Ron Paul hypocrisy

[Chris Adams]

According to several sources, Ron Paul is trying to take ownership of
the domain "ronpaul.org" away from the people that registered it and
have run a site supporting him for several years.

First, he claims a "common law trademark" (typically used for business
names and logos and noted by the use of "TM") on the name "Ron Paul", so
I hope nobody else has that name (look out, he might come after you
next!). Does he realize that person names are not unique? I certainly
don't remember him putting a "TM" after his name.

The current lawful owners offered the domain name to him for free after
hearing that he regretted not owning it. They also offered to sell him
ronpaul.com (note the .com vs. .org), with that domain's site and
mailing list. Apparently, the offer (and free market deal-making)
wasn't good enough for Ron Paul.

So when he wanted to take the domain away from the rightful owners, did
he go to the US court system (that Libertarians tell us is the cure for
all ills)? Nope - he went to the WIPO, an agency of the United Nations
(that Libertarians tell us is evil, hated, and ought to be abolished).

I guess once you retire, supporters and alleged principles can be thrown
away.

--
Chris Adams <cma...@hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.

[Greg Bacon]

Chris Adams wrote

: [...]
:
: The current lawful owners offered the domain name to him for free after

: hearing that he regretted not owning it. They also offered to sell him
: ronpaul.com (note the .com vs. .org), with that domain's site and
: mailing list. Apparently, the offer (and free market deal-making)
: wasn't good enough for Ron Paul.
:
: So when he wanted to take the domain away from the rightful owners, did
: he go to the US court system (that Libertarians tell us is the cure for
: all ills)? Nope - he went to the WIPO, an agency of the United Nations
: (that Libertarians tell us is evil, hated, and ought to be abolished).
:
: I guess once you retire, supporters and alleged principles can be thrown
: away.

According to a Fox News article[1] (first hit on Google):

Paul attorney David Warrington said the situation is a
private arbitration that was arranged by the nonprofit
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers,
which was organized under California law.

Private arbitration, assuming the characterization accurate, is
consistent with principle and certainly better than running to the
inefficient state courts.

There's another wrinkle.

He said WIPO was needed to settle the dispute because the
domain-name owners used a foreign registrar to get the
domain name.

They "subjected themselves to this proceeding in this
forum when they registered RonPaul.com with an Australian
registrar," Warrington said.

[1]: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/11/ron-paul-files-suit-for-domain-name-leaving-supporters-bummed-but-fighting/

Less than ideal. What would you do if you were in his shoes?

Greg
--
There is no greater advocate of the totalitarian state than the
typical journalist . . .
-- Dr. William Anderson

[Greg Bacon]

'RonPaul'.com[1]
Posted by Lew Rockwell on February 13, 2013 08:31 AM

There is so much disinformation[2] on this issue that I will
probably have to post more than once, but here are a few points:

* 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[3] 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.

* This fight is not about so-called intellectual property, since it
involves private agreements. But if it were, must one agree with
Murray Rothbard--who discussed[4] IP more than 50 years ago--to
be a libertarian? I agree with Murray, but IP is hardly a make or
break issue. Certainly Murray did not see it as such. In the same
sense, one need not be an anarcho-capitalist to be a libertarian,
though, like Murray, I am one. One can be a constitutionalist
or otherwise believe in limited government. Oh, and need I note
that Murray loved and admired Ron?

* Is Ron "attacking his own supporters" by his action? Apparently,
the RP.com people have never given a dime to any of his campaigns
nor educational efforts. Instead, they are attacking Ron. Some
supporters. But it will not work. And it will soon be over,
freeing Ron from this distraction as he steps up his fight for
freedom. Really steps it up, in historic ways.

[1]: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/132275.html
[2]: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-ian-dodge/ron-paul-turns-on-grassro_b_2653343.html
[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANN
[4]: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0945466307

--
Isn't it curious how "page" has become a colloquial term for the word
"document" in hypertext, in a medium that does not have pages anymore?
Do we reuse words as soon as they are freed up by technology? Do we reuse
those of whose destruction we can't bear to be reminded? -- Jutta Degener

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, Greg Bacon <gba...@hiwaay.net> said:
>Less than ideal. What would you do if you were in his shoes?

Not tried to grab a domain someone else registered and has been using
(to support you) for several years? Tried to negotiate with the current
holders to come to an agreement that works for both parties, and if that
failed, then too bad - isn't that the way the free market is supposed to
work?

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, Greg Bacon <gba...@hiwaay.net> said:

>* Ron is not using the State to acquire RonPaul.com.

