[governance] IANA transition - BR Gov comments on the CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal
Barry Shein
bzs at world.std.com
Wed Jun 17 19:55:38 EDT 2015
Not being rude nor at a loss for words I just don't see this thread
going anywhere productive. I think both of us have made our points and
it's difficult to predict the future in this case.
-b
From: Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>
>On Jun 15, 2015 4:32 PM, "Barry Shein" <bzs at world.std.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
>Not really. It seems obvious to me that in cases where it's the US party
>that summons the foreign party to respond in a US court then we'd have the
>answer before the question is even raised.
>
>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.
>>
>
>Good to know that.
>
>> 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.
>
>Exactly. And particularly as plaintiff, the answer to which is confirmed by
>the following line of yours.
>
>>
>> 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?
>
>It wasn't really a speculation, but a question or, if you will, a
>hypothetical question. The reason is, I've noticed people are allergic to
>abstract argumentation in these settings and we are often asked: what
>problem are you trying to solved? Keeping in mind if it ain't broke, don't
>fix it. So I came up with "problem scenari-questions," genuinely looking
>for answers. A solid assumption one could make here, I would think, is that
>my main premise might be as follows: the more of these scenari-questions
>find satisfying answers (meaning we find out evidence that the problem may
>not actually occur or that if it does occur there are institutional
>arrangements in place that allow addressing it in a fair and just manner),
>the more stakeholders still on the fence will find the status quo on the
>question of jurisdiction acceptable. But of course I may be wrong on that
>premise.
>
>In any event, by putting them forward, I certainly wasn't claiming they had
>no answer, or even more, that the answer to those scenari-questions is
>negative.
>
>>
>>
>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,
>
>Indeed, although I'd say in general. I think if you search you'll find the
>word "hegemon" previously used in this thread, and that wasn't by me.
>
>or would it be the same in
>> any likely venue? The US is not the only country in the world which
>> might have blacklists.
>
>Then the question might be whose blacklists tend to inflate the most,
>including against the opinion of the majority of the rest of the world? I
>must say I only have a perception about that, and haven't gathered the
>evidence/ historical record to back that so it's an open question. One
>thing for sure, the US has a unique position in the world and as such, it
>may have a unique set of interests on top of all the interests it shares
>with the rest of the "free world," (it wasn't that long ago that allied
>were spied on by a USG agency on grounds that precisely relate to issue
>areas where they were allied), or also stated otherwise it has a unique
>capacity to bring its might in support to its will, enabling it to make and
>enforce extra national unilateral decisions more than any other. Or do you
>know of many countries that can compete?
>
>Whatever the case, whoever may be concerned needs to appreciate that the
>above is the basis for people's concern when they raise the kind of
>questions we've been discussing here, not that they are anti American in
>their guts (which I'm certainly not saying is your opinion but some people
>do feel that way.)
>
>Mawaki
>
>>
>> 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*
><p dir=3D"ltr"></p>
><p dir=3D"ltr">On Jun 15, 2015 4:32 PM, "Barry Shein" <<a href=
>=3D"mailto:bzs at world.std.com">bzs at world.std.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Yes, Iran was a defendant in the particular case I mentioned, but they=
><br>
>> weren't blocked in any way from participating in their defense whi=
>ch<br>
>> seemed to be the basis for your speculation. </p>
><p dir=3D"ltr">Not really. It seems obvious to me that in cases where it=
>9;s the US party that summons the foreign party to respond in a US court th=
>en we'd have the answer before the question is even raised.<br></p>
><p dir=3D"ltr">At the moment the most<br>
