A global diplomatic crisis seems to have been averted after a Washington DC judge ruled that it’s unlawful to seize a country’s Internet domain registry.

Lawyers working on behalf of nine American citizens who were inured during an Iranian-sponsored bombing in Jerusalem back in 1997 had attempted to seize the top level “.IR” domain in order to recoup some of the millions of dollars in compensation they’re owed.

Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, Judge Royce Lamberth sided with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), finding that the ccTLDs which belong to Iran, North Korea and Syria cannot be transferred. Had the judgment gone their way, the plaitiffs would have assumed legal ownership of all three .IR, .KP and .SY domains.

But according to the judge, “A ccTLD, like a domain name, cannot be conceptualized apart from the services provided by these parties.” Essentially what the judge is saying is that because a ccTLD doesn’t actually exist in physical form, like a house or a car, it isn’t an “asset” that can be seized.

The ruling is just the latest in a decade long fight by the plaintiffs to get hold of the $109 million in damages awarded to them by a US court in 2003, as a result of the injuries they sustained during the Jerusalem bomb attack. Iran totally ignored the original civil lawsuit which means the plaintiffs won the case by default, but getting their hands on the money has proved a lot more challenging. Iran has very few assets left in US government’s clutches – the only money they’ve been able to collect is the $400,000 recouped from the sale of a Lubbock, Texas home that once belonged to Iran’s shah.

The decision will no doubt have politicians breathing a sigh of relief, for Iran would most likely be furious if the US handed over control of its Internet to some of its citizens. However, this might not be the end of the story.

For one thing, the ruling seems to be very weak. “There is little authority on the question of whether internet domains may be attached in satisfaction of a judgment,” explains Judge Lamberth.”Indeed no reported decision of any American court appears to have decided the specific issue of whether a ccTLD may be attached.”

Judge Lamberth cites a 2000 case in which it was ruled that an Internet registry was intrinsically bound to the provision of services as justification for his own ruling. However, he also recognized there’s a footnote in that judgment, which states domain names are considered to be “intangible property” – therefore his conclusion that ccTLDs can’t be attached doesn’t mean these can’t also be considered as “property”.

It’s not clear if the plaintiffs will appeal the ruling, but given their aggressive pursuit of the Iranian government so far, one would think it’s a pretty safe bet they’ll decide this ruling is weak enough to continue pursuing.

photo credit: Matthew Winterburn via photopin cc