ICANN is operating under US government contract, under rules approved by
the US government.

>He is seeking to have ICANN[3] enforce its own rules against
>cybersquatting, including the rule against registering a famous
>person's name and making money off it.

Are they making money off of his name?

>* 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.

That's a technicality. Calling a UN agency because it is your only
choice (to try to take away something somebody else registered) is still
calling a UN agency. In the US, the courts have held they do have
jurisdiction; in this case, the domain holders are in the US as well, so
it doesn't matter where the registrar is located. Do you think if I
bought something made in the US from amazon.co.uk and then wanted to sue
the manufacturer, we'd both have to go to the UK?

Calling this "cybersquatting" is a stretch; according to US law, that
means (according to Wikipedia) there is "bad faith intent to profit from
the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else". First, if he is
claiming a trademark, he has not protected it (the site has been running
since 2008), so it should be lost. Second, I don't see a bad faith
intent to profit. They are also not posting derogatory content.

>* 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.

He used his common law trademark last year to have a unflattering video
(most likely untrue, but I didn't see it) removed from YouTube. Why
wait for this?

Also, if he's a private citizen, why should he have special protection
for his name?

>* Is Ron "attacking his own supporters" by his action? Apparently,
>the RP.com people have never given a dime to any of his campaigns
>nor educational efforts.

How does anybody know? AFAIK they have not released their membership
list (apparently 250,000 from news reports); how do you know that every
single member of the site has not given any money to his campaigns?

>Instead, they are attacking Ron.

Um, no; since he threw the first punch (going to ICANN to take away the
domain without responding to their offer or negotiating with them), they
are not the attackers.

[T.J. Higgins]

In article <KqidnfXdcvT1XIDM...@posted.hiwaay2>, Chris Adams wrote:
>Also, if he's a private citizen, why should he have special protection
>for his name?

Even though he no longer holds public office, he is still a
celebrity, and is entitled to the same ICANN/cybersquatting
protections as any other celebrity.

--
TJH
tjhiggin.at.hiwaay.dot.net

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, T.J. Higgins <ernest.p...@vernal.equinox.edu> said:
>In article <KqidnfXdcvT1XIDM...@posted.hiwaay2>, Chris Adams wrote:
>>Also, if he's a private citizen, why should he have special protection
>>for his name?
>
>Even though he no longer holds public office, he is still a
>celebrity, and is entitled to the same ICANN/cybersquatting
>protections as any other celebrity.

Which again covers "bad faith intent to profit" from his name, which
does not appear to be the case.

It just comes off looking like he wants the domain and doesn't want to
pay fair-market value for it, so he's trying to grab it.

[Greg Bacon]

Chris Adams wrote

: Once upon a time, [Lew Rockwell] said:
: >* Ron is not using the State to acquire RonPaul.com.
:
: ICANN is operating under US government contract, under rules approved by
: the US government.

After applying the principle of charity, one observes that Paul took
the dispute to the most private arbitrator available. No, it's not
clean. The real world is messy.

Even in a free society, people will enter into contracts and have
disputes over their meanings and the performance of other parties.
Yes, it's easiest and cheapest when everyone plays by the rules
everyone agreed to up front, but third-party arbitators will always
be necessary.

By charging hypocrisy, you seem to insist that Paul must (1)
work out a deal directly with the people who registered his name,
(2) give up because politicians have wormed into everything else,
or (3) denounce libertarianism.

: >He is seeking to have ICANN[3] enforce its own rules against

: >cybersquatting, including the rule against registering a famous
: >person's name and making money off it.
:
: Are they making money off of his name?

According to Domain Name Wire[1], the current registrants have
offered to sell the domain for $800k and $250k. They posted one
of the offers[2], but later deemed it necessary to remove that
particular resource.

They have a store[3] on the ronpaul.com domain.

Yes, they are most certainly making money off his name and
attempting to make more with the domain. The $250k offer includes
the site's mailing list, doubtless to cloud the issue about using
the domain to make money. Ron Paul has a massive list of
contributors from a couple of campaigns. Their piddly list is not
worth a quarter-million or more to him.

[1]: http://domainnamewire.com/2013/02/13/some-funny-things-about-that-ronpaul-com-domain-dispute/
[2]: http://www.ronpaul.com/2013-02-08/ron-paul-vs-ronpaul-com/
[3]: http://www.ronpaul.com/ron-paul-store/

: >* 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.
:
: That's a technicality. Calling a UN agency because it is your only
: choice (to try to take away something somebody else registered) is still
: calling a UN agency. In the US, the courts have held they do have
: jurisdiction; in this case, the domain holders are in the US as well, so
: it doesn't matter where the registrar is located. Do you think if I
: bought something made in the US from amazon.co.uk and then wanted to sue
: the manufacturer, we'd both have to go to the UK?

