[ga] "Intervenor" fees. Has ICANN/WIPO followed Calif's. Insurance industry?

[Jeffrey Williams <jwkckid2@xxxxxxxxx>]

All,

  See:
http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0250-insurers/0300-insurers/0200-bulletins/prop-103-recoup/report-on-intervenor-program.cfm#2011
also consider:
According to a recent article in the *Los Angeles Daily Journal*, a legal
publication, Judge William F. Highberger
spent most of a recent hearing criticizing ConsumerWatchdog.org. He blocked
an attempt for ConsumerWatchdog.org
 to intervene in the case and accused the group of "engaging in 'an
opportunistic piece of objecting' designed either as
a 'public relations exercise' or as an attempt to get paid by delaying the
settlement.'"

The newspaper reports that the judge "called it 'another regrettable
example of opportunism'" and told ConsumerWatchdog.org,
 "If this was such a good case, why didn't you guys bring it seven or eight
years ago?". Another attorney lashed out the group
saying ConsumerWatchdog.org's "only objective was "only to derail what has
to be one of the greatest class action settlements
of all time, given the hurdles."

Seems that the UDRP was modeled after this now changing Calif. Insurance
practice.  How does this aid consumers/users?
What intrinsic benefits do users gain other than a great potential for
misinformation?  The emperor has no clothes.

Regards,
Jeffrey A. Williams
"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 4/18/12
CISO
Phone: 214-245-2647