Re: Ukraine request yikes

[Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf () gmail com>]

China has worried that the root server operators would do such a thing to them, and I have argued that it is contrary 
to our published principles (RaSSAC055) and or practice. “We have never done so; what would that serve?”

I have the same question here.

Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...

> On Mar 1, 2022, at 12:28 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk () gmail com> wrote:
> 
> > More or less.  The Government Advisory Committee member from Ukraine has asked ICANN to:
> > - Revoke .RU, .рф, and .SU (all Russian-managed ccTLDs)
> >
> > As the GAC member undoubtedly knows, that’s not how ICANN works. Barring a court/executive order in ICANN’s 
> > jurisdiction (and even then, it gets a bit sticky see 
> > https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/13/dc-court-rules-that-top-level-domain-not-subject-to-seizure/),
> >  ICANN essentially treats ccTLDs as national sovereign resources. A third party, no matter how justified, requesting 
> > a change of this nature will not go anywhere. Simply put, ICANN is NOT a regulator in the forma sense, it is a 
> > private entity incorporated in California. The powers that it has are the result of mutual contractual obligations 
> > and it’s a bit unlikely the Russian government has entered into any contracts with ICANN, particularly those that 
> > would allow ICANN to unilaterally revoke any of the Russian ccTLDs.
>
> I wonder how ICANN would react to ISO removing RU/RUS from ISO 3166-2/3.
>
>
> Rubens