WIPO Panel Says Ron Paul Guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

WIPO Panel Says Ron Paul Guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

Posted by timothy on Thursday May 23, 2013 @09:38AM from the take-a-man's-name dept.

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."

19 of 303 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

For free? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-23 09:42 · 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 · 2013-05-23 09:45 · 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 · 2013-05-23 09:47 · 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 · 2013-05-23 09:49 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  This.
  The .com wanted $250,000
4. Re:For free? by rahvin112 · 2013-05-23 10:06 · 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 arth1 · 2013-05-23 10:07 · 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.
6. Re:For free? by ShanghaiBill · 2013-05-23 10:21 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Who's to say the two domains were even owned by the same people?
  The linked article.
7. Re:For free? by diamondmagic · 2013-05-23 10:23 · 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.
  
  --
  Wonder what the public key field is for?
8. Re:For free? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-23 10:28 · 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.
9. Re:For free? by meglon · 2013-05-23 11:05 · 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
10. Re:For free? by FatLittleMonkey · 2013-05-23 11:45 · 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.
11. Re:For free? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-23 11:50 · 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.
12. Re:For free? by Black+Parrot · 2013-05-23 13:34 · 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
13. Re:For free? by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2013-05-23 18:45 · 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.
My prediction by Sarten-X · 2013-05-23 09:48 · 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.
Free market! by daniel.garcia.romero · 2013-05-23 09:58 · Score: 5, Funny

Free market will fix that! There's always www.ronpaul.bs or www.ronpaul.museum available.
Re:Reading the article... by rjstanford · 2013-05-23 10:00 · 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!
Apparently schadenfreude.com is avilable. by conspirator23 · 2013-05-23 10:01 · Score: 4, Funny

So is cognitivedissonance.com. Both seem so much more... appropriate now.
Re:Site owners not so innocent looking. by Waffle+Iron · 2013-05-23 10:14 · 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.