Pool.com case summary
Dear Colleagues, Here is another summary form for the Pool.com vs ICANN case. Its 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 <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
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 <+33%201%2039%2030%2083%2006> 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-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
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 <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> 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!
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
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 <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
Statement #2 below is incorrect. I havent 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 <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> 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 ICANNs 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 <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> <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. Its 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 <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
On Tuesday 04 April 2017 08:32 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
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.
For my statement # 2 to be incorrect, ICANN should have challenged application of US court jurisdiction in the Arizona case -- In fact there is no Arizona v. ICANN case that I can find. I can only find an Arizona v. NTIA case..... I cant see ICANN to be a party to it, neither has it filed a response. Will you please show me where ICANN challenges US court jurisdiction in this case? Thanks. parminder
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 *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 <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> [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> <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> <mailto: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 <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>
Although I do see that in some other cases ICANN did contest the jurisdiction over certain of its acts of different states in the US, claiming that California jurisdiction should apply. But the main point of discussion here is about larger application of US jurisdiction over ICANN vis a vis that of other countries. parminder On Wednesday 05 April 2017 12:56 PM, parminder wrote:
On Tuesday 04 April 2017 08:32 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
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.
For my statement # 2 to be incorrect, ICANN should have challenged application of US court jurisdiction in the Arizona case -- In fact there is no Arizona v. ICANN case that I can find. I can only find an Arizona v. NTIA case..... I cant see ICANN to be a party to it, neither has it filed a response. Will you please show me where ICANN challenges US court jurisdiction in this case? Thanks.
parminder
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 *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 <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> [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> <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> <mailto: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 <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
And as we have said before, ICANN cannot escape US jurisdiction by moving its headquarters. US law will assert jurisdiction so long as ICANN has substantial contacts with the US. The same is true of UK, Germany, Canada, Australia and I believe India Once again, this is wrong. Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> 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: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 5:58 AM To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Pool.com case summary Although I do see that in some other cases ICANN did contest the jurisdiction over certain of its acts of different states in the US, claiming that California jurisdiction should apply. But the main point of discussion here is about larger application of US jurisdiction over ICANN vis a vis that of other countries. parminder On Wednesday 05 April 2017 12:56 PM, parminder wrote: On Tuesday 04 April 2017 08:32 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote: Statement #2 below is incorrect. I havent 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. For my statement # 2 to be incorrect, ICANN should have challenged application of US court jurisdiction in the Arizona case -- In fact there is no Arizona v. ICANN case that I can find. I can only find an Arizona v. NTIA case..... I cant see ICANN to be a party to it, neither has it filed a response. Will you please show me where ICANN challenges US court jurisdiction in this case? Thanks. parminder Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 ICANNs 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 <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> <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. Its 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 <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
On Wednesday 05 April 2017 10:19 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
And as we have said before, ICANN cannot escape US jurisdiction by moving its headquarters. US law will assert jurisdiction so long as ICANN has “substantial contacts” with the US. The same is true of UK, Germany, Canada, Australia and I believe India …
We have been over this many times, but I simply cannot let pass this absurd proposition that India, for instance, has a comparable jurisdictional leverage over ICANN to US. I do not know why, even as a lawyer, you keep on making it. And if indeed it was so, why not then lets have ICANN be moved to India or Switzerland.. US can still keep exercising its jurisdiction over ICANN, as you argue it will be able to, and all others can be happy too! Meanwhile, it is not just the matter of a court exercising jurisdiction, but even more importantly of having leverage to enforce its writ.... As to the "substantial contacts" argument, if you go through the various court cases involving ICANN, you will see that wherever possible ICANN has denied "substantial contacts" is all places other than California, US, arguing that its role in the DNS stops with making a contract with a registry, which contract is deemed to have been made in California and is subject to its laws. Rest, downstream in the DNS, is none of ICANN's business... parminder
Once again, this is wrong.