I assume the attorneys involved understand the necessary procedures
and venues better than we two random Usenet guys.

Paul is following ICANN's dispute policy. It's unfortunate that it
involves a UN organization. I'm sure Paul would prefer not to deal
with them, but given the usurpation of what ought to be a private
function, expecting said organization to live up to their claims
is reasonable.

The same goes for the tired statist line "WHAT ABOUT THE ROADS!"
It would be better for the market to meet these needs, but if
the state insists on granting monopolies and expropriating funds
for their benefit, then their minions had better pick up the
trash, deliver mail reliably, and pave potholes.

I know you to be a reasonable person. There must be a reasonable
and consistent middle ground between paying the ransom demanded
and giving up.

: Calling this "cybersquatting" is a stretch; according to US law, that

: means (according to Wikipedia) there is "bad faith intent to profit from
: the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else". First, if he is
: claiming a trademark, he has not protected it (the site has been running
: since 2008), so it should be lost. Second, I don't see a bad faith
: intent to profit. They are also not posting derogatory content.

There is a reason they registered the name of someone famous (and,
coincidentally, I suppose) well off rather than one of their own
names.

: [...]
: >* Is Ron "attacking his own supporters" by his action? Apparently,

: >the RP.com people have never given a dime to any of his campaigns
: >nor educational efforts.
:
: How does anybody know? AFAIK they have not released their membership
: list (apparently 250,000 from news reports); how do you know that every
: single member of the site has not given any money to his campaigns?

I assume the "supporters" in question here are the current
registrants.

: >Instead, they are attacking Ron.

:
: Um, no; since he threw the first punch (going to ICANN to take away the
: domain without responding to their offer or negotiating with them), they
: are not the attackers.

As I read it, attacking here refers to the personal attacks that
were on the website and have apparently been taken down.

Greg
--
Why is it, that the first thing a politician does when under any kind
of political pressure, is to do something which is economically
moronic, bereft of good sense, stupid, and out and out damfool?
-- The Angry Economist

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, Greg Bacon <gba...@hiwaay.net> said:

>: >He is seeking to have ICANN[3] enforce its own rules against
>: >cybersquatting, including the rule against registering a famous
>: >person's name and making money off it.
>:
>: Are they making money off of his name?

As far as I can find, ICANN doesn't have a rule against making money; it
is specifically a "bad faith" (involving fraud or deception) intent to
profit from someone else's name (at least, that's US law according to
Wikipedia). I don't see that they registered and used
ronpaul.org/ronpaul.com with such intent.

>According to Domain Name Wire[1], the current registrants have
>offered to sell the domain for $800k and $250k. They posted one
>of the offers[2], but later deemed it necessary to remove that
>particular resource.

I read several articles, making it appear like there were actually two
domains, the .org and the .com, and the offers were different between
them. A couple of articles said they offered .org for free, but wanted
money for the .com (since they had built up a site and membership).
They were unclear if the two offers were/are tied together though (I
didn't look at the ronpaul.com site for anything about that, since I
assumed they'd be biased). It appears that Ron Paul filed a dispute
over the .com domain.

>They have a store[3] on the ronpaul.com domain.
>
>Yes, they are most certainly making money off his name and
>attempting to make more with the domain.

Can you show where they "are most certainly making money"? Having a
store on a website doesn't magically mean they are making a profit on
the whole enterprise. I looked around a little and didn't see anything
that said it was a registered non-profit, so they certainly _could_ be
making money. However, running a high-traffic website is also certainly
not cheap (and I don't believe there's any corporate backing), so it is
equally possible that the store simply helps them defray costs (and may
or may not cover them completely). Many organizations that have no
profit (and no intent to make a profit) don't register as a non-profit,
due to the extra legal work involved.

The money they are asking for could also be to cover remaining costs,
and/or they may feel it is to cover hours of effort they have put into
the site in the 5 or so years they've been running it. Who are we to
decide if they are asking too much?

If Ron Paul is claiming a common law trademark on his name (as at least
one article I read said), why has he not filed a cease-and-desist on
them selling products with his name? If he hasn't done that, I don't
see that he has a claim to a trademark (trademark law doesn't allow you
to pick and choose your targets).

