[At-Large] R: R: Is ICANN's oversight really moving away from the US government?
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
ocl at gih.com
Thu Apr 7 23:24:44 UTC 2016
On 08/04/2016 00:57, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
> The issue around domain seizures has nothing to do with ICANN. Any
> domain seizure cases I’ve seen (including the examples cited by
> Parminder) were all made either at the registrar or registry level.
> I haven’t see any cases where ICANN has been involved directly (though
> they often get named in cases)
You're absolutely correct. And the only "seizures" that were requested,
were those of Top Level Domains: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-28582478
There are many other sources that describe the case in detail. The judge
sided with ICANN in saying that "they are not property subject to
attachment under District of Columbia Law".
In this case, it is actually a good thing that the case had to go in
front of a US court since jurisprudence already existed.
More information about the At-Large