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 *parminder *Sent:* Wednesday, April 5, 2017 5:58 AM *To:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Pool.com case summary
Although I do see that in some other cases ICANN did contest the jurisdiction over certain of its acts of different states in the US, claiming that California jurisdiction should apply. But the main point of discussion here is about larger application of US jurisdiction over ICANN vis a vis that of other countries.
parminder
On Wednesday 05 April 2017 12:56 PM, parminder wrote:
On Tuesday 04 April 2017 08:32 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
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.
For my statement # 2 to be incorrect, ICANN should have challenged application of US court jurisdiction in the Arizona case -- In fact there is no Arizona v. ICANN case that I can find. I can only find an Arizona v. NTIA case..... I cant see ICANN to be a party to it, neither has it filed a response. Will you please show me where ICANN challenges US court jurisdiction in this case? Thanks.
parminder
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> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder *Sent:* Tuesday, April 4, 2017 6:14 AM *To:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto: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 <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> [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> <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> <mailto: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 <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>
Sorry Paraminder but just saying it is absurd doesnt change the facts. The only way in which US jurisdiction has a superior claim is with respect to the law of jurisdictional organization. In other words, California corporate law governs ICANNs bylaws formulation and Board and corporate operations preferentially. But any place that ICANN does business is a potential place to sue on contract, or tort basis. As for why not move to India I have tried very hard not to reduce this to a comparison of the value and functioning of judicial systems. I dont propose to start now. Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: parminder [mailto:parminder@itforchange.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 11:51 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Pool.com case summary On Wednesday 05 April 2017 10:19 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote: And as we have said before, ICANN cannot escape US jurisdiction by moving its headquarters. US law will assert jurisdiction so long as ICANN has substantial contacts with the US. The same is true of UK, Germany, Canada, Australia and I believe India We have been over this many times, but I simply cannot let pass this absurd proposition that India, for instance, has a comparable jurisdictional leverage over ICANN to US. I do not know why, even as a lawyer, you keep on making it. And if indeed it was so, why not then lets have ICANN be moved to India or Switzerland.. US can still keep exercising its jurisdiction over ICANN, as you argue it will be able to, and all others can be happy too! Meanwhile, it is not just the matter of a court exercising jurisdiction, but even more importantly of having leverage to enforce its writ.... As to the "substantial contacts" argument, if you go through the various court cases involving ICANN, you will see that wherever possible ICANN has denied "substantial contacts" is all places other than California, US, arguing that its role in the DNS stops with making a contract with a registry, which contract is deemed to have been made in California and is subject to its laws. Rest, downstream in the DNS, is none of ICANN's business... parminder Once again, this is wrong. Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 5:58 AM To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Pool.com case summary Although I do see that in some other cases ICANN did contest the jurisdiction over certain of its acts of different states in the US, claiming that California jurisdiction should apply. But the main point of discussion here is about larger application of US jurisdiction over ICANN vis a vis that of other countries. parminder On Wednesday 05 April 2017 12:56 PM, parminder wrote: On Tuesday 04 April 2017 08:32 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote: Statement #2 below is incorrect. I havent 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. For my statement # 2 to be incorrect, ICANN should have challenged application of US court jurisdiction in the Arizona case -- In fact there is no Arizona v. ICANN case that I can find. I can only find an Arizona v. NTIA case..... I cant see ICANN to be a party to it, neither has it filed a response. Will you please show me where ICANN challenges US court jurisdiction in this case? Thanks. parminder Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 ICANNs 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 <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> <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. Its 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 <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
On Thursday 06 April 2017 10:20 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
Sorry Paraminder – but just saying it is absurd doesn’t change the facts. The only way in which US jurisdiction has a superior claim is with respect to the law of jurisdictional organization. In other words, California corporate law governs ICANN’s bylaws formulation and Board and corporate operations preferentially.
Paul, What do you make of the following passage from the gTLD handbook of ICANN? ICANN must comply with all U.S. laws, rules, and regulations. One such set of regulations is the economic and trade sanctions program administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. These sanctions have been imposed on certain countries, as well as individuals and entities that appear on OFAC's List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (the SDN List). ICANN is prohibited from providing most goods or services to residents of sanctioned countries or their governmental entities or to SDNs without an applicable U.S. government authorization or exemption. ICANN generally will not seek a license to provide goods or services to an individual or entity on the SDN List. In the past, when ICANN has been requested to provide services to individuals or entities that are not SDNs, but are residents of sanctioned countries, ICANN has sought and been granted licenses as required. In any given case, however, OFAC could decide not to issue a requested license. ENDS Which other jurisdiction other than the US has these privileges? I really hope this spread of disinformation can be terminated here. This is dangerously tending towards post truth and "alternative facts".
But any place that ICANN does business is a potential place to sue on contract, or tort basis.
Yes, you can sue ICANN, but to what effect is what matters. I have referred you to how in almost all cases ICANN refuses "substantial contacts" outside California, US. You should take a look at the difficulties Indian courts have had to mind Google, Facebook, Whatsapp, etc, even when, unlike ICANN, these corporations cannot wash off their hands from "substantial contacts" in India, for it is from these contacts that they make their money - the advertisement revenue. Unlike them, ICANN would simply say, the courts can do what they may, if they want to disrupt registrar's business, it is upto them, but ICANN isnt going to change its policies for them. This cannot be said to US courts, because US courts can even close down ICANN ....
As for why not move to India – I have tried very hard not to reduce this to a comparison of the value and functioning of judicial systems. I don’t propose to start now.
But if superiority of US jurisdiction forms a good part of your logic to retain current jurisdictional status, you must mention it in this discussion on ICANN's jurisdiction. BTW, as I have often said, I do not ever propose that ICANN be incorporated in another country because that will is disrespectful to the US... Unlike you, I really respect all country jurisdictions and polities, in an international discussion. An insistence of keeping ICANN under US jurisdiction, and not even accepting possibility of customised immunity from US jurisdiction is indeed disrespectful to all other countries, and to the value of democracy itself.. And of course - I must respectfully make this political point -- I am indeed quite disappointed by the GAC members who are supposed to protect their country's and its citizens' sovereignty and right to be self-determination, but who, in the present context, seem to have little inclination to make that case... They must have their constraints, only that I am unable to see or understand them. parminder
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:*parminder [mailto:parminder@itforchange.net] *Sent:* Wednesday, April 5, 2017 11:51 PM *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Pool.com case summary
On Wednesday 05 April 2017 10:19 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
And as we have said before, ICANN cannot escape US jurisdiction by moving its headquarters. US law will assert jurisdiction so long as ICANN has “substantial contacts” with the US. The same is true of UK, Germany, Canada, Australia and I believe India …
We have been over this many times, but I simply cannot let pass this absurd proposition that India, for instance, has a comparable jurisdictional leverage over ICANN to US. I do not know why, even as a lawyer, you keep on making it.
And if indeed it was so, why not then lets have ICANN be moved to India or Switzerland.. US can still keep exercising its jurisdiction over ICANN, as you argue it will be able to, and all others can be happy too!
Meanwhile, it is not just the matter of a court exercising jurisdiction, but even more importantly of having leverage to enforce its writ....
As to the "substantial contacts" argument, if you go through the various court cases involving ICANN, you will see that wherever possible ICANN has denied "substantial contacts" is all places other than California, US, arguing that its role in the DNS stops with making a contract with a registry, which contract is deemed to have been made in California and is subject to its laws. Rest, downstream in the DNS, is none of ICANN's business...
parminder
Once again, this is wrong.
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> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder *Sent:* Wednesday, April 5, 2017 5:58 AM *To:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Pool.com case summary
Although I do see that in some other cases ICANN did contest the jurisdiction over certain of its acts of different states in the US, claiming that California jurisdiction should apply. But the main point of discussion here is about larger application of US jurisdiction over ICANN vis a vis that of other countries.
parminder
On Wednesday 05 April 2017 12:56 PM, parminder wrote:
On Tuesday 04 April 2017 08:32 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
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.
For my statement # 2 to be incorrect, ICANN should have challenged application of US court jurisdiction in the Arizona case -- In fact there is no Arizona v. ICANN case that I can find. I can only find an Arizona v. NTIA case..... I cant see ICANN to be a party to it, neither has it filed a response. Will you please show me where ICANN challenges US court jurisdiction in this case? Thanks.
parminder
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> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder *Sent:* Tuesday, April 4, 2017 6:14 AM *To:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto: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 <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> [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> <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> <mailto: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 <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>
Similar provisions would apply in European countries, including checks on terrorist and criminal financing, and moneylaundering. ICANN has to follow the law of wherever it is located. I find this preferable to ICANN being immune to the consequences of its own misfeasance and/or negligence On 07/04/17 16:07, parminder wrote:
What do you make of the following passage from
+1 The same thing would apply no matter where ICANN is incorporated. Indeed, this is not a statement of exclusion -- ICANN has the same obligations wherever it does business. P Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 -----Original Message----- From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: Friday, April 7, 2017 12:25 PM To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Pool.com case summary Similar provisions would apply in European countries, including checks on terrorist and criminal financing, and moneylaundering. ICANN has to follow the law of wherever it is located. I find this preferable to ICANN being immune to the consequences of its own misfeasance and/or negligence On 07/04/17 16:07, parminder wrote:
What do you make of the following passage from
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
On Friday 07 April 2017 09:54 PM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
Similar provisions would apply in European countries, including checks on terrorist and criminal financing, and moneylaundering.
Nigel, Is it your understanding -- and of those others who support you here -- that international organisations with jurisdictional immunity, like a WIPO or IMF, are unduly exposed and susceptible to terrorist and criminal funding, and other possible criminalities? And that they better did something about it asap? Most of the world does not think so -- even as these organisations only operate under their laws of incorporation, and have jurisdictional immunities. Most people think that their governance is robust, and there are strong ways rooted in their internal governance to check any such possibilities. And of course such governance structures can lift immunity from any person or act and expose him/ it to normal criminal jurisdictions.... This has worked very well, and there is no danger, most people feel, for this scheme to collapse or become ineffective. Since you often bring up this point, and how ICANN would very likely go rotten if jurisdictional immunities are given, I can only interpret it in one way. That you do not trust ICANN's internal governance mechanisms, as much as people trust those of say WIPO or IMF, or even of a humble International Fertilizer and Development Centre (IFDC), which does "business" worth millions in many countries even as it has jurisdictional immunity. It is instructive to hear from a long-standing ICANNer, and currently an ICANN official, and also support for him from others, that ICANN's governance system cannot be trusted enough. (If you think I am unduly putting words in your mouth, pl make that case.) It is less trustworthy than an WIPO's, IMFs, or IFDC's governance system !! My question to you then is, if ICANN's governance system is not good enough to save itself from terrorist and criminal financing, how is it good enough to represent global public's interest in making policies for one of the most significant infrastructure of current times, and that too without any supervision? I will be obliged for a direct answer. So all this game about extensive multi stakeholder and community processes, that is touted to be so good that it can independently assess and work as per global public interest, is all humbug, a paper tiger !? By the same logic as you present now, NTIA's continued oversight would also have been a good thing.... It is certainly many times easier to inure an organisation against the kind of criminal acts that you mention