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
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-Ekiti
web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
Mobile: +2348035233535
alt email: seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng

Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!