If that is the case, then the most he should be able to claim is "I'm
famous". As a libertarian, why do you feel famous people should have
special claim to their names? I haven't seen any claim that they are
attempting to defame him, use his name fraudulently, or misquote him
(with the possible exception of things related to this dispute that you
said they posted).

>Paul is following ICANN's dispute policy. It's unfortunate that it
>involves a UN organization. I'm sure Paul would prefer not to deal
>with them, but given the usurpation of what ought to be a private
>function, expecting said organization to live up to their claims
>is reasonable.

He could use the US courts if he chose, as there are applicable US laws
(and the US courts have even overridden ICANN dispute resolutions in the
past, again according to Wikipedia). Since both Ron Paul, the
registrants, and the site are all in the US, the courts certainly have
jurisdiction.

>I know you to be a reasonable person. There must be a reasonable
>and consistent middle ground between paying the ransom demanded
>and giving up.

Well, to me, the basic thing is domains have always been "first come,
first served", with very few exceptions for things like cybersquatting
(which again requires a bad faith intent to profit). Trademark law
offers some additional protections; for example, HiWAAY has registered
trademarks (so if somebody registered a domain that was a derivative of
HiWAAY and referenced us we could probably take action), but that's it.
If somebody else registers a domain (and continues paying their fees),
the domain is theirs. If they don't want to transfer it to you, then
you have to move on and pick another name.

There are "gotchas" there (for example, there were some unscrupulous
registrar lookup sites registering anything you looked up and trying to
sell the domain to you at an inflated price), but I personally don't see
anything in this case that merits a take-away of the domain(s) from the
current restritrants. Either the parties come to an agreement to
transfer the domain(s), or they don't; that's the free market at work.

Arguably, if the potential profit from the store is at issue, they could
take down the site and "park" the domain. With no possibly intent to
profit, they could hold on to the domain indefinately (essentially
keeping anyone else from using it either).

>There is a reason they registered the name of someone famous (and,
>coincidentally, I suppose) well off rather than one of their own
>names.

Yes; they were supporting him in his runs for President and trying to
get his ideas out to a wider audience. Can you show me where that is
illegal or a violation of ICANN's policies?

>As I read it, attacking here refers to the personal attacks that
>were on the website and have apparently been taken down.

Okay, I was not aware of that (I didn't see anything when I took a
cursory look at the site, and the several news articles I read didn't
mention them, but they may have omitted that to slant the story). I
still think that filing a dispute is an attack from Ron Paul as well.

Also, saying that they haven't donated a dime to his campaigns (and
implying that they are not really his supporters because of that)
doesn't really matter to me. Not all support is monetary; they have a
site that has been helping inform visitors about Ron Paul. I'm sure
that was done with the hope of bringing more people to his point of
view.

[Greg Bacon]

Chris Adams wrote

: As far as I can find, ICANN doesn't have a rule against making money; it

: is specifically a "bad faith" (involving fraud or deception) intent to
: profit from someone else's name (at least, that's US law according to
: Wikipedia). I don't see that they registered and used
: ronpaul.org/ronpaul.com with such intent.

According to an article[1] on FindLaw, "most celebrities arbitrating
against parties using such celebrity's name in a domain name are
victorious." The article reports a push for explicitly codifying the
name issue, and that this particular prevailing wind is precedent.

[1]: http://technology.findlaw.com/networking-and-storage/returning-a-name-to-its-rightful-owner.html

: [...]
:
: Once upon a time, Greg Bacon <gba...@hiwaay.net> said:
: >They have a store[3] on the ronpaul.com domain.

: >
: >Yes, they are most certainly making money off his name and
: >attempting to make more with the domain.
:
: Can you show where they "are most certainly making money"? Having a
: store on a website doesn't magically mean they are making a profit on

: the whole enterprise. [...]

Fair points. In my unlearned reading of the UDRP[2], Paul's
strongest claim seems to be 4.b.iv, one form of bad-faith use.

(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally
attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users
to your web site or other on-line location, by creating
a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as
to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement
of your web site or location or of a product or service
on your web site or location.

Is "commercial gain" profit? In what sense? As you note, a critical
point is whether and how the administrator construes a famous
person's name to be a mark, but if the aforementioned FindLaw
resource is accurate, the precedent is for broad interpretation.

[2]: http://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/policy

: If that is the case, then the most he should be able to claim is "I'm

: famous". As a libertarian, why do you feel famous people should have
: special claim to their names? I haven't seen any claim that they are
: attempting to defame him, use his name fraudulently, or misquote him
: (with the possible exception of things related to this dispute that you
: said they posted).

