Slashdot Mirror


WIPO Panel Says Ron Paul Guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

An anonymous reader writes "Ron Paul lost his two cybersquatting complaints against RonPaul.com and RonPaul.org. In the case of RonPaul.org, Paul was been found guilty of 'reverse domain name hijacking'. A reverse domain name hijacking finding means that the arbitration panel believes the case was filed in bad faith, resulting in the abuse of the administrative process. The panel ruled this way since Paul filed the case after the owner of RonPaul.org had already offered to give him the domain for free. The panel also ruled against Paul for the RonPaul.com domain name."

33 of 303 comments (clear)

  1. may I lol? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I may lol.

  2. For free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Paul filed the case after the owner of RonPaul.org had already offered to give him the domain for free.

    Why was Ron Paul trying to use the force of government to coerce someone into doing something they were already going to do?

    1. Re:For free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      A politician that doesn't follow the same set of rules that they claim everyone else should have to follow? Un-possible!

    2. Re:For free? by WillgasM · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He wanted both the .com and .org. They offered to sell him the .com and/or give him the .org for free. I'm willing to bet he didn't take the .org for fear that it would hurt his ability to file for the .com, like a settlement of sorts.

    3. Re:For free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      This.
      The .com wanted $250,000

    4. Re:For free? by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So what exactly is fair?

      1. The cost for the remaining registered years?

      2. The cost for the 12+ years they have registered the domain?

      3. The cost of the 12+ years of domain registration and the cost of a building up a valuable website with large traffic?

      4. The actual value of the domain on the open market?

      Be careful what you choose. The operators were just asking for some minor reimbursement for all the time they've put into the site. It is my understanding that the site draws enough traffic to make the advertising quite valuable and Paul wanted them to just give it to him, AND he used the very organization he frequently rallies against.

    5. Re:For free? by rjstanford · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The article lacks numbers, but I have a feeling their asking price was far above and beyond the threshold of reasonable amounts. I just don't care enough to delve into it at 4:59 in the afternoon.

      It was a quarter mil. Not an unreasonable amount to pay for the list of data it came with actually, from a fundraising data point of view - and that's ignoring all of the other social value. Of course, as a libertarian, he should admire their hard work and pricing power but feel free to walk away from a deal that's not beneficial to him.

      Nah, let's just bring the WIPO into it.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    6. Re:For free? by arth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And in a free market they should be allowed to ask whatever price they want, whether two zorkmids or half a tonne of diamonds.

      The price has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue here, which was whether Ron Paul had a right to the domains. He did not show that he did.

    7. Re:For free? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Funny

      Who's to say the two domains were even owned by the same people?

      The linked article.

    8. Re:For free? by Synerg1y · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It seems like Ron Paul was mad...

      They wanted 250k for the site, but they did legitimately own it. Now, nobody in their right mind would appraise the site at 250k based on its code base and email list, but... there's nothing to stop them from asking 250k or even 1 mil for the site. Not sure what Ron didn't get here, but it makes me wonder if he was just providing lip service to the people during his political career based on this move.

    9. Re:For free? by diamondmagic · · Score: 4, Informative

      To quote Lew Rockwell:

      Ron is not using the State to acquire RonPaul.com. He could have brought a lawsuit in US government courts, but he did not. He is seeking to have ICANN enforce its own rules against cybersquatting, including the rule against registering a famous person’s name and making money off it. Anyone registering a URL agrees to keep all the rules, just as he must pay a recurring fee. A URL is not private property in the normal sense. It is a license, and ICANN is a private, non-profit organization.

      Ron is not calling on the UN. ICANN has four approved arbitration organizations. Because the RP.com guys registered Ron's name in Australia, the international arbitration option must be used. Yes, it is associated with the UN. Too bad, but one must play the cards one is dealt. The UN itself is not involved, though note—whatever else is wrong with it—the UN is not a State.

      Why did Ron wait so long to bring this claim? He did not feel he could do so as a public official. Once he became a private citizen again, he was freed.

    10. Re:For free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "In a free market"... What utter BS. "Finders keepers" is a fine argument for the schoolyard, but it's moral value is negligible. Ownership rights come with responibilities, especially ownership rights to unique resources. If a party decides to take ownership of something with the sole purpose of ransoming it to an owner who will actually use it, that is not "free market" - it's exploitation.

      "Free market" only works when the market is actually free. Ransoming a unique resource is not the free market in action.

    11. Re:For free? by meglon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's only a "free market" when it doesn't stop "free marketers" from getting everything they want, in the manner they want it, for the cost they want to pay for it. What "free marketers" never seem to get is: the "free market" has no morals.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    12. Re:For free? by SteveFoerster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As a libertarian, I find the level of contortion you're willing to accept to defend Ron Paul's hypocritical approach to this issue is pretty awful.

