Re: [ga] Investigating a RUMF? (was IDN issues (was: On Elections))

["James S. Tyre" <jstyre@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 12:10 AM 10/7/2007 +0200, JFC Morfin wrote:

> On 20:23 06/10/2007, Andy Gardner said:
> > On Oct 6, 2007, at 7:54 AM, Debbie Garside wrote:
> > > What a shame JFC that you continue to cybersquat wldc.org
> > That's what the UDRP process is for, apparently. Use it, if you want
> > to start throwing around the "cybersquatting" word.
> This is a very sensible advice. Thank you.for reminding us.
>
> Now, if I am correct an UDRP costs around $ 4500? This is an amount 
> most of us could not pay should we legitimately need it. Could we 
> investigate a Registrant UDRP Mutual Fund (RUMF)?
> When someone thinks he is entitled to UDRP someone else and has not 
> the money for it, she could document her claim and send it to the 
> Fund's experts. The Fund would decide if the case can win and would 
> pay for the UDRP. This would increase the credibility of the DNS. 
> This could be something for a new IDNO like proposition, if 
> Roberto's proposition goes through?
> This fund could be filled with meny coming UDRP fees. It is likely 
> that accepted files could be negociated without UDRP reducing the 
> total UDRP cost.
(I express no opinion, and do not know nearly enough to have an 
opinion, on who is in the right between you and Debbie viz wldc.org.)
Both of you are in the right in noting that many individuals, and 
many small non profits, simply cannot afford UDRP.  But why condition 
the right to URDP on someone's pre-judgment of whether the 
Complainant is or may be in the right?  If Jefsey's fund, or some 
other hypothetical body, makes the determination solely on what the 
complainant submits, then the entity is making a decision with one 
arm tied behind its back.  If the other side gets a chance to 
respond, then that increases time and cost.
At least here in the U.S., courts have mechanisms for allowing 
Plaintiffs to proceed in forma pauperis (for free) that, generally, 
do not involve a predetermination (even preliminarily) of the 
outcome.  Rather, the dominant consideration, unless the matter is 
completely frivolous, is Plaintiff's financial resources.
Granted, UDRP providers, unlike courts, are not public entities.  But 
could not ICANN impose such a requirement on them?  And if ICANN can, 
is it a good idea?  (I just thought of it myself, based on the 
exchange between Jefsey and Debbie.  The idea of prejudging the 
merits as a condition of financial relief gives me pause, but is 
entirely possible that there are problems with my idea that I've not 
yet thought through.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
James S. Tyre                                      jstyre@xxxxxxxxxx
Law Offices of James S. Tyre          310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax)
10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512               Culver City, CA 90230-4969
Co-founder, The Censorware Project             http://censorware.net
Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation     http://www.eff.org