than it is to ensure that it really upholds public interest, and not succumb to special and insider interests. This latter is one of the most difficult thing to attain, and sustain. If you are not confident that ICANN's governance structure can protect it against terrorist/ criminal funding (for instance, by first preventing such acts, and if they come to notice to expose them to normal criminal jurisdictional processes), what makes you confident that ICANN can independently, without supervision, uphold global public interest in a vital area? I know I am repeating the question, but it is very important. You do not seem to think that the community accountability structure that has been put in place is a good enough check against power abuse and impropriety? Of course we have not forgotten how the ICANN, its insiders, rejected stronger accountability measures -- like the membership model, and kept pushing to make the current model also as weak as possible, and make it difficult to act against the ICANN power centres... It is funny to the extreme... You think ICANN's internal governance model is weak (not even as good as of the existing many international organisations) and therefore it cannot be given jurisdictional immunity. And when we were trying to make stronger governance mechanisms, with better "outside" checks, ICANN insiders did not let us do it. AND, at the same time ICANN wants to go to the town singing praises of its unique new age governance model, and even recommend and spend huge money (a la the WEF's Net Mundial Initiative and many other attempts) to employ this "ICANN model" in all sectors of global, and possibly later, in national, level governance. And now you are saying, an ICANN without federal agents breathing down its neck, cannot even ensure that it does not get into terrorist/ criminal funding??!! I think there is a limit to which a set of ICANN insiders can make a fool of the rest of the world -- however well its machinery is organised for this purpose (relying a lot of illegal tapping of public money from uncontrolled taxing of DNS). The facade cracks, and in funny ways, whenever real questions of power come up.... It collapsed when ICANN board actually told ICANN's so called community that it is just not representative enough of the global community, which is pretty funny given that ICANN board takes its legitimacy in the first place from the same very "community". And I see it collapse now, when ICANN is asked for the simple thing of seeking jurisdictional immunity, and we hear them say, well, the fact is, we are simply not mature enough to survive without it!!! The fact is, when push comes to shove, it is always the deep power interests speaking, behind all the outside ICANN wonderland. The charade will certainly come to an end someday. Meanwhile, we need to keep pointing to the Emperor's clothes, however lonesome that public interest enterprise may sometimes get.. Nigel, thanks for showing how naked ICANN's governance model stands, although I can understand that wasnt your objective. parminder
ICANN has to follow the law of wherever it is located. I find this preferable to ICANN being immune to the consequences of its own misfeasance and/or negligence
On 07/04/17 16:07, parminder wrote:
What do you make of the following passage from
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
This again? Steve Crocker made it very clear in Copenhagen that the Board has no idea why we are still talking about this. Best, Paul From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 11:50 AM To: 'parminder' <parminder@itforchange.net>; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Pool.com case summary Sorry Paraminder but just saying it is absurd doesnt change the facts. The only way in which US jurisdiction has a superior claim is with respect to the law of jurisdictional organization. In other words, California corporate law governs ICANNs bylaws formulation and Board and corporate operations preferentially. But any place that ICANN does business is a potential place to sue on contract, or tort basis. As for why not move to India I have tried very hard not to reduce this to a comparison of the value and functioning of judicial systems. I dont propose to start now. Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: parminder [mailto:parminder@itforchange.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 11:51 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> >; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Pool.com case summary On Wednesday 05 April 2017 10:19 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote: And as we have said before, ICANN cannot escape US jurisdiction by moving its headquarters. US law will assert jurisdiction so long as ICANN has substantial contacts with the US. The same is true of UK, Germany, Canada, Australia and I believe India We have been over this many times, but I simply cannot let pass this absurd proposition that India, for instance, has a comparable jurisdictional leverage over ICANN to US. I do not know why, even as a lawyer, you keep on making it. And if indeed it was so, why not then lets have ICANN be moved to India or Switzerland.. US can still keep exercising its jurisdiction over ICANN, as you argue it will be able to, and all others can be happy too! Meanwhile, it is not just the matter of a court exercising jurisdiction, but even more importantly of having leverage to enforce its writ.... As to the "substantial contacts" argument, if you go through the various court cases involving ICANN, you will see that wherever possible ICANN has denied "substantial contacts" is all places other than California, US, arguing that its role in the DNS stops with making a contract with a registry, which contract is deemed to have been made in California and is subject to its laws. Rest, downstream in the DNS, is none of ICANN's business... parminder Once again, this is wrong. Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 5:58 AM To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Pool.com case summary Although I do see that in some other cases ICANN did contest the jurisdiction over certain of its acts of different states in the US, claiming that California jurisdiction should apply. But the main point of discussion here is about larger application of US jurisdiction over ICANN vis a vis that of other countries. parminder On Wednesday 05 April 2017 12:56 PM, parminder wrote: On Tuesday 04 April 2017 08:32 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote: Statement #2 below is incorrect. I havent 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. For my statement # 2 to be incorrect, ICANN should have challenged application of US court jurisdiction in the Arizona case -- In fact there is no Arizona v. ICANN case that I can find. I can only find an Arizona v. NTIA case..... I cant see ICANN to be a party to it, neither has it filed a response. Will you please show me where ICANN challenges US court jurisdiction in this case? Thanks. parminder Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 ICANNs 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 <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> <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. Its 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 <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
On Saturday 08 April 2017 09:08 PM, Paul McGrady wrote:
This again? Steve Crocker made it very clear in Copenhagen that the Board has no idea why we are still talking about this.
Paul, please elaborate on your cryptic message.. What is "this" that the ICANN chair had no idea that we continue to discuss? And what was it that he "made clear"? What implications has that for our work? You should excuse us those who were not at Copenhagen to be wondering about all this... Thanks, parminder
Best,
Paul
*From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Paul Rosenzweig *Sent:* Thursday, April 06, 2017 11:50 AM *To:* 'parminder' <parminder@itforchange.net>; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Pool.com case summary
Sorry Paraminder – but just saying it is absurd doesn’t change the facts. The only way in which US jurisdiction has a superior claim is with respect to the law of jurisdictional organization. In other words, California corporate law governs ICANN’s bylaws formulation and Board and corporate operations preferentially. But any place that ICANN does business is a potential place to sue on contract, or tort basis.
As for why not move to India – I have tried very hard not to reduce this to a comparison of the value and functioning of judicial systems. I don’t propose to start now.
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:*parminder [mailto:parminder@itforchange.net] *Sent:* Wednesday, April 5, 2017 11:51 PM *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Pool.com case summary
On Wednesday 05 April 2017 10:19 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
And as we have said before, ICANN cannot escape US jurisdiction by moving its headquarters. US law will assert jurisdiction so long as ICANN has “substantial contacts” with the US. The same is true of UK, Germany, Canada, Australia and I believe India …
We have been over this many times, but I simply cannot let pass this absurd proposition that India, for instance, has a comparable jurisdictional leverage over ICANN to US. I do not know why, even as a lawyer, you keep on making it.
And if indeed it was so, why not then lets have ICANN be moved to India or Switzerland.. US can still keep exercising its jurisdiction over ICANN, as you argue it will be able to, and all others can be happy too!
Meanwhile, it is not just the matter of a court exercising jurisdiction, but even more importantly of having leverage to enforce its writ....
As to the "substantial contacts" argument, if you go through the various court cases involving ICANN, you will see that wherever possible ICANN has denied "substantial contacts" is all places other than California, US, arguing that its role in the DNS stops with making a contract with a registry, which contract is deemed to have been made in California and is subject to its laws. Rest, downstream in the DNS, is none of ICANN's business...
parminder
Once again, this is wrong.
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> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder *Sent:* Wednesday, April 5, 2017 5:58 AM *To:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Pool.com case summary
Although I do see that in some other cases ICANN did contest the jurisdiction over certain of its acts of different states in the US, claiming that California jurisdiction should apply. But the main point of discussion here is about larger application of US jurisdiction over ICANN vis a vis that of other countries.
parminder
On Wednesday 05 April 2017 12:56 PM, parminder wrote:
On Tuesday 04 April 2017 08:32 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
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.