>> recent court decision I'm aware of in this particular case has rul=
>ed<br>
>> for Iran (actually ICANN acting on behalf of the assets in question)<b=
>r>
>> and blocked transfer or garnishing of their ccTLD revenue stream. I=
>9;m<br>
>> sure we'll hear more, I don't believe it's over yet.<br>
>></p>
><p dir=3D"ltr">Good to know that.</p>
><p dir=3D"ltr">> But there's also "Nat'l Petrochemical of I=
>ran [NPC] vs M/T Scott<br>
>> Sheaf" (2d Cir. 1988).<br>
>><br>
>> NPC is wholly owned by Iran.<br>
>><br>
>> The specific question was whether the plaintiff, NPC, was barred<br>
>> access from US courts due to the lack of formal recognition by the US<=
>br>
>> of the govt of Iran.</p>
><p dir=3D"ltr">Exactly. And particularly as plaintiff, the answer to which =
>is confirmed by the following line of yours.</p>
><p dir=3D"ltr">><br>
>> The court ruled in favor of plaintiff NPC (Iran): Not barred.<br>
>><br>
>> I'm not sure where else we can go with testing a speculation that<=
>br>
>> Iran's (or others') diplomatic status with the US might bar th=
>em from<br>
>> access to US courts. Do you have examples to the contrary?</p>
><p dir=3D"ltr">It wasn't really a speculation, but a question or, if yo=
>u will, a hypothetical question. The reason is, I've noticed people are=
> allergic to abstract argumentation in these settings and we are often aske=
>d: what problem are you trying to solved? Keeping in mind if it ain't b=
>roke, don't fix it. So I came up with "problem scenari-questions,&=
>quot; genuinely looking for answers. A solid assumption one could make here=
>, I would think, is that my main premise might be as follows: the more of t=
>hese scenari-questions find satisfying answers (meaning we find out evidenc=
>e that the problem may not actually occur or that if it does occur there ar=
>e institutional arrangements in place that allow addressing it in a fair an=
>d just manner), the more stakeholders still on the fence will find the stat=
>us quo on the question of jurisdiction acceptable. But of course I may be w=
>rong on that premise.</p>
><p dir=3D"ltr">In any event, by putting them forward, I certainly wasn'=
>t claiming they had no answer, or even more, that the answer to those scena=
>ri-questions is negative.</p>
><p dir=3D"ltr">><br>
>> =C2=A0 <a href=3D"http://www.lawschoolcasebriefs.net/2012/04/national-=
>petrochemical-co-of-iran-v-mt.html">http://www.lawschoolcasebriefs.net/2012=
>/04/national-petrochemical-co-of-iran-v-mt.html</a><br>
>><br>
>> or<br>
>><br>
>> =C2=A0 <a href=3D"http://tinyurl.com/pueamg9">http://tinyurl.com/pueam=
>g9</a><br>
>><br>
>> I suppose the broader question is whether there is anything peculiar<b=
>r>
>> about the US' behavior in these matters,</p>
><p dir=3D"ltr">Indeed, although I'd say in general. I think if you sear=
>ch you'll find the word "hegemon" previously used in this thr=
>ead, and that wasn't by me.<br></p>
><p dir=3D"ltr"> or would it be the same in<br>
>> any likely venue? The US is not the only country in the world which<br>
>> might have blacklists.</p>
><p dir=3D"ltr">Then the question might be whose blacklists tend to inflate =
>the most, including against the opinion of the majority of the rest of the =
>world? I must say I only have a perception about that, and haven't gath=
>ered the evidence/ historical record to back that so it's an open quest=
>ion. One thing for sure, the US has a unique position in the world and as s=
>uch, it may have a unique set of interests on top of all the interests it s=
>hares with the rest of the "free world," (it wasn't that long=
> ago that allied were spied on by a USG agency on grounds that precisely re=
>late to issue areas where they were allied), or also stated otherwise it ha=
>s a unique capacity to bring its might in support to its will, enabling it =
>to make and enforce extra national unilateral decisions more than any other=
>. Or do you know of many countries that can compete? </p>
><p dir=3D"ltr">Whatever the case, whoever may be concerned needs to appreci=
>ate that the above is the basis for people's concern when they raise th=
>e kind of questions we've been discussing here, not that they are anti =
>American in their guts (which I'm certainly not saying is your opinion =
>but some people do feel that way.)</p>
><p dir=3D"ltr">Mawaki</p>
><p dir=3D"ltr">><br>
