Ron Paul Wants RonPaul.com so badly he's going to the UN

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@WillFarnaby

1-ICANN is a private, non-profit corporation, established for the purpose (among others) of assigning domain names.
2-ICANN adopted The UDRP (Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy), a policy designed to adjudicate domain name disputes. All registration agreements incorporate this policy by reference, and all registrants agree to this policy.
3-ICANN has chosen WIPO as the entity to arbitrate and mediate such disputes.
4-WIPO is a UN agency.
5-It seems clear that Ron Paul believes he is attempting to recover something that rightly belongs to him.
6-In every society – including a libertarian society – there is and would be some means of non-violent dispute resolution. That we currently live in a society where oftentimes a state agency provides this service should not preclude a libertarian from using these means – although the issue of a state agency is not even applicable here.
7-To resolve this dispute, Ron Paul must follow a specifically outlined set of procedures. These procedures were agreed to by the registrant before the registration of the domain name could be complete.

Compiled from here

Since this is GD, would you like to give your opinion on whether Paul is doing the right thing?

[Amateur_Barbarian]

@WillFarnaby

7-To resolve this dispute, Ron Paul must follow a specifically outlined set of procedures. These procedures were agreed to by the registrant before the registration of the domain name could be complete.[URL=“Ron Paul Dot Com - LewRockwell”]

No one is questioning this. There are two levels of dickishness at work here, though.

Let’s say it was… ChrisChristie.com and His Rotundness suddenly decided he needed to own it, after doing all the same things RP did (except, you know, actually getting enough votes to matter). Christie would be a dick for refusing to recognize the effort, expense and value of what the volunteer owners did in helping his campaign and trying to take the “developed property” without compensation.

RP is just as big a dick on this count.

He’s a bigger dick because using this process is contrary to nearly everything he preaches as Libertarian #1.

[miss_elizabeth]

@WillFarnaby

1-ICANN is a private, non-profit corporation, established for the purpose (among others) of assigning domain names.
2-ICANN adopted The UDRP (Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy), a policy designed to adjudicate domain name disputes. All registration agreements incorporate this policy by reference, and all registrants agree to this policy.
3-ICANN has chosen WIPO as the entity to arbitrate and mediate such disputes.
4-WIPO is a UN agency.
5-It seems clear that Ron Paul believes he is attempting to recover something that rightly belongs to him.
6-In every society – including a libertarian society – there is and would be some means of non-violent dispute resolution. That we currently live in a society where oftentimes a state agency provides this service should not preclude a libertarian from using these means – although the issue of a state agency is not even applicable here.
7-To resolve this dispute, Ron Paul must follow a specifically outlined set of procedures. These procedures were agreed to by the registrant before the registration of the domain name could be complete.

Compiled from here

I notice you are now hiding the provenance of your cites.

Just so everyone is aware, he’s citing from lewrockwell.com, a very stupid, racist (but I repeat myself!), hate site filled with conspiracy nonsense. Will doesn’t seem to think it matters if his citations come from an ignorant cesspit, but the people debating him in good faith might want to know.

[WillFarnaby]

@miss_elizabeth

I notice you are now hiding the provenance of your cites.

Just so everyone is aware, he’s citing from lewrockwell.com, a very stupid, racist (but I repeat myself!), hate site filled with conspiracy nonsense. Will doesn’t seem to think it matters if his citations come from an ignorant cesspit, but the people debating him in good faith might want to know.

Since this is GD, I suggest you either challenge the veracity of the claims, or take your half-assed demagoguery back to the Pit.

If I was hiding anything I would have linked to the blog at which the information was originally posted.

[WillFarnaby]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Since this is GD, would you like to give your opinion on whether Paul is doing the right thing?

Pretty much as follows:

@Peremensoe

Either way, he’s doing a lot of damage to his own name and the very value that he’s trying to seize.

@NitroPress

RP is just as big a dick on this count.

This is what I disagree with:

He’s a bigger dick because using this process is contrary to nearly everything he preaches as Libertarian #1.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Fair enough. Carry on, then.

[BobLibDem]

What’s the big ass deal? He’s no longer a Congressman, he’s a private citizen just like the rest of us, although perhaps a B-list celebrity (maybe like Kathy Griffin). Why is he so much more entitled to a website with his name than the rest of us? Is he having media coverage withdrawal and desperately wants to keep his name in the press? Is he going to keep going for Harold Stassen’s record and run for president in 2016?

[miss_elizabeth]

@WillFarnaby

Since this is GD, I suggest you either challenge the veracity of the claims, or take your half-assed demagoguery back to the Pit.

