[Ws2-jurisdiction] Pool.com case summary
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Wed Apr 5 07:26:59 UTC 2017
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
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170405/418cc984/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ws2-jurisdiction
mailing list