[Ws2-jurisdiction] Pool.com case summary

Tue Apr 4 10:14:10 UTC 2017

On Monday 03 April 2017 07:57 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
>
> Why would you say that Seun – it is what the lawyers for ICANN argued,
> but there is no evidence that the Canadian court agree to that
> submission.  I would expect ICANN’s lawyers to make that argument and
> I would also expect based on what little I know of Canadian law that
> in the end the court would have rejected the argument. 
>

It is absolutely significant that

(1) In the only documented case which went before a non US court, ICANN
promptly contested the court's jurisdiction. This is fact was its
primary argument as far as I can see from the case details.

(2) In none of more than 20 other documents cases, all in US courts,
ICANN ever contested -- in the slightest --  the court's jurisdiction
over ICANN or the matter under consideration. 

It clearly shows that everyone --  ICANN, US courts, in fact even all of
us -- know what is what vis a vis the  absolute jurisdictional powers of
US over ICANN, and thus over its policies and their implementation, and
very feeble jurisdictional leeway (and even lesser enforcement capacity)
that non US courts and other state agencies have over ICANN.

We are simply wasting out time trying to minutely examine facts that are
fairly well established and normally not contested.

As you agreed with me in a way, lets come to the crux of the matter, and
see what is this group really trying to do, what progress we are making
or not making, what is the prognosis of possible outcomes, and so on....

IMHO we are just making ourselves believe that we are doing something in
this group, when in fact we are not doing anything at all.

/*Sub-group chairs,*/

Kavouss had put the matter to the CCWG chairs of the email I wrote about
the non progress of this groups work. CCWG chair seem to have ordered
the matter to be addressed by the sub group. Are you going to take up
that matter?

Also note that Paul too agreed with me that we seem not to be going
anywhere (or some such, I do not want to put words in his mouth, his
email of a few days back may be read)

Thanks, parminder

>  
>
> Paul
>
>  
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
>
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>
> www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>
>
> My PGP Key:
> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684
>
>  
>
> *From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Seun Ojedeji
> *Sent:* Monday, April 3, 2017 9:41 AM
> *To:* Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Pool.com case summary
>
>  
>
> Thanks a lot for sharing this Mathieu, I guess this removes any claims
> that the experience would be the same if ICANN were sued outside of
> her jurisdiction of incorporation. The following text makes that quite
> clear:
>
> "Defendant ICANN asserted that the Court lacked jurisdiction because
> (quoting the argument):
> ICANN is not resident in Ontario
> The Action has no real or substantial connection to Ontario
> Virtually all the evidence and witnesses are in California"
>
> I am not a lawyer but perhaps it may be good to know how flexible it
> is for non-US customer of ICANN to legally engage/challenge ICANN in
> her place of incorporation. The impact of this on US-banned countries
> may also be a good to know.
>
> Regards
>
>  
>
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>> wrote:
>
>     Dear Colleagues,
>
>      
>
>     Here is another summary form for the Pool.com vs ICANN case. It’s
>     an interesting case  because it was the only one documented as
>     submitted in front of a non-US court. However it was settled
>     before it reached the decision stage.
>
>      
>
>     Best,
>
>      
>
>     -- 
>     *****************************
>     Mathieu WEILL
>     AFNIC - directeur général
>     Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 <tel:+33%201%2039%2030%2083%2006>
>     mathieu.weill at afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
>     Twitter : @mathieuweill
>     *****************************
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>     Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     /Seun Ojedeji,
>     Federal University Oye-Ekiti
>     web:      //http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
>     //Mobile: +2348035233535//
>     //alt email:<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
>     <mailto:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>/
>
>         Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your
>         action!
>
>  
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170404/ec8676ef/attachment.html>