[172639] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Owning a name
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Rudholm)
Fri Jun 27 12:57:16 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 22:54:28 -0700
From: Mark Rudholm <mark@rudholm.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CAC+VsLt675vzOu0YQv2mwu3+=xRMiwkfbv4izB8j1-ymoGjSHw@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 06/26/2014 10:14 PM, Collin Anderson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:00 PM, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>
>> I've been looking for the case in PACER, and don't see
>> anything filed this year against ICANN so the case doesn't even exist.
>>
> Seth Charles Ben HAIM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN,
> et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 02-1811 (RCL)
It seems to me that even if the ccTLD delegations were removed from the
root DNS zone, all sysadmins in Iran would just add the ns.irnic.ir NS
record to their cache, effectively ignoring ICANN. I bet a lot of
sysadmins outside Iran would do the same thing, since it makes sense to
refer to IRNIC for Iranian DNS regardless of any court ruling.
Similarly, they'd just keep using their current network numbers. It's
not like ARIN would be able to give them to someone else. Nobody would
want them. And a lot of us would continue to route those numbers to Iran.
Courts have shown time and again that they don't understand that ICANN
is a coordinator, not an authority.
