the same way for TLDs. A TLD or domain name
'holder'/'tenant' pays a 'lease' for a domain.</div></div></div></i></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>correct.<br></div><div><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div><i><div><div><div style="font-style:normal"> If the .COM
is the property of ICANN or DoC, then .IR would then be
the property of its current tenant. </div></div></div></i></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This sentence contradicts the previous one. .com is neither the "property" of either DoC or ICANN.<br>
</div><div><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div><i><div><div><div style="font-style:normal">
As with any lease, it
can end if not renewed or be terminated by the delegating
authority (if nobody is ultimate owner). So we definitely
have a situation that isnot clear, as a domain name is
still not a property but holds intellectual property
rights, turning it into a very valuable asset. You do not
own the domain, you own the right to use it. This still
means that any TLD has a commercial value, including
ccTLDs, and is therefore an asset and subject to a Court
sequestration warrant or redelegation request. And in this
case, the judge is not asking for the moon, I would say.</div></div></div></i></div></div></blockquote><div><br><br></div><div>A. the Court is not asking for re-delegation<br><br></div><div>B. if I rent a car, it is useful to me and therefore an "asset" in terms of getting things done, but not an "asset" in terms of property. A Court, can't "seize" a car I've rented, as it is not my property.<br>
<br><br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div><i><div><div>
<div style="font-style:normal"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-style:normal">Here is an excellent work
funded by the US National Science Foundation and ITU
related to "Policy, Business, Technical and Operational
Considerations for the Management of a country code Top
Level Domain (ccTLD) drafted in 2008. It is an <a href="http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/ip/docs/itu-draft-cctld-guide.pdf" target="_blank">interesting
document</a>.</div>
<div style="font-style:normal"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-style:normal">Regarding a possible
redelegation, read <a href="http://www.iana.org/reports/2005/iq-report-05aug2005.pdf" target="_blank">what</a> happened
to the .IQ (IRAK) in 2005. It's a IANA report worth to
read. See again the role played by the US DoC and NTIA.
Without putting in a US District Court.</div>
<div style="font-style:normal"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-style:normal">All of that is not limited
to the respective unique registries for IRAN and SYRIA
(both countries are concerned with the US District Court
of Columbia writs). The Writ has no limitation, quite to
the contrary.</div></div></div></i></div></div></blockquote><div><br><br></div><div>If you read the Writ, it asks very specific limited questions.<br></div><div><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div><i><div><div><div style="font-style:normal"> Who said that the link between Iranian
registrars and ICANN did not exist.</div></div></div></i></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If they are ICANN accredited,of course there is a link, but that is a complete non-sequitur. <br></div>
<div><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div><i><div><div><div style="font-style:normal">
There are much more
than the first-level domain (ccTLD) to be considered such
as the second-level domain registration by
registrars.</div></div></div></i></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Why? Is it the case that ccTLD Registrars pay monies to ICANN for 2nd level registrations?? I have never heard of this.<br></div>
<div><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div><i><div><div><div style="font-style:normal">
What's about IPs? All of that enters into
IANA, a department of ICANN, duties and performance.</div></div></div></i></div></div></blockquote><div><br><br></div><div>No, it doesn't. IANA doesn't Allocate IP addresses to IRAN. they may have done 20 years ago, but they did not recieve money for doing so, and in any case, those IP address Allocations are now in the RIPE database, which is under the auspices of a Dutch non-p[rofit.<br>
<br><br>--<br>McTim<br></div></div>"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
</div></div>