For my statement # 2 to be incorrect, ICANN should have challenged application of US court jurisdiction in the Arizona case -- In fact there is no Arizona v. ICANN case that I can find. I can only find an Arizona v. NTIA case..... I cant see ICANN to be a party to it, neither has it filed a response. Will you please show me where ICANN challenges US court jurisdiction in this case? Thanks.
parminder
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> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder *Sent:* Tuesday, April 4, 2017 6:14 AM *To:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto: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 <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> [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> <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> <mailto: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 <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>
You are right Paraminder I read too quickly it was the NTIA that contested jursidction, though if memory serves ICANN sought to intervene as well but for this, I withdraw the argument P Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: parminder [mailto:parminder@itforchange.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 3:27 AM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Pool.com case summary On Tuesday 04 April 2017 08:32 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote: Statement #2 below is incorrect. I havent 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. For my statement # 2 to be incorrect, ICANN should have challenged application of US court jurisdiction in the Arizona case -- In fact there is no Arizona v. ICANN case that I can find. I can only find an Arizona v. NTIA case..... I cant see ICANN to be a party to it, neither has it filed a response. Will you please show me where ICANN challenges US court jurisdiction in this case? Thanks. parminder Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 ICANNs 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 <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> <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. Its 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 <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Seun, I think some of these questions have been asked to ICANN Legal. It is possible that these arguments may have been quite valid in the circumstances of this specific case, but it would not necessarily indicate that they would apply to any other case. We should not rush to conclusions as to their applicability overall. Best Mathieu De : Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Envoyé : lundi 3 avril 2017 15:41 À : Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Cc : ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Objet : 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!
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
Re Quebec = correct. B. 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
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. B. On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto: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 <tel:%2B33%201%2039%2030%2083%2006> mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> <mailto: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 _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Thank you, Mathieu. We can review this on tomorrow's call at 03:00. Greg *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:29 AM, 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 <+33%201%2039%2030%2083%2006> mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Is that time a typo as I thought it was 5:00UTC, in anycase @Staff kindly note my apology for the call. I will still be bowing to nature at 3:00UTC ;) Cheers! On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you, Mathieu. We can review this on tomorrow's call at 03:00.
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:29 AM, 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 <+33%201%2039%2030%2083%2006> 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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
The time is 05:00 UTC. My apologies. Greg On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 11:07 AM Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Is that time a typo as I thought it was 5:00UTC, in anycase @Staff kindly note my apology for the call. I will still be bowing to nature at 3:00UTC ;)
Cheers!
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you, Mathieu. We can review this on tomorrow's call at 03:00.
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:29 AM, 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 <+33%201%2039%2030%2083%2006> 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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>*
Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
--
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com
Hi all, Apologies, I am also unable to make the call. If any questions arise related to Canada’s frameworks, happy to try to take them online. Best, Andreea From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: April-03-17 12:10 PM To: Seun Ojedeji Cc: ws2-jurisdiction Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Pool.com case summary The time is 05:00 UTC. My apologies. Greg On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 11:07 AM Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: Is that time a typo as I thought it was 5:00UTC, in anycase @Staff kindly note my apology for the call. I will still be bowing to nature at 3:00UTC ;) Cheers! On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Thank you, Mathieu. We can review this on tomorrow's call at 03:00. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:29 AM, 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 _______________________________________________ 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! -- Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
Whether 0300 UTC or 0500 UTC it is waaaaaaaaay too early/late for me! My apologies P Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> 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 Greg Shatan Sent: Monday, April 3, 2017 10:49 AM To: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Pool.com case summary Thank you, Mathieu. We can review this on tomorrow's call at 03:00. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> gregshatanipc@gmail.com On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:29 AM, 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
participants (9)
-
Bernard Turcotte -
Brambilla, Andreea (IC) -
Greg Shatan -
Mathieu Weill -
Nigel Roberts -
parminder -
Paul McGrady -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Seun Ojedeji