It might also interest the list that every couple of years ICANN actually has to apply to the Department of Treasury's OFAC in order to obtain a license to do business with Iranian parties. On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Collin Anderson <collin@averysmallbird.com> wrote:
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 (.ایران) is in Arabic. The next step would 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-terrori...
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… It’s quite possible it’s an equally clueless interpretation of the court decision. In any event, even if the court was as clueless as this implies, it won’t go anywhere.
-Bill
-- *Collin David Anderson* averysmallbird.com | @cda | Washington, D.C.
-- *Collin David Anderson* averysmallbird.com | @cda | Washington, D.C.