Good point Nigel, indeed.

De : ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Bernard Turcotte
Envoyé : lundi 3 avril 2017 15:52
À : Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>
Cc : ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>
Objet : Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Pool.com case summary

Re Quebec = correct.

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:

For the avoidance of imprecision or possible confusion, with (most of) Canada being a common-law, and not a civil law jurisdiction, I submit that governing law should, for preference, might better be expressed simply as "Canadian Law" or perhaps "British Columbia law".

These were, of course, civil *proceedings*, under Canadian law but that's not civil law. (I think Quebec has a civilian system, however?)

On 03/04/17 14:29, Mathieu Weill 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 <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************

_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction