Statement #2 below is incorrect. I haven’t reviewed them all but at a minimum ICANN contested jurisdiction in Arizona v. ICANN, the law suit filed by the states to attempt to stop the transition.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
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 parminder
Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2017 6:14 AM
To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Pool.com case summary
On Monday 03 April 2017 07:57 PM, 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.
It is absolutely significant that
(1) In the only documented case which went before a non US court, ICANN promptly contested the court's jurisdiction. This is fact was its primary argument as far as I can see from the case details.
(2) In none of more than 20 other documents cases, all in US courts, ICANN ever contested -- in the slightest -- the court's jurisdiction over ICANN or the matter under consideration.
It clearly shows that everyone -- ICANN, US courts, in fact even all of us -- know what is what vis a vis the absolute jurisdictional powers of US over ICANN, and thus over its policies and their implementation, and very feeble jurisdictional leeway (and even lesser enforcement capacity) that non US courts and other state agencies have over ICANN.
We are simply wasting out time trying to minutely examine facts that are fairly well established and normally not contested.
As you agreed with me in a way, lets come to the crux of the matter, and see what is this group really trying to do, what progress we are making or not making, what is the prognosis of possible outcomes, and so on....
IMHO we are just making ourselves believe that we are doing something in this group, when in fact we are not doing anything at all.
Sub-group chairs,
Kavouss had put the matter to the CCWG chairs of the email I wrote about the non progress of this groups work. CCWG chair seem to have ordered the matter to be addressed by the sub group. Are you going to take up that matter?
Also note that Paul too agreed with me that we seem not to be going anywhere (or some such, I do not want to put words in his mouth, his email of a few days back may be read)
Thanks, parminder
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
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> 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.ngBringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
_______________________________________________Ws2-jurisdiction mailing listWs2-jurisdiction@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction