Stern v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 73 F. Supp. 3d 46

Plaintiffs hold money judgments against Iran, North Korea, and Syria under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and sought to satisfy those judgments by serving writs of attachment on ICANN for property allegedly in ICANN’s possession.
ICANN, which performs IANA functions under a U.S. government contract, administers delegation/redelegation recommendations for top-level domains and submits changes to the root zone file.
Writs of attachment were issued June 24, 2014; ICANN filed objections/answers and moved to quash the writs. Plaintiffs moved for six months of discovery and an extension to respond.
The contested property consists of country-code top-level domains (ccTLDs) or rights tied to ccTLD operation (i.e., registry services and root-zone listing).
The court evaluated District of Columbia attachment law (governing execution under Rule 69 and the FSIA) and analogized domain-name attachment issues to prior decisions holding domain-name rights are inseparable from registry services.
The court granted ICANN’s motion to quash and denied plaintiffs’ discovery motion as moot, concluding ccTLDs are not attachable property under D.C. law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ccTLDs or defendants’ rights in ccTLDs are property subject to attachment under D.C. law	Plaintiffs argued the ccTLDs (or credits/property in ICANN’s possession relating to them) are attachable to satisfy judgments against foreign sovereigns.	ICANN argued ccTLDs exist only through ongoing registry/root-zone services and thus are not separate, attachable property in ICANN’s possession; attachment would improperly force ICANN into providing or transferring operational services.	Court held ccTLDs (and the operational rights tied to them) are not property subject to attachment under District of Columbia law and quashed the writs.
Whether plaintiffs should be allowed six months of discovery before opposing ICANN’s motion to quash	Plaintiffs sought discovery to contest ICANN’s factual assertions about ownership/control and operational dependence.	ICANN argued the issue was one of law under D.C. attachment rules and further discovery would not change the legal conclusion.	Court denied discovery as moot because resolution on D.C. law foreclosed attachment as a matter of law.

Office Depot, Inc. v. Zuccarini, 596 F.3d 696 (9th Cir.) (background on domain-name structure and domain registration).
Thomas v. Network Solutions, Inc., 176 F.3d 500 (D.C. Cir.) (explaining DNS resolution process and root/zone hierarchy).
Network Solutions, Inc. v. Umbro Int'l, Inc., 529 S.E.2d 80 (Va.) (holding domain-name rights are inseparable from registry services and not subject to garnishment).
Kremen v. Cohen, 337 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir.) (treating domain names as a form of intangible property).
Estate of Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 807 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D.D.C.) (noting FSIA execution governed by local attachment law).
Cummings Gen. Tire Co. v. Volpe Constr. Co., 230 A.2d 712 (D.C.) (holding contingent/conditional payments not subject to garnishment).