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

[jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Debbie and all,

  Arbitration's usually are won by the party that has the most 
money and not necessarly the best argument or set of facts, ect.
Ergo why the UDRP process was are remains an ill considered
method by which to resolve domain name disputes, which if a 
proper set of first come first serve registration policies
had been put into place in the first place, would have been
rare occurances.  However the UDRP was Ester Dysons baby, and
so the lack of accountability and transparency of ICANN began a
steep decline down a slippery slope, are registrants are still
sliding down that same now dated slope.

  Poor proceess renders poor policy, which is what we have here.

  As for the rest of your remarks towards JFC, utter nonsense IMO.
Name calling does not make for any reasonable or valid argument.

-----Original Message-----
>From: Debbie Garside <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Oct 7, 2007 4:45 PM
>To: jstyre@xxxxxxxxxx, 'JFC Morfin' <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 'Andy Gardner' 
><andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Cc: 'ga' <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: RE: [ga] Investigating a RUMF?  (was IDN issues (was: On  Elections))
>
>
>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
>
>
>
>
=======

'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