Re: [ga] Investigating a RUMF? (UDRP filing fees)

["Prophet Partners Inc." <Domains@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi jfc,

These are just the current filing fees paid by the complainant when filing a 
domain dispute under the UDRP and do not cover additional costs such as 
attorney fees, photocopies, postage, etc. A complainant can minimize the 
cost of filing an UDRP by representing themselves "pro se" without a lawyer.
The complainant's fee to file an UDRP through NAF starts at US $1,300.
http://domains.adrforum.com/main.aspx?itemID=631&hideBar=False&navID=237&news=26
The complainant's fee to file an UDRP through WIPO starts at US $1,500.
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/fees/index.html
The complainant's fee to file an UDRP through AAA starts at US $2,000.
http://www.adr.org/sp.asp?id=22015

The UDRP filing fees in my opinion are more than reasonable and not out of 
reach for those who are serious about protecting their intellectual 
property. The fees are essential in limiting the number of frivolous 
complaints. Even with the existing fees, there have been numerous instances 
of legitimate owners of generic or descriptive domains being unjustly 
harassed via frivolous UDRP complaints. We should all keep in mind that 
domain owners as respondents have to spend time and money to protect their 
legitimate interests whenever an UDRP is filed. Respondents cannot recover 
the lost time or expenses even when they win the dispute. The only thing 
they "win" is the right to continue to use their domain until the next 
opportunity seeker comes along to file a complaint. Not responding to a 
complaint usually leads to a default judgment in favor of the complainant. 
Domain owners are already in a lose-lose situation. Reducing or eliminating 
UDRP filing fees would greatly magnify the problem, as people who want 
something of value for nothing, would come out of the woodworks. Imagine the 
chaos that would ensue if a free $1 million lottery was announced. 
Registrants of generic and descriptive domain names should not be unduly 
burdened, by a deluge of frivolous complaints, that would be initiated after 
reducing or eliminating the UDRP filing fees.
I am not a lawyer and these are only my personal opinions. If you require 
legal advice, you should seek qualified legal counsel.
Sincerely,
Ted
Prophet Partners Inc.
http://www.ProphetPartners.com
http://www.Premium-Domain-Names.com


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "JFC Morfin" <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Andy Gardner" <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "ga" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 6:10 PM
Subject: [ga] Investigating a RUMF? (was IDN issues (was: On Elections))


> 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.
> jfc