This is a revised and extended version of my earlier post in
this subject. I now have a better (call
it an “educated layman’s”) understanding of the required procedures to resolve
such disputes and have incorporate these into this post.
I don’t believe this subject needs introduction, however
this is posted at the site in question, ronpaul.com:
Earlier today, Ron Paul filed an
international UDRP complaint against RonPaul.com and RonPaul.org with WIPO, a
global governing body that is an agency of the United
Nations. The complaint calls on the agency to expropriate the two domain
names from his supporters without compensation
and hand them over to Ron Paul.
My immediate reaction to this was…unsettled: United Nations,
expropriate the property of the current owners, without compensation….
Ron Paul has earned enough goodwill with me to last nine
lifetimes – unless he joins the Fed Board of Governors or the Board of
Directors of one of the merchants of death, I am not sure he can spend even a
few drops of the goodwill I have toward him.
I do not worship him as perfect; I just respect the significance of what
he has accomplished over his lifetime.
But even with this, the action by Dr. Paul initially didn’t
sit well.
I do not have specialized knowledge about the procedures and
processes involved in this process. So
it would seem helpful to first understand a few basics:
What us a UDRP Complaint?
The UDRP (Uniform Domain Name
Dispute Resolution Policy) is the original domain name
dispute policy. It was adopted by ICANN (the Internet Corporation
for Assigned Names and Numbers) on August 26, 1999. The UDRP applies to domain
names ending in the following extensions: .biz, .cat, .cc, .com, .info, .mobi,
.net, .org, .ro, .tel, .travel, .tv, .web, .ws
What is the purpose of the
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy?
This Uniform Domain Name Dispute
Resolution Policy (the "Policy") has been adopted by the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN"), is incorporated by reference into your
Registration Agreement, and sets forth the terms and conditions
in connection with a dispute between you and any party other than us (the
registrar) over the registration and use of an Internet domain name registered
by you.
It is the registrant (current
registrant of ronpaul.com) that has agreed to this process. The claimant (Ron Paul) is following the process that the registrant accepted
at the time of registration.
What representations are made
by the registration applicant?
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.
The Policy goes on to outline the circumstances under which
a change or transfer to a domain name will be effected and the requirement of
submission to a Mandatory Administrative Proceeding. Even though submitting to an administrative proceeding
is mandatory, this does not preclude the possibility of additionally submitting
to court proceedings.
The mandatory administrative
proceeding requirements set forth in Paragraph 4 shall not prevent either you
or the complainant from submitting the dispute to a court of competent
jurisdiction for independent resolution before such mandatory administrative
proceeding is commenced or after such proceeding is concluded.
From Wikipedia:
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. Published on 30 April 1999, the
WIPO Report[4] recommended the establishment
of a "mandatory administrative procedure concerning abusive
registrations", which would allow for a "neutral
venue in the context of disputes that are often international in nature."
The procedure was not intended to deal with cases with competing rights, nor
would it exclude the jurisdiction of the courts. It would, however, be mandatory in the sense that "each domain
name application would, in the domain name agreement, be required to submit to
the procedure if a claim was initiated against it by a third party[5]
Following adoption by ICANN, the
UDRP was launched on 1 December 1999, and the
first case determined under it by WIPO was World Wrestling
Federation Entertainment, Inc v. Michael Bosman, involving the domain name
worldwrestlingfederation.com[6]
It was ICANN that introduced
the UN into the process, or more accurately an arbitration
service (WIPO) housed within the UN.
So, what is ICANN?
ICANN: Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
To reach another person on the
Internet you have to type an address into your computer -- a name or a number.
That address must be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN coordinates these unique identifiers
across the world.
From Wikipedia:
The Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN, /ˈaɪkæn/ EYE-kan) is a nonprofit private organization
headquartered in Los Angeles, California, United States, that was created on
September 18, 1998, and incorporated on September 30, 1998[1] 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.
Before the establishment of ICANN,
the Government of the United States controlled the domain name system of the
Internet.
ICANN is a private
organization.
And what of WIPO, the UN
agency introduced by ICANN?
Our mission is to promote
innovation and creativity for the economic, social and cultural development of
all countries, through a balanced and effective international intellectual
property system.
