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

[Matthew Pemble <matthew@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 8 May 2012 14:08, Jeffrey Williams <jwkckid2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Seems that the UDRP was modeled after this now changing Calif. Insurance
>>> practice.
>>>
>>
>> This is one of your usual, un-evidenced, controversial assertions. It's
>> the internet. Give us a link or two?
>>
>
>   No assertion made at all, it was a question posed.  The referenced link
> below is A LINK.  Part, a very tiny part
> of the internet, yes.
>

Nope - that quote wasn't a question. It was an assertion. We know that
Americans suffer from having to learn English as a foreign language but
that is ridiculous.

The link you gave is to a list of a bunch of payouts from the state or an
insurer. It says nothing about UDRP. In fact, it says nothing substantive
about Californian Insurance practices. Which, I suspect, are of little
interest to the majority here.


> A system where: "These consumer representatives (intervenors) are entitled
>> to compensation for their reasonable advocacy fees and expenses they incur
>> in proceedings conducted by the Department. " is similar to UDRP?
>>
>>
>   Yes the correlations are obvious, many and varied.  I guess you missed
> them? Thankfully many others haven't missed
> same.
>

Completely. Because they are not there. UDRP is between the domain owner
and somebody or organisation claiming IPR in the domain. Yet, even if there
are similarities in the process - not just correlations - and there are
neither, that doesn't mean that UDRP was based on this Californian system.


> I fail to see anything in the current UDRP Rules that allows for similar
>> funded "consumer advocate" representation. In fact, I can't see anything in
>> the UDRP rules (5, 10b, 12) that explicitly allows any third party
>> involvement at all (the Complainant, by this time, definitely not being a
>> 'third party'.)
>>
>
> 'consumer advocate' is a euthenism  or course.
>

"Euthenism" is a neologism of  which I am thankfully ignorant.

 Surely one of your obvious intelligence recognizes that?  There are now
> many such
> groups that purport to provide UDRP advocacy services for perspective
> clients.
>

Do you mean brand management? "Consumers" is normally used to represent a
class of people not that much interested in the arcanisms of domain
resolution processes. Because they are not involved.


>  Do you need links?  If so, I have a hundred or two.
> If not, than the spin in your remarks/response become all too obvious.
>

No, I'm calling you on talking, frankly, bollocks. You've linked something
many of us are interested in, the UDRP, to something outside most of our
kenn or care. Without providing any evidence.


> The UDRP significantly
> lacks any reasonable form or concept of basic consumer protections
> regardless of the "class" of consumer.  Consumer
> fraud directly related to the "Internet" in my country has grown
> exponentially and estimated services over the "Internet' have
> slowed fairly significantly.  This does not serve well any growing economy
> from a service sector point of view or overall.
>

The UDRP has nothing to do with consumers. If you wish to insist that ICANN
develops a programme where it can aggressively remove domains from
suspected (or merely) accused fraudsters, why don't you start with that
instead of this red herring?

I'm happy to respond to any sensible extension of this debate - which would
need to start with evidence that the policies or processes of the
California Department of Insurance are the basis for or a significant
influence on UDRP - but I'm not going to bother if I think you are just
trolling.

M.

-- 
Matthew Pemble
Technical Director, Idrach Ltd

Mobile: +44 (0) 7595 652175
Office: + 44 (0) 1324 820690