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

[McTim]

Barry,

On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Barry Shein <bzs at world.std.com> wrote:
>
> 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?

Of course there would be consequences, I didn't calim that there
wouldn't be, simply that ICANN owes no monies to the .ir steward and
vice versa.

>
> 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?

I didn't argue on the basis that it has no 'value'.  Did you even read the Writ?

It asks if ICANN owes monies to the defendant or has it's property.  I
say the answer is "no" in both cases.

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

untrue, you surely know the consequences of a re-delegation outside of
ICANN processes.



-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

-------------- 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