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

[jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

JFC and all,

  Name calling as Debbie perpatrated opon you only weakens
her argument.  IMO, such a canard used as an excuse for
a argument renders further argument from that person on any
particular relevant issue consistant with illogic and appears
to have based their argument on personal feeling rather than
any actual facts.   Ergo such an argument is rendered invalid
and future arguments from that person on this issue from where
I sit are unfortunately worthless. 

-----Original Message-----
>From: JFC Morfin <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Oct 7, 2007 4:34 PM
>To: "James S. Tyre" <jstyre@xxxxxxxxxx>, Andy Gardner <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Cc: ga <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [ga] Investigating a RUMF?  (was IDN issues (was: On  Elections))
>
>
>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
>
>

=======

'Regards,
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very
often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability
depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of
Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx