http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2014/06/court-ruling-israeli-and-us-terrori... Have not seen much discussion about this. -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
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. -- TTFN, patrick
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
On 6/26/14 9:20 PM, Bill Woodcock 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
please see the iana's redelegation rules. start with .pn looking for first principles. -e
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.
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.
But, are ccTLDs licenced by ICANN? I thought they were independent. j On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 12:13 AM, 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.
-- TTFN, patrick
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -
The concept of owned and assets is greatly misunderstood by lawyers in this case. This will go nowhere. Zaid On Jun 26, 2014, at 9:35 PM, Joly MacFie <joly@punkcast.com> wrote:
But, are ccTLDs licenced by ICANN? I thought they were independent.
j
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 12:13 AM, 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.
-- TTFN, patrick
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -
On Jun 27, 2014, at 5:35 AM, Joly MacFie <joly@punkcast.com> wrote:
But, are ccTLDs licenced by ICANN?
No. Some ccTLD managers have signed "Affirmations of Commitments" with ICANN that basically say both ICANN and the ccTLD admit each other exists, but it isn't required.
I thought they were independent.
Yes. ccTLDs are treated as national sovereign resources. Regards, -drc
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 7:50 AM, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
Yes. ccTLDs are treated as national sovereign resources.
By whom and where? Regardless, there are 'State Sponsors of Terrorism'-related amendments to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act that come into play here. -- *Collin David Anderson* averysmallbird.com | @cda | Washington, D.C.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 6/27/2014 7:49 AM, Collin Anderson wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 7:50 AM, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
Yes. ccTLDs are treated as national sovereign resources.
By whom and where?
Regardless, there are 'State Sponsors of Terrorism'-related amendments to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act that come into play here.
"The IANA is not in the business of deciding what is and what is not a country. The selection of the ISO 3166 list as a basis for country code top-level domain names was made with the knowledge that ISO has a procedure for determining which entities should be and should not be on that list." - Jon Postel, RFC 1591 - - ferg - -- Paul Ferguson VP Threat Intelligence, IID PGP Public Key ID: 0x54DC85B2 Key fingerprint: 19EC 2945 FEE8 D6C8 58A1 CE53 2896 AC75 54DC 85B2 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iF4EAREIAAYFAlOthuUACgkQKJasdVTchbIKegD+M7kYkdYc1HRfvpPAltW0cDUK kWoWdpuE0LyO4PskBMQBALt0zloqKkLQ/ZCUuXw8UMf56Mrc29j91QBwKz+GsDJr =0sSc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Yes. ccTLDs are treated as national sovereign resources.
By whom and where?
Regardless, there are 'State Sponsors of Terrorism'-related amendments to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act that come into play here.
The US has a long policy of not messing with ccTLDs, even of countries that we don't like such as .kp, .cu, and .iq (back in the day). If they started now there would be a firestorm, and not just from companies we don't like. I expect ICANN's response will be to produce what correspondence they have, and to say they have no contracts with Iran, receive no income from Iran, and hold no Iranian assets. The .ir and the new Arabic script
John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
The US has a long policy of not messing with ccTLDs, even of countries that we don't like such as .kp, .cu, and .iq (back in the day).
The latter had a fairly messy history: http://www.iana.org/reports/2005/iq-report-05aug2005.pdf Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <dot@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ Irish Sea: East backing northeast 4 or 5. Slight or moderate. Rain or showers. Moderate or good.
In article <53ACEE1A.5010404@cox.net> you write:
http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2014/06/court-ruling-israeli-and-us-terrori...
Have not seen much discussion about this.
The aroma of BS is pretty intense here. There was a press release last week saying that she'd filed the case, and no Federal court would rule in a week. 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. Further clues: * ICANN has no agreement with Iran for .ir nor the new IDN domain, so .ir pays ICANN nothing. * Address space for Iranian networks come from RIPE, not ICANN. If Iran pays any address space maintenance fees, they'd go to RIPE, which is in Europe, not in the U.S. R's, John
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) -- *Collin David Anderson* averysmallbird.com | @cda | Washington, D.C.
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.
An update, apparently writs of attachment were sent for not only .ir, but also .sy and .kp ccTLDs as well, based on separate cases related to support for terrorism. ICANN has filed a motion to quash the writs and taken the position that the domains are not assets. Press: http://www.securityweek.com/country-specific-web-domains-cant-be-seized-ican... Court Documents: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/icann-various-2014-07-30-en On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Mark Rudholm <mark@rudholm.com> wrote:
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.
-- *Collin David Anderson* averysmallbird.com | @cda | Washington, D.C.
On Jul 30, 2014, at 4:17 PM, Collin Anderson <collin@averysmallbird.com> wrote:
An update, apparently writs of attachment were sent for not only .ir, but also .sy and .kp ccTLDs as well, based on separate cases related to support for terrorism. ICANN has filed a motion to quash the writs and taken the position that the domains are not assets.
Press: http://www.securityweek.com/country-specific-web-domains-cant-be-seized-ican... Court Documents: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/icann-various-2014-07-30-en
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Mark Rudholm <mark@rudholm.com> wrote:
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.
Pretty sure that would be a RIPE, not ARIN matter since TTBOMK, Iran et. al. are in the RIPE region (possibly some in AfriNIC actually).
Courts have shown time and again that they don't understand that ICANN is a coordinator, not an authority.
Wonder how long it is before we recognize the need for an international technical court for such matters where the guy on the bench has to be not just a lawyer, but a nerd, too. Owen
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:10 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote: ....
Wonder how long it is before we recognize the need for an international technical court for such matters where the guy on the bench has to be not just a lawyer, but a nerd, too.
Can I nominate Judge William Alsup?
On 07/30/2014 05:10 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jul 30, 2014, at 4:17 PM, Collin Anderson <collin@averysmallbird.com> wrote:
An update, apparently writs of attachment were sent for not only .ir, but also .sy and .kp ccTLDs as well, based on separate cases related to support for terrorism. ICANN has filed a motion to quash the writs and taken the position that the domains are not assets.
ICANN would lose a lot of credibility if the ccTLDs were pulled, because people would simply ignore it.
Press: http://www.securityweek.com/country-specific-web-domains-cant-be-seized-ican... Court Documents: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/icann-various-2014-07-30-en
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Mark Rudholm <mark@rudholm.com> wrote:
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.
Pretty sure that would be a RIPE, not ARIN matter since TTBOMK, Iran et. al. are in the RIPE region (possibly some in AfriNIC actually).
Yes, Iran gets numbers mainly from RIPE NCC. I'm used to dealing with ARIN so that's what comes out of my fingers. But, I'm sure you get my point anyway.
Courts have shown time and again that they don't understand that ICANN is a coordinator, not an authority. Wonder how long it is before we recognize the need for an international technical court for such matters where the guy on the bench has to be not just a lawyer, but a nerd, too.
Owen
On Jun 26, 2014, at 10:14 PM, Collin Anderson <collin@averysmallbird.com> 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)
http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Subpoena-Ben-Haim-02-1611-w... -Bill
participants (15)
-
Bill Woodcock -
Collin Anderson -
David Conrad -
Eric Brunner-Williams -
Gary Buhrmaster -
John Levine -
Joly MacFie -
Larry Sheldon -
Mark Rudholm -
Owen DeLong -
Patrick W. Gilmore -
Paul Ferguson -
Randy Bush -
Tony Finch -
Zaid A. Kahn