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

[Matthew Pemble <matthew@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Reply deliberately to list ...

On 8 May 2012 23:43, Jeffrey Williams <jwkckid2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.
>

Your email of "Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 07:52:30 -0700" was sent to me not to
the list. Check your sent folder. You'll also notice it isn't headed "Matt
and all" so you did not _just_ miss off the list address by accident. You
are either mistaken or lying.

I'd suggest you check the list archives (where it also does not appear) but
then you think those are being maliciously censored.

  It is only a question, not a statement.
>

Excluding the link and the quote, your original post makes an assertion
then asks three questions. You know this. The assertion ends with a full
stop. The three following questions end with question marks. I object to
the lack of evidence for the assertion.


> Yet comparisons have been, are being, and will
> likely continue to be at least considered if not asserted in or out of
> context.
>

You seem to be the only person comparing the UDRP to the practices of the
Californian insurance industry. I fail to see the connection - the
"consumer advocate" practice you resent in the latter case has no obvious
parallel in UDRP.

M.

-- 
Matthew Pemble
Technical Director, Idrach Ltd

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