As discussed during the last call, here is an additional form, related to the Pool.com vs ICANN litigation. While the Court never reached a decision, this case is the only one in the list where the Court is outside the US, and ICANN submitted a motion to dismiss on the basis of lack of jurisdiction. Best Mathieu De : ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Mathieu Weill Envoyé : mercredi 1 mars 2017 09:04 À : McAuley, David; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Objet : Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Two litigation reviews Thanks David, excellent work as usual. Given the outstanding public attention given to this case, and the level of discomfort it created in many ICANN circles, including this group, I would find it appropriate to note the “non-legal” impact. To remain as fact-based as possible, we could mention something like : “As a result of the litigation (and the previous IRP), the .africa application (as one instance of implementation of ICANN’s policy) suffered significant delay.” Best Mathieu De : ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] De la part de McAuley, David Envoyé : mardi 28 février 2017 15:20 À : ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Objet : [Ws2-jurisdiction] Two litigation reviews Seeing Mathieu’s mail just now reminded me that I was to send my litigation reviews (2 so far) to list. Attached are two reviews in one document – DCA v. ICANN (Trial court) and DCA v. ICANN (Appellate Court). Best regards David David McAuley International Policy Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154