      The UN is a cartel created by the politicians of the world to serve their own interests. Every dime they get is stolen. Your Rockwell quote makes it sound akin to a non-profit organization like the United Way. Hardly.

      And even if one accepts that ridiculous premise, if nothing else, Ron Paul has been amazingly foolish for walking into a situation that makes him look like a hypocrite, especially now after having earned the nickname "Dr. No" for his stolid Congressional voting record.

      His actions here are a blight on his reputation and on the libertarian movement of which he's such a prominent part. Rockwell's bread has been buttered by Ron Paul for decades, so I suppose I understand his leaping to Paul's defense, but the rest of us should be more loyal to the truth than to one man.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    13. Re:For free? by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Finders keepers" is a fine argument for the schoolyard, but

      Actually, "Homesteading" is a central part of libertarianism. And according to that philosophy, no one has the moral authority to be able to tell the homesteader that they are not "responsibly" using their homestead/resources. Provided they make a clearly defined claim, and maintain a clear boundary, the claim is theirs.

      [Disclaimer: I'm not a libertarian, but then, it would seem neither is Ron Paul.]

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    14. Re:For free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about Ron's career history? The fact that Ron Paul has been in office on and off since the 1970s, has been a type four deliverer of pork to his district, has failed to pass or even develop solid legislation based on his professed ideology, and thus has been fairly ineffective given his ideological goals, and yet believes that somehow as President he would finally have the legislative power to make all his ideological dreams come true... and without exerting any that evil presidential power that would at least be necessary to do so? How about that? Ron Paul has been around a long enough time that his ineffectiveness sort of proves he either doesn't care as much as he says, or he's just not very good.

    15. Re:For free? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But yet when it comes to ransoming someone's health care, general health, or basic safety then it's fine to let the "free market" decide what that's worth without any regulation?

      Ron Paul nutters like to live in their pretend amazing free market world until it actually bites them in the ass and then it's just not fair!

      Actually, for the most part, the "limited government" crowd just doesn't want anyone telling *them* what to do. This will be an outrage because the government is letting some nobody interfere with what his all-important self wants.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    16. Re:For free? by publiclurker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      i.e. How dare you do to me what I'm entitled to do to you! Typical spoiled brat libertarian attitude.

    17. Re:For free? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nice way to miss the point, which is: Paul hasn't done diddley-squat with any of the power already entrusted to him.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    18. Re:For free? by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And sabotaging the EPA, the FDA, and all the other regulatory agencies. Paul is old enough to know how filthy the air and water was before the EPA and how much more dangerous factories were before OSHA. As head of all these agencies he could have done a lot worse to the country than even Bush did.

      If you put someone in power who thinks government is always the problem you're going to have a shitty ineffective government. I'd like to see more politicians in office who would keep corporations on a short leash. I LIKE being able to breathe while driving past a Monsanto plant. It was impossible before the EPA.

    19. Re:For free? by TWiTfan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      i think he would have been wildly more successful at doing things like ending the wars, closing Guantanamo,

      Yeah, it's too bad he doesn't have a son in Congress who could take up that fight. If he did, he could take on assholes like this, who want to keep Gitmo open and the war going.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    20. Re:For free? by tbannist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Clinton probably would have bought the domain and the mailing list. She's smart enough to know that starting legal proceedings against your own supporters is a generally a bad idea. The reasons this is news, is it's one of the most libertarian American politicians trying (and failing) to use the heavy boot of government to get around the free market.

      It's the betrayal of Ron Paul's professed core principles over the fairly trivial matter of a domain name that is the real news.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    21. Re:For free? by tbannist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But he didn't cross his stated principles.

      Yes it did. He tried to use government to force to transfer ownership of private property to himself. It's a betrayal of everything he claims to stand for (and it's not the first time he's betrayed the principles he claims to hold). It's also pretty stupid to turn on your supporters in such a hypocritical way. The Libertarain solution would have been to start a kickstarter (or other) campaign to raise the money to buy the domain if he wasn't willing to pay the money out of pocket or out of an election campaign fund.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
  3. My prediction by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I predict the Pauls will use this for political gain. All it takes is a bit of spin:

    Clearly the "official" establishment is failing to support the little guy who just wants to use his own name. Because they obviously aren't catering to the desires of a particularly-vocal individual, they must of course just be a tool for oppression by the Big Government. After all, what good are these "rules" and "procedures" when they hinder the industrious and innovative people building their own future, and instead help the lazy people just using others' names?

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  4. Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He was being a hypocritical bastard.

  5. Free market! by daniel.garcia.romero · · Score: 5, Funny

    Free market will fix that! There's always www.ronpaul.bs or www.ronpaul.museum available.

