JURISDICTION SUBGROUP ICANN LITIGATION SUMMARY

 

Name of Case:

Pool.com vs ICANN

Parties: [1]

Pool.com (P)

ICANN (D)

Citizenship of Parties:

Plaintiff is an Ontario (Canada) corporation

Defendant is based in the USA

Court/Venue:

Superior Court of Justice, Ontario, Canada

Choice of Law/Governing Law:

“Plaintiff proposes that this action be tried in Ottawa”

Choice of Law seems to be Canadian civil Law

Date Case Began:

July 8, 2003

Date Case Ended:

Last document available May 2004

Causes of Action:

Challenge of ICANN’s decision regarding Verisign’s Wait List Service (interference with trade and commercial prospects of the Plaintiff)

Issues Presented:

Plaintiff considers that ICANN :

-           Has violated Consensus Policy

-           Has breached its Bylaws by failing to allow for an IRP

Preliminary Relief?:

No

Outcome:

Case dropped, the Court never reached a decision.

Was Jurisdiction Contested? [2]

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

Did the case have an impact on ICANN’s accountability or the operation of ICANN’s policies ? [3]

No.

1)       What relief was requested by the plaintiff from ICANN (or ICANN from defendant if ICANN was a plaintiff)?

 

Essentially an injunction restraining ICANN to authorize the WLS and damages

 

2)       What relief, if any, was granted to the plaintiff?

 

None

3)       Did the Court in its decision offer any conclusion as to the lack of merit/frivolity of the plaintiff’s claim?    

 

The Court never issued a decision

Key Documents:

 

 


[1] Indicate whether each party is Plaintiff (P) or Defendant (D), or other status.  Please also list non-party participants, such as  Amicus Curiae (AC).

[2] For example, challenge to venue, challenge to change of venue, challenge to governing law, challenge to application of “choice of law” provision.  Please describe the outcome as well as the challenge.

[3] Indicate whether the case had or will have an effect on ICANN’s accountability mechanisms or the operation of ICANN’s policies..