[lac-discuss-en] Tucows Prevails, for now

[Carlton Samuels]

...the application was on the proverbial 'wing and prayer' anyhow.

If you read the ICANN pleading & Tucow's response, one doubts the outcome
on the first question should have been in doubt.

I think JJ's statement is purely a recitation of fact; the substantive
question[s] surrounding remains unanswered by the court, hence the clarity
anticipated remains elusive.

A couple of interesting tidbits though:

1) the reference to the RAA's Sec 5.8 - Dispute Resolution Clause which
outlines how RAA disputants must proceed in case of a dispute for
performance etc. While the RAA does allow for litigation "*in a court of
competent jurisdiction*" or by arbitration in a panel raised in LA County,
it further says such litigation is exclusively in California courts. It
appears the Bonn regional court disputes the primacy of a California court
as '*jurisdiction and exclusive venue*" to grant "*arbitral relie**f"*.

2) It appears to rubbish the ICANN Procedures for Handling Conflicts with
Privacy Laws by asserting the primacy of local law and the applicability of
RAA Sec 3.7.2.

All in all, *not*, IMHO, a hopeful sign for the ICANN position anywhere.

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-icann-v-epag-request-court-order-prelim-injunction-redacted-30may18-en.pdf


-Carlton


==============================
*Carlton A Samuels*

*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-en/attachments/20180531/e782cce5/attachment.html>