[172625] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Owning a name
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Collin Anderson)
Fri Jun 27 00:42:53 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <AE55F219-1376-409B-97BB-DE0686D78CF7@pch.net>
From: Collin Anderson <collin@averysmallbird.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 21:38:05 -0700
To: Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
As best as I and others have been able to discern, the order in question is
a subpoena to ICANN pertaining to contracts, financial information and
communications with the Iranian government over their names and addresses.
The claims of granted control appear to be inaccurate -- all of the
reporting on the matter have been childish to the extent of saying Dot-Iran
(=E2=80=8F.=D8=A7=DB=8C=D8=B1=D8=A7=D9=86) is in Arabic. The next step woul=
d be for ICANN to challenge the
request, and one might expect that communities such as this one would have
an opportunity to amicus along the way.
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> wrote:
>
> On Jun 26, 2014, at 9:13 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> wrote=
:
>
> > On Jun 27, 2014, at 00:07 , Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2014/06/court-ruling-israeli-and-us-terr=
orism.html
> >>
> >> Have not seen much discussion about this.
> >
> > That would be a horrifically bad precedent to set. I hope this insanity
> stops before it get started.
>
> Anyone have a link to the actual ruling? This URL is to a very
> positionally-specific interpretation of events, which is fairly
> disconnected from reality on the ICANN side=E2=80=A6 It=E2=80=99s quite =
possible it=E2=80=99s an
> equally clueless interpretation of the court decision. In any event, eve=
n
> if the court was as clueless as this implies, it won=E2=80=99t go anywher=
e.
>
> -Bill
>
>
>
>
>
--=20
*Collin David Anderson*
averysmallbird.com | @cda | Washington, D.C.