The World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO) is the United Nations agency dedicated to the use of
intellectual property (patents, copyright, trademarks, designs, etc.) as a
means of stimulating innovation and creativity.
Specifically regarding domain name disputes:
Domain Name Dispute Resolution:
This area is dedicated to the services established by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
for the resolution of domain name disputes.
From the above, I conclude the following:
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)
In addition to (but not in place of) the
mandatory administrative proceeding, court proceedings are possible.
So now, back to Ron Paul.
This Complaint is hereby submitted
for decision in accordance with the Uniform Domain Name Dispute
Resolution Policy (the Policy), approved by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (ICANN) on October 24, 1999, the Rules for Uniform
Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Rules), approved by ICANN on October
30, 2009, and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Supplemental Rules).
This really got me to thinking….
If I felt wronged in some manner, I would first attempt to
work out a resolution with the other party.
As long as this was proceeding in a timely manner, with the other party
negotiating in good faith, I would continue in this course. Ultimately, if I felt appropriate resolution through
this approach was not likely, I would pursue recourse in the appropriate venue. This might be arbitration, or it might be a
court – oftentimes contractual and licensing agreements stipulate the avenue of
dispute resolution procedure.
What is the dispute here?
In a gross oversimplification, Ron Paul claims his name and that the
current registrant is not meeting the terms of the registration agreement. This claim therefore extends to specific
domain names that incorporate his name.
I do not intend to get into the particulars or details of this
claim. I don’t know enough either about
the facts or the law to do this in any case.
This will be decided in the manner that was agreed
to at the time the domain name was registered by people
competent to decide such matters.
In the case of domain name disputes, the procedures for
resolution are spelled out in detail – procedures to which the
registrant must agree to at the time of domain name
registration. These procedures are
developed by a private organization, ICANN; ICANN has chosen WIPO, a UN agency,
to arbitrate and mediate such disputes. The
requirement to follow these procedures for dispute resolution is mandatory once
one chooses to register a domain name.
Ron Paul did not choose the
UN. The current registrant agreed to
these procedures at the time of registration.
But it is coercion!
It is force! Certainly a court decision or arbitration requires the
losing party to act in a manner not of his choosing – the party on the losing
end is required to act in a certain manner.
However, such force (in a very loose application of the term) is not in
violation of the non-aggression principle – technically, the objective of the
adjudication is to correct a previous violation. In other words, force is applied in defense –
a perfectly legitimate application of force.
It is the result of a decision by a competent adjudicator.
Even the most libertarian of societies must develop some
form of dispute resolution. That in
today’s world the procedures of dispute resolution often involve government or
government-sanctioned entities is irrelevant – non-violent dispute resolution
is a legitimate function in any society.
If government entities (or the UN) are the only (or the prescribed) avenues
through which one can gain relief in a dispute, it is appropriate that these
avenues are utilized.
In this type of situation, there isn’t even a government
entity involved; only an entity housed within the UN, brought in at the request
of a private organization to adjudicate the dispute. That WIPO is housed within
the UN is secondary to its legitimate purpose of dispute resolution.
None of this precludes an advocate of the NAP from utilizing
the process, an inherently legitimate function of non-violent dispute
resolution, made no less legitimate by its tangential UN connection.
I now return to the description of this action, from the
subject site (ronpaul.com):
Earlier today, Ron Paul filed an international UDRP complaint
against RonPaul.com and RonPaul.org with WIPO, a
global governing body that is an agency of the United Nations.
The complaint calls on the agency to expropriate
the two domain names from his supporters without compensation
and hand them over to Ron Paul.
There is a self-serving intent behind the language of this
opening paragraph: international, a global governing body, agency of the United
Nations, expropriate, without compensation, hand them over. Taken in a vacuum and independently, there is
a varying level of truth to each of these terms.
It is, however, language meant to incite a negative
emotional reaction. The reality of this
situation is that this is the means, the mandatory means, by which such
disputes will be resolved. The registrant knew this process and agreed to
this at the time the site names were registered. Emotionally charged words like “United
Nations” and “expropriate” are irrelevant in this situation. There is no alternative, and the facts relevant
to compliance with the terms in the registration agreement will determine the
outcome – this is not expropriation, it is justice.
