[governance] Re: FW: [discuss] Some more legal tangles for ICANN

[Barry Shein]

Therefore it is of no consequence whatsoever to ICANN if ICANN's IANA
function were to remove .IR from the root or change its delegation to
another party?

A reasonable response when a party argues an item should not be
subject to lien because it is of absolutely no value is to respond
then there will be no objection if it is seized, correct?

Surely if it has no value there can be no objection, you are the same
with or without the item in question.


On June 29, 2014 at 06:27 dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) wrote:
 > I don't think Nigel's comments are "contra" to what I am saying.
 > 
 > My point is that I do not think that ICANN will take the position that
 > .ir is the "intangible property" of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
 > 
 > ICANN doesn't take monies from Iran, ICANN doesn't owe Iran any monies.
 > 
 > Read the Writ, it is quite simple for ICANN to answer.
 > 
 > "No, we don't hold any of their property"
 > 
 > "No, we don't owe them any money"
 > 
 > While governments do claim sovereignty over their ccTLDs, they are
 > held in trust by the folks they are delegated to, not "owned".
 > 
 > I would guess we will see ICANN's answer on their "correspondence" page soon.

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t