Hi folks, Without responding to all the points in this thread (which Rebecca, Nat, and Paul Keating already ably addressed), I would like to point out (in case Georges N. missed it, when he expressed his concerns and suggested "some form of bond" in the event of escalation to the courts) that proposal #18 *does* specifically protect against frivolous litigation in the courts. The Notice of Objection, just like in the British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal system, would need to be accompanied by a fee, and furthermore there would be cost consequences if misused. https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-18.pd...
From Section #4:
" The Notice of Objection fee should be set comparable to the court fees in filing a statement of defense, to prevent any gaming. Futhermore, gaming is reduced due to the cost consequences upon a party making the notice of objection if they fail to do better in court than in the ADR."
From Section #3 (which links to https://civilresolutionbc.ca/how-the-crt-works/how-the-process-ends/#what-if... )"
(via the BC CRT website) "If the person who filed the Notice of Objection does not have a better outcome in the BC Provincial Court than in the CRT’s decision, the BC Provincial Court may order that party to pay a penalty to the other party." By taking as a solution to the URS problems a system that ***already exists elsewhere*** and is balanced, I hoped to eliminate these criticisms that the proposal was one-sided, etc. The goal was to eliminate the "role reversal" which is causing the lack of access to the courts by registrants in some jurisdictions, and this approach accomplishes that goal cleanly and efficiently. If the critics of these proposals wish to eliminate judicial review entirely, then that would not be acceptable. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/