  6. Site owners not so innocent looking. by Crosshair84 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here is what I posted in the last thread on this:

    According to whois, RonPaul.com was registered in 2000 while RonPaul.org was registered in 1999. The current owner of RonPaul.org is DN Capital Inc, a company based in Panama, while RonPaul.com is owned by WKF Corp, another company based in Panama.

    This right here is sending up red flags. A "fan site" whose domain name is owned by some corporation in Panama? This isn't some Hary Alderson in Vermont who owns the domain name, as one might expect from a fan site. It is some company in Panama who, for all we know, may or may not be a shell company.

    Second, Ron Paul DID NOT go to "The UN" for this, he went to the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, whose JOB it is to settle disputes like this. There is nothing hypocritical about this. WIPO would exist absent the UN for this purpose. He may not LIKE the UN, but he is working within the system as it currently exists even though he would like that system changed. I don't like the city government where I live and wish it were set up differently, but you bet your butt I go to them when I have a problem or need something taken care of under their jurisdiction.

    RP wanted only the domain name, yet the "owners" of the site wanted to sell him the whole thing for a huge chunk of cash? That's not "Fan site", that's "trying to hit up a public figure for money and cash out". Wanting to sell the whole nine yards so eagerly, and for so much, doesn't sound like any "fan site" I've ever heard of.

    Sorry, the owners of ronpaul.com are looking awfully shady. Say what you want about Dr. Paul, the owners of the domain are not looking so innocent and it is looking that Dr, Paul may have a decent case for cybersquatting. We simply don't have enough information to be 100% sure. Considering Dr. Paul's past, I'm tending toward giving him the benefit of the doubt for now, but I would certainly like more information before definitively siding one way or the other on this. There is probably a lot of details that we don't know about.

    1. Re:Site owners not so innocent looking. by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A "fan site" whose domain name is owned by some corporation

      Corporations are just groups of people freely associating with each other.

      in Panama?

      Property rights are a fundamental human right. It doesn't matter where you are located; you have the right to your own property.

      Spin it any way you like, the good doctor wants to use an arm of the UN to confiscate other peoples' property by threat of force.

      A much better way to resolve the problem would be by using the free market: There are trillions of DNS names still available on the free market for only a couple of bucks per year. He should just pick one and be happy that he obtained this new property without resorting to coercion.

    2. Re:Site owners not so innocent looking. by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      RP wanted only the domain name, yet the "owners" of the site wanted to sell him the whole thing for a huge chunk of cash? That's not "Fan site", that's "trying to hit up a public figure for money and cash out". Wanting to sell the whole nine yards so eagerly, and for so much, doesn't sound like any "fan site" I've ever heard of.

      In a free market unencumbered by government regulation, the value of anything is precisely the sum that party B pays party A for it. Everything else is just negotiating tactic. In other words, Ron Paul just tried to use a supra-national organization to negotiate down the price of party A's property. Clearly, Libertarians are libertarian only for as long as it allows them to make more money. Otherwise, they're perfectly happy to invoke regulations.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    3. Re:Site owners not so innocent looking. by nickmalthus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The site owners clearly stated Ron Paul didn't even attempt to negotiate before filing his greivance, completely bypassing a free market solution he always favors over government intervention. In every one of his speeches he always bashes every function of government and only relents to the necessity of government in vague terms when pressed. As a congressman he participated in pork barrel spending for his district and his response was basically "when in Rome...". Appearantly he has no issue wielding the force of law on an unethical basis when it furthers his own personal interest. He is a hypocrite.

      --
      If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
  7. Re:Reading the article... by rjstanford · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...it doesn't actually look like Paul is guilty of anything but refusing to accept a settlement that was unreasonable in the first place.

    "You want this one? You can have it for free - but this one over here we've added a shit-ton of value to so we want some compensation (below free-market rate IMO) for it."

    Doesn't seem terribly unreasonable to me, even ignoring the fact that RP likes to tell people that he's something close to a pure libertarian.

    --
    You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
  8. Apparently schadenfreude.com is avilable. by conspirator23 · · Score: 4, Funny

    So is cognitivedissonance.com. Both seem so much more... appropriate now.

  9. Off topic nerd porn by symbolset · · Score: 3, Funny

    This comment is off topic, and you may freely moderate it so.

    Once upon a time long ago I was intrigued by the rapid absorption of domain names and their escalating value. Particularly short names. And so I wrote a perl script to permute all possible 4-letter domains and look them up in the hope of identifying some interesting names to squat. I'm not really proud of that, but it was long ago when such stuff wasn't as abhorrent as the current day. I was sipping Maker's Mark on the rocks all night. I identified and registered a few, and one came up - iran.com, which could have been lucrative with the runner community. I was placing the order for the iran.com domain on Christmas eve when just then my wife came up, stroked my neck and said "come to bed." I got some. That was the most expensive nookie I ever got.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.