[Ws2-jurisdiction] Pool.com case summary

[Nigel Roberts]

Paul's point is well made.

Typical ICANN-legal argumentation but we must be careful not to confuse 
submission with stare decisis.



On 03/04/17 15:27, 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.
>
> 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
>