That's an interesting question. Murray Rothbard, a friend and
influence to whom Ron Paul referred in floor speeches and committee
hearings, rejected[3] treatment of libel and slander as criminal
acts.

Yet, again, on closer analysis this is a fallacious
view. For everyone, as we have stated, owns his own
body; he has a property right in his own head and
person. But since every man owns his own mind, he
cannot therefore own the minds of anyone else. And yet
Jones’s "reputation" is neither a physical entity
nor is it something contained within or on his own
person. Jones’s "reputation" is purely a function
of the subjective attitudes and beliefs about him
contained in the minds of other people. But since
these are beliefs in the minds of others, Jones can
in no way legitimately own or control them. Jones can
have no property right in the beliefs and minds of
other people.

[3]: http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/sixteen.asp

By similar reasoning, famous people do not and cannot own their
names. As you noted earlier in the thread, names are not even
unique. However, should you and I agree up front to a set of
rules that forbid registration of someone else's name, then I
would violate that contract by registering chrisadams.com or
chrisramblinwreckadamsbuzzbuzz.com.

The latter is the angle Paul is following--at least according to
Lew Rockwell, his former chief of staff.

: >Paul is following ICANN's dispute policy. It's unfortunate that it

: >involves a UN organization. I'm sure Paul would prefer not to deal
: >with them, but given the usurpation of what ought to be a private
: >function, expecting said organization to live up to their claims
: >is reasonable.
:
: He could use the US courts if he chose, as there are applicable US laws
: (and the US courts have even overridden ICANN dispute resolutions in the
: past, again according to Wikipedia). Since both Ron Paul, the
: registrants, and the site are all in the US, the courts certainly have
: jurisdiction.

It's unclear whether Ron Paul is a Rothbard-style
anarcho-capitalist or trends more minarchist. If the former,
siccing state courts on the existing registrants would be a clear
break with principle. Even for a minarchist, private arbitrators
are preferable to state courts.

No, ICANN and WIPO aren't exactly private, but they are at least a
step removed from the state.

: >I know you to be a reasonable person. There must be a reasonable

: >and consistent middle ground between paying the ransom demanded
: >and giving up.
:
: Well, to me, the basic thing is domains have always been "first come,
: first served", with very few exceptions for things like cybersquatting
: (which again requires a bad faith intent to profit). Trademark law
: offers some additional protections; for example, HiWAAY has registered
: trademarks (so if somebody registered a domain that was a derivative of
: HiWAAY and referenced us we could probably take action), but that's it.
: If somebody else registers a domain (and continues paying their fees),
: the domain is theirs. If they don't want to transfer it to you, then
: you have to move on and pick another name.

"First come, first served" or the doctrine of prior appropriation
are important to homesteading and libertarian theory of property
rights, in particular Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism. To the degree
that it is relevant to Ron Paul's principles, Rothbard rejected
intellectual property. But a domain registration isn't any sort of
property: it's a license or a service agreement, and such
arrangements come with the provider's rules attached.

That's abstract theory. I don't claim to be any sort of expert on
the ICANN UDRP.

: There are "gotchas" there (for example, there were some unscrupulous

: registrar lookup sites registering anything you looked up and trying to
: sell the domain to you at an inflated price), but I personally don't see
: anything in this case that merits a take-away of the domain(s) from the
: current restritrants. Either the parties come to an agreement to
: transfer the domain(s), or they don't; that's the free market at work.

People have disputes even in free markets. The parties agree, write
it off, or take their dispute to a third-party arbitrator.

: Arguably, if the potential profit from the store is at issue, they could

: take down the site and "park" the domain. With no possibly intent to
: profit, they could hold on to the domain indefinately (essentially
: keeping anyone else from using it either).

That would seem to run afoul of another UDRP bad-faith use, namely
of disrupting someone else's business. I'm not an expert. The issue
will be interesting, but from what I have seen, Paul is neither
violating principle nor engaging in hypocrisy.

: [...] Not all support is monetary; they have a site that has been

: helping inform visitors about Ron Paul. I'm sure that was done
: with the hope of bringing more people to his point of view.

Perhaps, but now he has retired from congress and won't be making
runs for office. This appears to be an attempt to turn the domain
transfer into one final big payday and reeks of shysterism.

Greg
--
For diagrams comprehensiveness is the enemy of comprehensibility.
-- Martin Fowler, "Is Design Dead?"