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

["Debbie Garside" <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

James wrote:

> (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.)

I am right, of course! :-)


> Both of you are in the right in noting that many individuals,
> and many small non profits, simply cannot afford UDRP.

Quite so.

>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.

The idea is, to my mind, quite silly.  An arbitration process preceding an
arbitration process.  It still has to be paid for one way or another.


> 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.

But ultimately, someone still pays.


>Granted, UDRP providers, unlike courts, are not public entities.  But could
not ICANN impose such a requirement on
>them?

No doubt they could.

> And if ICANN can, is it a good idea?

No, IMHO it would open the floodgates.  The only way to do this would be to
hike up the charges for those who are paying for the UDRP process; that's
not necessarily fair on the profit making companies who are currently have
to pay for the service.  I wouldn't rule it out totally but I think for an
idea like this to work you would need to test the market.  Could the current
users of the process stand the hike in fees?  How many "needy" applicants
would there be if this provision became available?  I don't think there is
an easy answer.  In my case, having seen the respondent in action, I know it
would be a lengthy case.  Time is money; in this case for both arbitrator
and plaintiff.  It is not just the UDRP fees.  The sensible thing to do is
to let it go and move on.  Which is exactly what I am now going to do.  But
it doesn't change the sad fact that there are many JFCs in the world who
seek to gain from others legitimate work and will wave their ill-gotten
gains under your nose just to spite you.

Best regards

Debbie