Paul's point is well made. Typical ICANN-legal argumentation but we must be careful not to confuse submission with stare decisis. On 03/04/17 15:27, 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.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@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@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Seun Ojedeji *Sent:* Monday, April 3, 2017 9:41 AM *To:* Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@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@afnic.fr <mailto: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 <tel:+33%201%2039%2030%2083%2006> mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto: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:<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>/
Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction