"ICANN controls the operation of these top level domains and maintains substantial rights over them through its operation of the DNS, control of the Root Zone Database, and authority to redelegate Iran’s top level domains. ICANN claims that it has never entered into any type of agreement with Iran relating to its country code top level domains, and has never obtained funds or contributions relating to these country-code top level domains. (24.4-24.5). But that is impossible. Either ICANN or one of its predecessors in interest necessarily conveyed those top level domains to Iran for an indefinite period and for Iran’s indefinite use and enjoyment while retaining control over the Root Zone Database and maintaining authority to redelegate the domains. Absent such a conveyance by ICANN to Iran, there is no rational explanation (ICANN offers none) for the present state of affairs."--Excerpt from Plaintiffs' brief, infra, emphasis added)
Plaintiffs, on August 26, 2015, filed their brief in the ICANN litigation concerning whether ccTLDs (Country Code Top-Level Domains), and specifically those of Iran (.IR), Syria and North Korea, are subject to legal attachment in order to satisfy a civil judgment (ICANN is Third Party Garnishee-Appellee):
Re: Ben Haim v. Islamic Republic of Iran; Calderon-Cardona v. Democratic People's Republic of Korea; Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran; Stern v. Islamic Republic of Iran; Weinstein v. Islamic Republic of Iran; Wyatt v. Syrian Arab Republic
(in United States District Court for the District of Columbia) Appeal No. 14-7193
- Appellants' Brief [PDF, 280 KB]
- Appendix [PDF, 12 MB]
|Screenshot of Appellants Brief cover|
- Whether country-code top level domain names and IP addresses assigned to the judgment debtors are property or might be property subject to attachment under District of Columbia law, including D.C. CODE § 16-544?
- Whether the district court abused its discretion in failing to allow discovery so that it could better determine whether country-code top level domain names and IP addresses assigned to the judgment debtors are property or might be property subject to attachment under District of Columbia law, including D.C. CODE § 16-544?
- Whether this Court should certify the fundamental questions in this appeal, which are important questions of first impression turning solely on the proper interpretation of District of Columbia statute, to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals for its resolution?
The legal argument of Plaintiffs-Appellants is summarized in the index below:
|Screenshot of Appellants Argument Index|
More information: Litigation Documents arranged by initial filing date in descending order.