While I am not 100% convinced that this would actually happen (it might, but might not), it would at least be technically possible to change what everyone in the US sees when they look a .ir domain. Could have been a popcorn moment.
This is related to why DNSSEC detractors think it is equivalent of handing the ICANN your key pair, by way of acquiring the TLD.
Turns out it's not that easy in practice.
> Since these are ongoing services, the judge then argues that because a ccTLD is being constantly changed and updated it can be viewed as an "ongoing contractual arrangement that necessarily requires continued work or services to have value". Because of this it cannot be "attached" to a lawsuit under Washington DC law.
Addendum: I am aware that this is quite a bit off-topic, but I just had that thought how kind of ridiculous it is, to go to such lengths to get financial compensations while the state will just hand you a couple hundred or thousand dollars and case closed.
We can treat everyone equally by treating everyone like shit, or we can treat everyone equally by treating everyone well. I'm sure you didn't intend it, but your comment reads as though you are you are upset that the former are asking for so much, not that the later got so little.
When somebodies family member is killed, their support network is reduced. Financial compensation can help to offset the damage done to their support network. It's not just about making people feel better.
Either are better than valuing American lives as multiple orders of magnitude of the value of Afghan lives.
Isn't the postal service or municipality at liberty to renumber things as they see fit? I know several people that have had to "move", file change of address forms, even though they're in the same physical structure.
I think that's the big difference: The Iran TLD isn't just "owned" by the country, the TLD is supposed to factually represent the location of the country's IPs. It's similar to how only government agencies or the like are supposed to have .gov domains.
And I don't think there is a 'clawback procedure'. I'm very curious what would have happened if this judge had actually sided with the plaintiffs.
Possibly a re-run of January 28, 1998, but this time with teeth.
Simply, ICANN defines the content of a database and it has self-imposed rules how it delegates part of that work to others. The rest of the world currently mirrors the database, but this might change if ICANN does something very stupid or is required to do so by others.
In other words, it's about perceived power of various courts in what is actually a process based on global consensus.
Well not when you put it that way. But you certainly can have a property interest in a database record's being updated or not updated in a certain way. Think of it this way: your money on deposit at the bank is "just" a database record -- either at the band itself or, less directly, at the Federal Reserve. And this is just one example. Plenty of assets ultimately reduce to a database entry on a computer somewhere.
only 3 of 13 root servers are outside of America's direct jurisdiction, and those servers splitting off would only cause confusing disarray, while America continues to be the main authority in the western world
Time to change that?
ICANN needs to be managed by people who have no other professional priorities than keeping the internet running and free from corporate, governmental and political interference.
Except 5, other countries don't have a permanent say in the system. The 5 can veto any resolution. The sad reality is that UN has been successful on various issues (while still failing on very many) despite being an utterly undemocratic establishment and that is constantly being used as an excuse to continue with the current system.
It's really an unresolved question at the moment.