...the application was on the proverbial 'wing and prayer' anyhow. If you read the ICANN pleading & Tucow's response, one doubts the outcome on the first question should have been in doubt. I think JJ's statement is purely a recitation of fact; the substantive question[s] surrounding remains unanswered by the court, hence the clarity anticipated remains elusive. A couple of interesting tidbits though: 1) the reference to the RAA's Sec 5.8 - Dispute Resolution Clause which outlines how RAA disputants must proceed in case of a dispute for performance etc. While the RAA does allow for litigation "*in a court of competent jurisdiction*" or by arbitration in a panel raised in LA County, it further says such litigation is exclusively in California courts. It appears the Bonn regional court disputes the primacy of a California court as '*jurisdiction and exclusive venue*" to grant "*arbitral relie**f"*. 2) It appears to rubbish the ICANN Procedures for Handling Conflicts with Privacy Laws by asserting the primacy of local law and the applicability of RAA Sec 3.7.2. All in all, *not*, IMHO, a hopeful sign for the ICANN position anywhere. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-icann-v-epag-request-... -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================