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

[Jeffrey Williams <jwkckid2@xxxxxxxxx>]

Matt and all,

  This thread was meant as a list question as it was originally posted as
such.  I didn't take it off
list.  It is only a question, not a statement.  If you took same as such,
that is of course your choice,
but deviates from the originating thread as a question.  Sorry if that
offends you in some way which
I freely admit eludes me from a rational perspective.  Yet comparisons have
been, are being, and will
likely continue to be at least considered if not asserted in or out of
context.  Challenging the status
quo in many fields of endeavor is how as a species we advance ourselves on
many levels and in oh
so many ways.  Such is also true of various levels of social interaction,
in this case the UDRP as
a means by which aspects of Domain Name resolution and use can/are being
challenged and
at least in part or to some degree, resolved all be it for a fee.  Some
UDRP decisions have been
further challenged and overturned.  The rate of which has increased of
late.  So does that have
or demonstrate a need for review and perhaps improvement?  Was or is the
UDRP in its current
form adequate to meet the current development and expansion of the use(es)
of the Internet via
DNS?  It appears that perhaps those questions need answers not just from
one person or group
but from any and all participants that have interest to answer.  Ergo the
challenge.  Not an
admonishment what so ever.  Clear enough?

  Thank you again for your response, most interesting.

Kindest 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



On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Matthew Pemble <matthew@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> You took this off list. I replied respecting that. You chose to post back.
> Careless or malicous?
>
> One of the many accusations levelled against you is that you insist on
> dragging private conversations in to the public arena. Are they right?
> Given that these are the very same people who accuse you of being a
> mendacious troll?
>
> Matthew
>
> ---
>
> Matthew Pemble
> Tel: +44 7595 652175
>
> Chained to the desk by iPhone(TM)!
>
> On 8 May 2012, at 21:14, Jeffrey Williams <jwkckid2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> > Matt and all,
> >
> >  First, thank you for your response.  (Further remarks/comments
> > interspersed below )
> >
> > On 5/8/12, Matthew Pemble <matthew@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On 8 May 2012 15:52, Jeffrey Williams <jwkckid2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> 'consumer advocate' is a euthenism  or course.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> "Euthenism" is a neologism of  which I am thankfully ignorant.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>  Perhaps, perhaps not.  That is a matter of opinion, not recognized
> >>> fact.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I'm not sure how you can get anything other than opinion (mine or
> yours) on
> >> my ignorance. You might be able to demonstrate knowledge but it is
> >> difficult to prove the inverse.
> >
> >  Logical but hardly conclusive.
> >>
> >> By the way, "euthenism"? According to the "Urban
> >> Dictionary<http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=euthenism>
> >> ":
> >>
> >> The story parents tell little kids to explain what happened to a dead
> pet.
> >>> A portmanteau of euthanasia and euphemism.
> >>
> >>
> >> Did you mean "euphemism", perhaps? Or do you regard UDRP as a rather
> >> disreputable pet?
> >
> >  Disreputable, no.  Lacking yes.
> >>
> >> M.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Matthew Pemble
> >> Technical Director, Idrach Ltd
> >>
> >> Mobile: +44 (0) 7595 652175
> >> Office: + 44 (0) 1324 820690
> >>
> > Kindest 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
>