Re: [soac-mapo] Note of GAC position on paying for objections

[Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@xxxxxxxxx>]

If we are debating about a fee payable by Governments with the hope of
discouraging frivolous objections, is it practical that we will come up with
a fee structure that a Government would consider difficult?

And why do we assume that objections from a Government or a Community could
be trivial against a string that is more likely to be commercial?  There is
some prejudice here: approval or continuity of a string is pre-evaluated as
meritorious while an objection is pre-judged as something with a high
likelihood of avoidable frivolity.

If the cost to ICANN in evaluating and arbitrating on an objection is the
issue, then the WG may have to consider provisional upfront payments both
from the appellant and defendant, with intended recovery from the one who
loses the case.  That would be fair, but still wrong. Wrong, because the
requirement of a fee would act as a deterrent to a process akin to a
judicial process.

The issue of possible frivolous objections must instead be dealt with by the
process itself.  The mechanism to evaluate an objection should be trusted to
make quick evaluations of frivolous objections and dismiss them as frivolous
objections as such.


Sivasubramanian M
http://turiya.co.in

http://www.isocmadras.com
facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh
LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6
Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz




On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> If the purpose of fees is to eliminate frivolous objections, it seems to be
> clear that a fee should be charged upon filing of the objection, and thus
> before any evaluation process. The quick-look criteria should be available
> to those filing objections to help them avoid wasting their money.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
> > Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 11:30 AM
> > To: soac-mapo
> > Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Note of GAC position on paying for objections
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Another question occurs to me about fees.
> >
> > Would a fee need to be paid (and by objector and applicant?) before the
> > quick look, or only after the quick look.
> >
> > a.
> >
>
>
>