The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Ron Paul seeks UN assistance

Be happy you did not choose to become a lawyer.

1) Your opinion regarding Ron Pauls claim is just that- an opinion, and an ill informed one at best.

2) The people using the Ron Paul domain were using Ron Pauls likeness. There are rules regarding cyber squatting. Your previous argument only has merit if people were using Ron Paul domain for purposes unrelated to the Ron Paul filing the dispute.

ie: if someone named Kobe Bryant registered KobeBryant.com , and used it for their personal blog then the "famous" Kobe Bryant would have no legit dispute. However if someone named Ralph (or Kobe) used the likeness of the "famous" Kobe Bryant and the entire monetary value of the site derived from using the persona and likeness of the "famous" Kobe Bryant then the "famous" Kobe Bryant would have a legit claim. Its called cybersquatting.

3) You seem to understand libertarianism about as well as you understand... well most things you discus. Which is not very well at all. Or maybe you just actually come to believe in the straw-men you create? Libertarianism does not mean people lack rights, and it does not invalidate contract. The current owners of the domain name signed a contract with an organization that has certain rules regarding things like domain squatting, and the procedures for contesting a domain were clearly laid forth. If a party has reason to believe they have a legitimate grievance, then filing said grievance with the governing body of said contract is perfectly libertarian. The only person who think that libertarian means lawlessness or abjuration of all rules is you.

4) Freedom from unwarranted and/or arbitrary govt coercion regarding private property is not the same as lawlessness or invalidating contract. That Ron Paul was not personally party to the contract does not change the fact that ICANN has certain rules and procedures in place that the domain owner agreed to upon obtaining the domain.


5) The fact that the owners of the site RonPaul.com used the likeness of the "famous" Ron Paul for gain is pretty much indisputable.

6) The fact that they (ronpaul.com owners) told the world that Ron Paul "went to the UN" is reprehensible, as is the fact that goggle-eyed media ate it up. Ron Paul filed an ICANN dispute per their rules, and ICANN simply assigned it to one of several registered mediation bodies as per their documented operating procedure.
--

As usual you try to pass of your flawed understanding of the world as validation for a flawed and false dichotomy.

With this, I am finished with serious replies - if you wish to continue flaunting your ignorance then by all means feel free. I will grab some popcorn and enjoy the spectacle.

This is nothing but a partnership/business deal that went sour.

Up to this point Ron Paul had no interest in acquiring the domain, but he must have been aware of its existence since he benefited from it personally via fundraising. It is only when the deal entered price negotiations (buyout of stakeholders) when threats of legal action went into play.

Part of the domain dispute is the supporter's list and website infrastructure. This is above and beyond the scope of ICANN that only covers domain name. This further shows that appeal to ICANN is nothing less but interference in the business negotiation.

I think you're confused here bud. The email list and infrastructure were part of the deal that the current owners offered. It didn't say anywhere that Paul is seeking those in this dispute. It's entirely possible that he doesn't want that stuff, that he only wants the domain name.

QFT

Part of what I found utterly amazing was that they tried to "sell" Ron a list they had gathered by using his likeness. It would be hard to imagine a scenario where there were many names that Ron would not have already had on his own lists.... and even harder to imagine that many that were not ... were missing from Ron's list because they thought they were already ON Ron's list having signed up for "Ron Paul dot com" - replete with pictures and quotes etc from.... Ron Paul. Hence the contesting of domain.

Sinij is probably also unaware that rules regarding politicians and those regarding simple "celebrities/corporations of public interest" are quite different. Which is unsurprising given that he thinks that a ICANN dispute (That is: Internet Corporation for Assignment of Names and Numbers for any readers not familiar with the org) is even possible to include things like server hardware, or other damages is quite telling in this regard.

(note: registering a politicians or political candidates name, is typically protected political speech. Whether you say good or bad things about them. Ron could not have filed any dispute likely to succeed as a Congressman. The system is set up so officeholders and candidates cant appropriate domains containing their name for good reason. Additionally, as a recently former pol, Ron *probably* would not have, and would not have had a terribly strong case had the site owners in fact not tried to charge such an obscene amount of money above and beyond their out of pocket expense, in large part publicly *justified* by the very fact that they used Ron's name and likeness to accrue significant monetary value in the form of mailing lists, etc. Using a high profile name for political speech - totally allowed and protected under rules and legal precedent, using a high profile name/likeness to infer endorsement of, and thereby monetarily gain is considered bad faith under ICANN rules and a big no-no /note)

ICANN manages... Internet names and numbers. It has zero authority to award material damages. It can however, assign IP blocks and domain names.

But as we all know by now, Sinij speaking in authoritative tone and language and making pronouncements about things he knows absolutely nothing about is to be expected.

http://domainnamewire.com/2013/05/23/bre...name-hijacking/

http://domainnamewire.com/2013/05/23/ron-paul-loses-dispute-ronpaul-com-and-ronpaul/

The Story: Ron Paul attempts to use the force of government to coerce someone into transfer of personal property AND calling in UN to intervene in US-based dispute.

Outcome: He lost domain disputes and was found guilty in reverse domain name hijacking.

Prediction: Free market will fix that! There is always RonPaul.xxx

Still lying through your teeth? I see you are.

So you are going to go into outright denial and not even going to bother refute any of this?



Here is another source for you:

http://www.dailypaul.com/286452/ron-paul-loses-disputes-over-ronpaulcom-and-ronpaulorg-domain-names

I refuted that RP went "to the UN" ages ago.

If you insist on maintaining such an obvious lie, I really have nothing else to say on the matter.

That he lost the dispute filed with ICANN , /shrug oh well.

So inviting government violence into what should be a free market business transaction is fine in your book? What kind of Libertarian are you?

lol.

obvious troll is obvious.