>> Or does there exist some jurisdictional venue (supranational) where<br>
>> such issues don't exist?<br>
>><br>
>> =C2=A0 =C2=A0-b<br>
>><br>
>> From: Mawaki Chango <<a href=3D"mailto:kichango at gmail.com">kichango=
>@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> >Not sure why you seem to think that might be so. In the case being=
> reported<br>
>> >here, the plaintiffs are American ctitizens suing the Islamic Repu=
>blic of<br>
>> >Iran (the defendant), on the basis of its support to terrorist gro=
>ups in<br>
>> >Gaza Strip (as per the court proceedings.) There is in place, in t=
>he US, an<br>
>> >exception statute regarding the normal foreign sovereigns' imm=
>unity in<br>
>> >state and federal courts. That exception statute particularly appl=
>ies when<br>
>> >the foreign sovereign has been entered by USG into a list of state=
>s<br>
>> >involved in terrorism sponsoring activities (if my understanding i=
>s<br>
>> >correct), allowing the court to proceed with a case where any such=
> foreign<br>
>> >sovereign is the defendant.<br>
>> ><br>
>> >Now, are you suggesting that we may conclude from there that the I=
>slamic<br>
>> >Republic of Iran (or any other foreign state that is on a USG'=
>s blacklist<br>
>> >or under its embargo) might be able to bring a case in American co=
>urts, at<br>
>> >both state and federal levels, in which they would be the plaintif=
>f? Or am<br>
>> >I missing something?<br>
>> ><br>
>> >/Brought to you by Mawaki's droid agent<br>
>> >On Jun 14, 2015 5:57 PM, "Barry Shein" <<a href=3D"ma=
>ilto:bzs at world.std.com">bzs at world.std.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> ><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> From: Mawaki Chango <<a href=3D"mailto:kichango at gmail.com"=
>>kichango at gmail.com</a>><br>
>> >> >4) there remains another concern (which could have made i=
>t to my scenario<br>
>> >> >#2). What happens when USG decides to put a country on so=
>me black list for<br>
>> >> >some peculiar reason of its own which most of the nations=
>-states disgree<br>
>> >> >with or do not find necessary (and which might not even h=
>ave anything to<br>
>> >> do<br>
>> >> >with the Internet)? Wouldn't that country be shut off=
> Californian courts<br>
>> >> >for any legal recourse in Internet matters? If so, is tha=
>t an acceptable<br>
>> >> >state of affairs? What would be the remedy?<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Would the recent lawsuits and judgements and continued action=
>s (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>
>> >><br>
>> >> <a href=3D"https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3D149=
>4831416114150179&q=3DHaim+v.+Islamic+Republic+of+Iran&hl=3Den&a=
>s_sdt=3D20006&as_vis=3D1">https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=
>=3D1494831416114150179&q=3DHaim+v.+Islamic+Republic+of+Iran&hl=3Den=
>&as_sdt=3D20006&as_vis=3D1</a><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> or<br>
>> >><br>
>> >>=C2=A0 =C2=A0<a href=3D"http://tinyurl.com/o3thbvb">http://tin=
>yurl.com/o3thbvb</a><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> --<br>
>> >>=C2=A0 =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 | b=
>zs at TheWorld.com=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0|<br>
>> >> <a href=3D"http://www.TheWorld.com">http://www.TheWorld.com</=
>a><br>
>> >> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=
>=A0 =C2=A0 | Dial-Up: US, PR,<br>
>> >> 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>
>> >><br>
>> ><p dir=3D3D"ltr">Not sure why you seem to think th=
>at might be so. In the case=3D<br>
>> > being reported here, the plaintiffs are American ctitizens suing =
>the Islam=3D<br>
>> >ic Republic of Iran (the defendant), on the basis of its support t=
>o terrori=3D<br>
>> >st groups in Gaza Strip (as per the court proceedings.) There is i=
>n place, =3D<br>
>> >in the US, an exception statute regarding the normal foreign sover=
>eigns'=3D<br>
>> >; immunity in state and federal courts. That exception statute par=
>ticularly=3D<br>
>> > applies when the foreign sovereign has been entered by USG into a=
> list of =3D<br>
>> >states involved in terrorism sponsoring activities (if my understa=
>nding is =3D<br>
>> >correct), allowing the court to proceed with a case where any such=
> foreign =3D<br>
>> >sovereign is the defendant.</p><br>
