Just managed to get my response in (not exactly as written to Nominet below).
I suggested that a "DRS Defence Bond" is enacted when a complaint is deemed to be potentially frivolous. This would be set at, say, £1000, £2000 or £3000 depending on the initial thoughts of a DRS aware employee/expert - the less merit the complaint has the higher the bond. "Bond" may be a poor choice of term, but the idea is the main point for consideration.
Nominet could set the bonds aside as a designated fund. Ideally, given the difficulty of collecting costs after a negative decision, the claimant should be required to pay the bond to proceed - the legalities of this may mean that an alternative, but similar, route is enacted.
If a complaint is seen to be without enough merit to mean that the respondent is awarded costs (up to a published limit) and the bond is withheld from the complainant. These complaints are likely to be the ones paying the higher bond (hence covering, or nearly covering the costs)
A complaint that is unsuccessful but does not pay damages still results in the bond being withheld. This means that complaints which are likely to have paid £1000 of a bond (showing a small degree of speculative behaviour) are paying for the shortfall in costs collected from those complaints that are paying £2000.
Successful DRS complainants get their bond back.
I suggested it as an option, just so they can't say that other suggestions (that might have said 100% costs to be covered and nothing else) were not flexible enough.
The ideal thing is to dissuade DRS speculation and protect respondents.
I don't care how they do it, as long as something is done.