...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 relief". 

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.

-Carlton