>> ><p dir=3D3D"ltr">Now, are you suggesting that we m=
>ay conclude from there that=3D<br>
>> > the Islamic Republic of Iran (or any other foreign state that is =
>on a USG&=3D<br>
>> >#39;s blacklist or under its embargo) might be able to bring a cas=
>e in Amer=3D<br>
>> >ican courts, at both state and federal levels, in which they would=
> be the p=3D<br>
>> >laintiff? Or am I missing something? </p><br>
>> ><p dir=3D3D"ltr">/Brought to you by Mawaki'=
>;s droid agent</p><br>
>> ><div class=3D3D"gmail_quote">On Jun 14, 2015 5:57 =
>PM, "Barry Shein"=3D<br>
>> > <<a href=3D3D"mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:bzs at world.s=
>td.com">bzs at world.std.com</a>"><a href=3D"mailto:bzs at world.std.com"=
>>bzs at world.std.com</a></a>> wrote:<=3D<br>
>> >br type=3D3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D3D&q=
>uot;gmail_quote" style=3D3D"margin:0=3D<br>
>> > 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><=
>;br><br>
>> >From: Mawaki Chango <<a href=3D3D"mailto:<a href=3D=
>"mailto:kichango at gmail.com">kichango at gmail.com</a>">kichango at gmai=
>=3D<br>
>> ><a href=3D"http://l.com">l.com</a></a>><br><br>
>> >>4) there remains another concern (which could have made it=
> to my scenar=3D<br>
>> >io<br><br>
>> >>#2). What happens when USG decides to put a country on som=
>e black list =3D<br>
>> >for<br><br>
>> >>some peculiar reason of its own which most of the nations-=
>states disgre=3D<br>
>> >e<br><br>
>> >>with or do not find necessary (and which might not even ha=
>ve anything t=3D<br>
>> >o do<br><br>
>> >>with the Internet)? Wouldn't that country be shut =
>off Californian c=3D<br>
>> >ourts<br><br>
>> >>for any legal recourse in Internet matters? If so, is that=
> an acceptabl=3D<br>
>> >e<br><br>
>> >>state of affairs? What would be the remedy?<br><br>
>> ><br><br>
>> >Would the recent lawsuits and judgements and continued actions (e.=
>g.,<br><br>
>> >Haim et al v Islamic Republic of Iran, US Distr Court, DC) in US&l=
>t;br><br>
>> >courts serve as a counter-example to that concern?<br><br>
>> ><br><br>
>> >=3DC2=3DA0 =3DC2=3DA0<a href=3D3D"<a href=3D"https://schol=
>ar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3D3D1494=3D">https://scholar.google.com/sch=
>olar_case?case=3D3D1494=3D</a><br>
>> >831416114150179&q=3D3DHaim+v.+Islamic+Republic+of+Iran&=
>;amp;hl=3D3Den&as=3D<br>
>> >_sdt=3D3D20006&as_vis=3D3D1" rel=3D3D"noreferrer=
>" target=3D3D"_blank"><a href=3D"https://s">https://s</a>=
>=3D<br>
>> ><a href=3D"http://cholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3D3D14948314=
>16114150179&q=3D3DHaim+v.+I=3D">cholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=
>=3D3D1494831416114150179&q=3D3DHaim+v.+I=3D</a><br>
>> >slamic+Republic+of+Iran&hl=3D3Den&as_sdt=3D3D20006=
>&as_vis=3D3D1</a><b=3D<br>
>> >r><br>
>> ><br><br>
>> >or<br><br>
>> ><br><br>
>> >=3DC2=3DA0 <a href=3D3D"<a href=3D"http://tinyurl.com/o3th=
>bvb">http://tinyurl.com/o3thbvb</a>" rel=3D3D"noreferrer" ta=
>rget=3D3D"=3D<br>
>> >_blank"><a href=3D"http://tinyurl.com/o3thbvb">http://tiny=
>url.com/o3thbvb</a></a><br><br>
>> ><br><br>
>> >--<br><br>
>> >=3DC2=3DA0 =3DC2=3DA0 =3DC2=3DA0 =3DC2=3DA0 -Barry Shein<br>=
><br>
>> ><br><br>
>> >The World=3DC2=3DA0 =3DC2=3DA0 =3DC2=3DA0 =3DC2=3DA0 =3DC2=3DA0 =
>=3DC2=3DA0 =3DC2=3DA0 | bzs at TheWorld.co=3D<br>
>> >m=3DC2=3DA0 =3DC2=3DA0 =3DC2=3DA0 =3DC2=3DA0 =3DC2=3DA0 =3DC2=3DA0=
>| <a href=3D3D"<a href=3D"http://www.TheWorld.">http://www.TheWorld=
>.</a>=3D<br>
>> >com" rel=3D3D"noreferrer" target=3D3D"_blank&q=
>uot;><a href=3D"http://www.TheWorld.com">http://www.TheWorld.com</a><=
>/a><br><br>
>> >Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD=3DC2=3DA0 =3DC2=3DA0 =
>=3DC2=3DA0 =3DC2=3DA0 | D=3D<br>
>> >ial-Up: US, PR, Canada<br><br>
>> >Software Tool & Die=3DC2=3DA0 =3DC2=3DA0 | Public Access I=
>nternet=3DC2=3DA0 =3DC2=3DA0 =3D<br>
>> =3DC2=3DA0| SINCE 1989=3DC2=3DA0 =3DC2=3DA0 =3DC2=3DA0*oo*<br><b=
>r>
>> </blockquote></div><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 TheWor=
>ld.com=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| <a href=3D"http://www.TheW=
>orld.com">http://www.TheWorld.com</a><br>
>> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=
>=A0 | Dial-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>
></p>
--
-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