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@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 <+33%201%2039%2030%2083%2006> mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!