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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Jun 26, 2014, at 9:13 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > On Jun 27, 2014, at 00:07 , Larry Sheldon <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> >> http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2014/06/court-ruling-israeli-and-us-terrorism.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… 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.
