This is version 2.1 because it is not a completely new version, but only a clarification of one aspect of my previous post.
I ended my last post on this topic as follows:
I am certain there are many details of the regulatory procedures that I have not captured….I am open to further understanding on this issue.
In reviewing my previous article and some of the links, I found a glaring instance of just such a miss. It was right under my nose, in an LRC blog post….
ICANN has four approved arbitration organizations.
In that light, I offer the following from ICANN:
Complaints under the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy may be submitted to any approved dispute-resolution service provider listed below. Each provider follows the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy as well as its own supplemental rules.
There are four listed dispute-resolution service providers, one of which is WIPO – the provider housed within the UN. This is counter to what I had previously written:
ICANN has chosen WIPO to adjudicate such disputes.
There is something else from the above-mentioned LRC post:
Because the RP.com guys registered Ron's name in Australia, the international arbitration option must be used.
In my quick review of the four providers, one seems to be US-based, one in Europe, and one in Asia. The fourth is WIPO.
Still, this leaves some room for conflict with the language at the ICANN site, which states that claims may be submitted to any provider on the list. Is it possible that the language at the ICANN site is a general statement, with many devils in the many details? After all, lawyers and regulators rarely write so clearly and succinctly. Is it possible that it is ICANN and not the claimant that selects the provider, based on factors of the specific claim? As indicated at LRC, could geography determine? The statement could be read this way:
Complaints under the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy may be submitted [by ICANN] to any approved dispute-resolution service provider listed below.
Or this way:
Complaints under the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy may be submitted [by Claimant] to any approved dispute-resolution service provider listed below.
I have no idea, but this could explain and therefore eliminate the seeming conflict. It would take someone familiar with such proceedings to clarify this language. That isn’t me.
As I have mentioned before and will do so again: I have no opinion one way or another about which party will prevail in this issue, nor does it make any difference to me. I know little about the details of the dispute, and virtually nothing about the law. I have no desire to get in Ron Paul’s head and figure out why he did this. My intent has been to answer and remains in answering the following:
1) What is the process?
2) Is there some violation of libertarian principle / NAP in Ron Paul’s action?
I am working on a follow-up post. In this upcoming post, I will summarize some of the discussion that my earlier post generated, including further developing some of my replies. I will also address some statements made in a Huffington Post article on this subject. Finally, I will further develop my views regarding UN involvement in this matter.