[Ws2-jurisdiction] Pool.com case summary

Wed Apr 5 16:49:40 UTC 2017

And as we have said before, ICANN cannot escape US jurisdiction by moving
its headquarters.  US law will assert jurisdiction so long as ICANN has
“substantial contacts” with the US.  The same is true of UK, Germany,
Canada, Australia and I believe India 

Once again, this is wrong.

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com

My PGP Key:
<https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684>
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: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 5:58 AM
To: ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Pool.com case summary

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

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com

My PGP Key:
<https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684>
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 parminder
Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2017 6:14 AM
To: ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto: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

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com

My PGP Key:
<https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684>
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  <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr> <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
Cc: ws2-jurisdiction  <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
<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 <mailto: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/20170405/0e6993c5/attachment-0001.html>