[Ws2-jurisdiction] Pool.com case summary

Wed Apr 5 09:58:22 UTC 2017

Although I do see that in some other cases ICANN did contest the
jurisdiction over certain of its acts of different states in the US,
claiming that California jurisdiction should apply. But the main point
of discussion here is about larger application of US jurisdiction over
ICANN vis a vis that of other countries.

parminder

On Wednesday 05 April 2017 12:56 PM, parminder wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday 04 April 2017 08:32 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
>>
>> Statement #2 below is incorrect.   I haven’t reviewed them all but at
>> a minimum ICANN contested jurisdiction in Arizona v. ICANN, the law
>> suit filed by the states to attempt to stop the transition.
>>
>
> For my statement # 2 to be incorrect, ICANN should have challenged
> application of US court jurisdiction in the Arizona case -- In fact
> there is no Arizona v. ICANN case that I can find. I can only find an
> Arizona v. NTIA case..... I cant see ICANN to be a party to it,
> neither has it filed a response.  Will you please show me where ICANN
> challenges US court jurisdiction in this case? 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 *parminder
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 4, 2017 6:14 AM
>> *To:* ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Pool.com case summary
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> 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>
>>     [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>
>>     <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
>>     *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>>     <mailto: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 <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>>
>>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>>
>>  
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170405/ef89c83b/attachment-0001.html>