If I was hiding anything I would have linked to the blog at which the information was originally posted.

So, the only place you can find citations for your claims is on a blog, or an ignorant hate site? Huh.

[Amateur_Barbarian]

@WillFarnaby

This is what I disagree with:

What’s to disagree with? Are you saying a Libertarian who runs for office on those principles (and is ready to reorganize the US government from top to bottom according to them) is not a self-serving hypocrite for taking on fellow deep-believers on grounds, and using practices, that are antithetical to those principles - and seeking enforcement from an organization he has denounced?

Okay. It’s your vote, in all senses.

[Human_Action]

@miss_elizabeth

So, the only place you can find citations for your claims is on a blog, or an ignorant hate site? Huh.

Well, 1-4 and 7 are just facts:

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers [ICANN]

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN, /ˈaɪkæn/ EYE-kan) is a nonprofit private organization headquartered in the Playa Vista section of Los Angeles, California, United States, that was created on September 18, 1998, and incorporated on September 30, 1998 to oversee a number of Internet-related tasks previously performed directly on behalf of the U.S. government by other organizations, notably the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), which ICANN now operates.

Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy

The Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) is a process established by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) for the resolution of disputes regarding the registration of internet domain names. The UDRP currently applies to all .aero, .asia, .biz, .cat, .com, .coop, .info, .jobs, .mobi, .museum, .name, .net, .org, .pro, .tel and .travel top-level domains, and some country code top-level domains.

One of ICANN’s first steps was to commission the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) to produce a report on the conflict between trademarks and domain names.

Process

A complainant in a UDRP proceeding must establish three elements to succeed:
The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
The registrant does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and
The registrant registered the domain name and is using it in “bad faith”.

World Intellectual Property Organization

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is one of the 17 specialized agencies of the United Nations. WIPO was created in 1967 “to encourage creative activity, to promote the protection of intellectual property throughout the world.”

5 and 6 seem like common sense, but feel free to dispute those.

[WillFarnaby]

@miss_elizabeth

So, the only place you can find citations for your claims is on a blog, or an ignorant hate site? Huh.

When the NYT does a full page spread on the issue I’ll link to them. Happy?

[BigT]

Libertarianism does not include any idea that you have a right to exclusive use of your own name, let alone the right to use that name as a URL. That sort of thing needs a big government to enforce your right to be the only one that uses your name.

It doesn’t matter than Ron Paul thinks he was wronged. He wasn’t by his own professed philosophy. It doesn’t matter if you consider the UN a government entity or not. A libertarian can’t pay a private organization to steal something for him because he doesn’t get the right price.

The problem is not the arbitration but what he is seeking it for. He has not been wronged by even rather moderate versions of libertarianism. It would be like me going to court to get someone else’s house because its address is on the intersection of T avenue and Big street.

Ronpaul.com is not his property, and he has no right to dispute it. The only reason he is able to do so is that the organization in question is not libertarian, and actually has some idea of people having the rights to their own name. He’s appealing to a non-libertarian organization to get via non-libertarian means what he couldn’t get by libertarian means.

[WillFarnaby]

@NitroPress

What’s to disagree with? Are you saying a Libertarian who runs for office on those principles (and is ready to reorganize the US government from top to bottom according to them) is not a self-serving hypocrite for taking on fellow deep-believers on grounds, and using practices, that are antithetical to those principles - and seeking enforcement from an organization he has denounced?

Okay. It’s your vote, in all senses.

So you’re argument is he is violating the non-aggression principle? How so? He is submitting for arbitration by an agency, picked by a private company, to settle these disputes. *The current owners of ronpaul.com agreed to this. *Is it your contention that arbitration by any authority wouldn’t be common in a libertarian society? Because I’ve never heard of that before.

[Ibn_Warraq]

I guess that to some Ron Paul followers, anything he does must be consistent with libertarian philosophy.

I’m reminded of Richard Nixon claiming “If the President does it, it’s not against the law.”

[WillFarnaby]

@Ibn_Warraq

I guess that to some Ron Paul followers, anything he does must be consistent with libertarian philosophy.

I’m reminded of Richard Nixon claiming “If the President does it, it’s not against the law.”

One way would be to demonstrate how submitting to mutually agreed to arbitration is a violation of the non-aggression principle.

Another would be to say nothing of substance whatsoever on the issue.

[Human_Action]

@WillFarnaby

*The current owners of ronpaul.com agreed to this. *Is it your contention that arbitration by any authority wouldn’t be common in a libertarian society? Because I’ve never heard of that before.

This is correct. Here is the UDNDR policy that ronpaul.com’s owners agreed to.

