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

[JFC Morfin <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 02:59 07/10/2007, James S. Tyre wrote:
> At 12:10 AM 10/7/2007 +0200, JFC Morfin wrote:
> > 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.)
Correct. Let focus on the e-society problem.

An UDRP is paid by the plaintiff if the defendant accepts only one 
arbitrators (in which there is a loss of protection for him).
This avoids frivolous actions - except when it is plain that the 
plaintiff cannot pay. In such a case the defendant has no protection 
against defamation. Debbie says I am a cybersquatter because she 
knows everyone accepts that she has not the money to prove it. This 
way she tries - and this is the mechanic consequence of the system 
she correctly uses - to utilize common reprobation to force me to 
make the proof I am not. In this specific case I have certainly no 
problem with that and I documented it to her Chair and Members I take 
for honest people. As a result I was emotionally called a liar by one 
of her BoD emotional Member, what hurt her organization's image due 
to the persons in copy (my fault: I should have foreseen such an 
absurd type of comment from such a character).
This shows that not only an UDRP is money justice, but that it can 
easily be used to stalk private or small people. I think all this is 
a typical DNS user issue. I find no user open place to discuss and 
propose about it, if Roberto gets its proposition accepted.
> 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.
I am sorry Rita Robin does not provide any mail address in her long 
ICANN BoD bio. She should be the right person to address both these 
types of concerns about UDRP and a PDP to address it.
My applied research/normative advocacy business makes me oppose 
technical status quo. This makes me to oppose the architectural 
interests of major stakeholders, while I have no government or 
corporate backing and financing (this is the price to pay to stay 
independent). I am therefore used to suffer "mail-combat" attacks, I 
qualify as "semantic spam", that everyone can be confronted to at any time.
Being called a "cybersquatter" is one the tricks from ... 
cybersquatters (always be the first to attack where you are weak is a 
war and court rule as old as the world). It is a difficult accusation 
to tackle without an UDRP, because it means there is some common 
history/interests between the parties.
This is why consider that the problem is that the "rent a DN" ICANN 
scheme does not comes with built-in UDRP insurance services. A few 
years ago, when at the IDNO, I discussed and proposed a "rent a DN 
UDRP insurance included" scheme. This was the same as a any legal 
insurance: when you believe you have a case you have to convince your 
insurance company to cover the expense. I suppose that should Debbie 
come and see you to assist her in UDRPing me, you would want to know 
her grief and accept there is a case.
jfc