[governance] IANA transition - BR Gov comments on the CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal
Barry Shein
bzs at world.std.com
Mon Jun 15 12:31:28 EDT 2015
Yes, Iran was a defendant in the particular case I mentioned, but they
weren't blocked in any way from participating in their defense which
seemed to be the basis for your speculation. At the moment the most
recent court decision I'm aware of in this particular case has ruled
for Iran (actually ICANN acting on behalf of the assets in question)
and blocked transfer or garnishing of their ccTLD revenue stream. I'm
sure we'll hear more, I don't believe it's over yet.
But there's also "Nat'l Petrochemical of Iran [NPC] vs M/T Scott
Sheaf" (2d Cir. 1988).
NPC is wholly owned by Iran.
The specific question was whether the plaintiff, NPC, was barred
access from US courts due to the lack of formal recognition by the US
of the govt of Iran.
The court ruled in favor of plaintiff NPC (Iran): Not barred.
I'm not sure where else we can go with testing a speculation that
Iran's (or others') diplomatic status with the US might bar them from
access to US courts. Do you have examples to the contrary?
http://www.lawschoolcasebriefs.net/2012/04/national-petrochemical-co-of-iran-v-mt.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/pueamg9
I suppose the broader question is whether there is anything peculiar
about the US' behavior in these matters, or would it be the same in
any likely venue? The US is not the only country in the world which
might have blacklists.
Or does there exist some jurisdictional venue (supranational) where
such issues don't exist?
-b
From: Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>
>Not sure why you seem to think that might be so. In the case being reported
>here, the plaintiffs are American ctitizens suing the Islamic Republic of
>Iran (the defendant), on the basis of its support to terrorist groups in
>Gaza Strip (as per the court proceedings.) There is in place, in the US, an
>exception statute regarding the normal foreign sovereigns' immunity in
>state and federal courts. That exception statute particularly applies when
>the foreign sovereign has been entered by USG into a list of states
>involved in terrorism sponsoring activities (if my understanding is
>correct), allowing the court to proceed with a case where any such foreign
>sovereign is the defendant.
>
>Now, are you suggesting that we may conclude from there that the Islamic
>Republic of Iran (or any other foreign state that is on a USG's blacklist
>or under its embargo) might be able to bring a case in American courts, at
>both state and federal levels, in which they would be the plaintiff? Or am
>I missing something?
>
>/Brought to you by Mawaki's droid agent
>On Jun 14, 2015 5:57 PM, "Barry Shein" <bzs at world.std.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> From: Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>
>> >4) there remains another concern (which could have made it to my scenario
>> >#2). What happens when USG decides to put a country on some black list for
>> >some peculiar reason of its own which most of the nations-states disgree
>> >with or do not find necessary (and which might not even have anything to
>> do
>> >with the Internet)? Wouldn't that country be shut off Californian courts
>> >for any legal recourse in Internet matters? If so, is that an acceptable
>> >state of affairs? What would be the remedy?
>>
>> Would the recent lawsuits and judgements and continued actions (e.g.,
>> Haim et al v Islamic Republic of Iran, US Distr Court, DC) in US
>> courts serve as a counter-example to that concern?
>>
>>
>> https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1494831416114150179&q=Haim+v.+Islamic+Republic+of+Iran&hl=en&as_sdt=20006&as_vis=1
>>
>> or
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/o3thbvb
>>
>> --
>> -Barry Shein
>>
>> The World | bzs at TheWorld.com |
>> http://www.TheWorld.com
>> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR,
>> Canada
>> Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
>>
><p dir=3D"ltr">Not sure why you seem to think that might be so. In the case=
> being reported here, the plaintiffs are American ctitizens suing the Islam=
>ic Republic of Iran (the defendant), on the basis of its support to terrori=
>st groups in Gaza Strip (as per the court proceedings.) There is in place, =
>in the US, an exception statute regarding the normal foreign sovereigns'=
>; immunity in state and federal courts. That exception statute particularly=
> applies when the foreign sovereign has been entered by USG into a list of =
>states involved in terrorism sponsoring activities (if my understanding is =
>correct), allowing the court to proceed with a case where any such foreign =
>sovereign is the defendant.</p>
><p dir=3D"ltr">Now, are you suggesting that we may conclude from there that=
> the Islamic Republic of Iran (or any other foreign state that is on a USG&=
>#39;s blacklist or under its embargo) might be able to bring a case in Amer=
>ican courts, at both state and federal levels, in which they would be the p=
>laintiff? Or am I missing something? </p>
><p dir=3D"ltr">/Brought to you by Mawaki's droid agent</p>
><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Jun 14, 2015 5:57 PM, "Barry Shein"=
> <<a href=3D"mailto:bzs at world.std.com">bzs at world.std.com</a>> wrote:<=
>br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0=
> 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
>From: Mawaki Chango <<a href=3D"mailto:kichango at gmail.com">kichango at gmai=
>l.com</a>><br>
>>4) there remains another concern (which could have made it to my scenar=
>io<br>
>>#2). What happens when USG decides to put a country on some black list =
>for<br>
>>some peculiar reason of its own which most of the nations-states disgre=
>e<br>
>>with or do not find necessary (and which might not even have anything t=
>o do<br>
>>with the Internet)? Wouldn't that country be shut off Californian c=
>ourts<br>
>>for any legal recourse in Internet matters? If so, is that an acceptabl=
>e<br>
>>state of affairs? What would be the remedy?<br>
><br>
>Would the recent lawsuits and judgements and continued actions (e.g.,<br>
>Haim et al v Islamic Republic of Iran, US Distr Court, DC) in US<br>
>courts serve as a counter-example to that concern?<br>
><br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0<a href=3D"https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3D1494=
>831416114150179&q=3DHaim+v.+Islamic+Republic+of+Iran&hl=3Den&as=
>_sdt=3D20006&as_vis=3D1" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://s=
>cholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3D1494831416114150179&q=3DHaim+v.+I=
>slamic+Republic+of+Iran&hl=3Den&as_sdt=3D20006&as_vis=3D1</a><b=
>r>
><br>
>or<br>
><br>
>=C2=A0 <a href=3D"http://tinyurl.com/o3thbvb" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"=
>_blank">http://tinyurl.com/o3thbvb</a><br>
><br>
>--<br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 -Barry Shein<br>
><br>
>The World=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 | bzs at TheWorld.co=
>m=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| <a href=3D"http://www.TheWorld.=
>com" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">http://www.TheWorld.com</a><br>
>Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 | D=
>ial-Up: US, PR, Canada<br>
>Software Tool & Die=C2=A0 =C2=A0 | Public Access Internet=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =
=C2=A0| SINCE 1989=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0*oo*<br>
</blockquote></div>
--
-Barry Shein
The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
-------------- 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
More information about the Governance
mailing list