By applying to register a domain name, or by asking us to maintain or renew a domain name registration, you hereby represent and warrant to us that (a) the statements that you made in your Registration Agreement are complete and accurate; (b) to your knowledge, the registration of the domain name will not infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights of any third party; (c) you are not registering the domain name for an unlawful purpose; and (d) you will not knowingly use the domain name in violation of any applicable laws or regulations. It is your responsibility to determine whether your domain name registration infringes or violates someone else’s rights.

We will cancel, transfer or otherwise make changes to domain name registrations under the following circumstances:

a. subject to the provisions of Paragraph 8, our receipt of written or appropriate electronic instructions from you or your authorized agent to take such action;

b. our receipt of an order from a court or arbitral tribunal, in each case of competent jurisdiction, requiring such action; and/or

c. our receipt of a decision of an Administrative Panel requiring such action in any administrative proceeding to which you were a party and which was conducted under this Policy or a later version of this Policy adopted by ICANN. (See Paragraph 4(i) and (k) below.)

We may also cancel, transfer or otherwise make changes to a domain name registration in accordance with the terms of your Registration Agreement or other legal requirements.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

[Amateur_Barbarian]

@WillFarnaby

So you’re argument is he is violating the non-aggression principle? How so? He is submitting for arbitration by an agency, picked by a private company, to settle these disputes. *The current owners of ronpaul.com agreed to this. *Is it your contention that arbitration by any authority wouldn’t be common in a libertarian society? Because I’ve never heard of that before.

Well, here we’re going to divide the argument, because either:

1. Under the Libertarian society and government proposed by Paul and his rather strong stripe of L, he would not have any right to simply claim that property using governmental force to take it, vs. making and accepting a free negotiation based on the ownership and developed value.

2. The Libertarian paradise would have almost exactly the same institutions and rules, because all governments tend towards a functional center in which the name of the guiding philosophy is simply words on a wall.

So while Paul may be perfectly within his rights as they presently exist to pursue this course, all base dickishness aside, his doing so is either an abnegation of his belief in Libertarian principles or an acknowledgement that the name on the box doesn’t change the contents within.

But to carry it further, I’d expect that for every staunch-principled Lib who calls Paul a dick and refuses to vote for him ever again, there will be ten who will manage to find a theological justification amid the murk that is Libertarian praxis.

[scabpicker]

And paragraph 4 is:

a. Applicable Disputes. You are required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that a third party (a “complainant”) asserts to the applicable Provider, in compliance with the Rules of Procedure, that

(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

In the administrative proceeding, the complainant must prove that each of these three elements are present.

(i) Seems like the only one he’s likely to be able to prove. He has to prove all three. Even that’s pretty shaky considering that the site’s been around devoted to this particular Ron Paul for years with no reaction from his party.

[Amateur_Barbarian]

@scabpicker

(i) Seems like the only one he’s likely to be able to prove. He has to prove all three. Even that’s pretty shaky considering that the site’s been around devoted to this particular Ron Paul for years with no reaction from his party.

Other than that it uses his name, he hasn’t got a leg to stand on. He’ll have to explain how he and his campaign either did not notice or did not so much as send a notice to the operators for the focal years of the campaign. And try to make a case that the site was misused or misrepresentative (it was anything but).

As the bumpersticker says, Don’t Be A Dick, Ron.

[Human_Action]

@scabpicker

(i) Seems like the only one he’s likely to be able to prove. He has to prove all three. Even that’s pretty shaky considering that the site’s been around devoted to this particular Ron Paul for years with no reaction from his party.

Agreed, from reading the policies, I don’t think he has much chance at winning in arbitration, but I don’t know the precedents of past decisions in disputes similar to this one.

@NitroPress

Well, here we’re going to divide the argument, because either:

1. Under the Libertarian society and government proposed by Paul and his rather strong stripe of L, he would not have any right to simply claim that property using governmental force to take it, vs. making and accepting a free negotiation based on the ownership and developed value.

2. The Libertarian paradise would have almost exactly the same institutions and rules, because all governments tend towards a functional center in which the name of the guiding philosophy is simply words on a wall.

So while Paul may be perfectly within his rights as they presently exist to pursue this course, all base dickishness aside, his doing so is either an abnegation of his belief in Libertarian principles or an acknowledgement that the name on the box doesn’t change the contents within.

The sub-division on the argument would be whether arbitration over the domain name, which the owners of the site agreed to, constitutes seizing property through government force.

The sub-sub-division would be whether regulation of domain names, much like regulating radio and television broadcast frequencies, is a legitimate role for a libertarian government.