To offer that Ron Paul is attempting to use the UN to
achieve his ends, besides clouding the reality of the situation, is irrelevant. To the extent that 1) he is acting in good
faith to attempt to recover something that he believes rightly belongs to him,
and 2) that the only available means to achieve this end (after good-faith
attempts with the other party have failed) is to use the process as defined in
the registration documents, Ron Paul is following the
process as agreed to by the registrant.
In this case, ICANN (a private organization) is the entity
that both assigns domain names and has developed the procedures for dispute
resolution. ICANN has chosen WIPO to
adjudicate such disputes. That WIPO happens
to be housed within the UN is irrelevant; where else can Ron Paul go? It isn’t by Ron Paul’s doing that the
jurisdiction and procedures are established in this manner. In fact, the
registrants agreed to these procedures at the time of registration.
So here is where I am at the moment:
1)
It seems clear that Ron Paul believes he is
attempting to recover something that rightly belongs to him.
2)
I can only assume that good-faith attempts were
made to negotiate and resolve this dispute.
I have read some of what has become public on this. It is not enough to determine (nor, in any
case, is anyone not directly privy to all of the details of the discussions
able to determine) the extent of efforts made to resolve this privately.
3)
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.
4)
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.
5)
Have I mentioned it
enough? The registrant agreed to these
procedures in case of domain name dispute.
Being libertarian or a proponent of the non-aggression
principle does not mean that two such parties will never have disputes. Disputes will occur. The possibility of resolution of disputes via a
third party would certainly exist in a libertarian community. Therefore taking such an action is appropriate
for one who feels wronged. This is how I
see this issue and Ron Paul’s actions.
More importantly, the registrant of ronpaul.com
agreed to these procedures at the time of the registration of
the domain name. To complain now that
Ron Paul is using these procedures seem disingenuous.
I am certain there are many details of the regulatory
procedures that I have not captured for instance, see here). Even with this, I don’t believe these details
will lead me to a different conclusion. I
am open to further understanding on this issue.
However, from what I currently
understand and what is currently public, it seems to me that there is nothing
inappropriate in Ron Paul’s action.
Thanks for the more detailed post and thanks for suffering my typos in the last comment. As I felt all along and as Lew thinks( and it sounds like you do too), this is not really about IP, at least at the center. My line of thinking falls mainly with LR, in that Paul must use whatever organization is in control....that's reality. Whatever position someone may take on IP two things are apparent: 1. IP is not at the center of this issue, 2. IP is not a break point issue for An-Caps( or other libertarians).
ReplyDeleteMy original thinking is and( even prior to finding out what Rockwell thinks) I still hold to is this: RP has not broken principle, this issues does not involve IP centrally and I never understood why some thought it did, and RP has no other course of action to take except to use ICANN.
Once again, thanks for your obviously well thought out and gentlemanly post on an issue that has seemly gotten lots of others in an uproar.
STS, our views are similar on this issue.
DeleteThank you for your comments, as always.
"This will be decided in the manner that was agreed to at the time the domain name was registered by people competent to decide such matters.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of domain name disputes, the procedures for resolution are spelled out in detail – procedures to which the registrant must agree to at the time of domain name registration."
To me, this realization and understanding has settled my uneasiness about it.
Many (including myself) have raised the idea that the current owners have 'homesteaded' the domain name. Upon further reflection, although it is enticing to see the owners' work/labor as a parallel to homesteading, in fact it is quite different. Even in the VERY beginning, the domain name was not 'unowned' exactly, even though no one had originally claimed it. In fact it was waiting for someone to 'register' it with the governing entity at the time. In a way, just as "all land is owned", then so too was this domain name 'owned' (by the governing body) though no one had yet registered it. The governing body had the authority to approve a registration for the name subject to the governing rules.
If there was homesteading going on, it was with the owners of the current RP.com mixing their labor with their web servers and applying their work and creativity to THAT! Dr. Paul would be wrong to claim their servers or their web designs, or their business model. To be frank, I'm not even sure that the metaphor(?) of homesteading applies even to this. But it would be wrong for Dr. Paul to attempt to appropriate these things none the less.
Instead, Dr. Paul is going through a dispute resolution process by a governing body and using a set of rules and procedures that were fully disclosed to everyone involved from the beginning. Private contract.
While I am not ready to give up totally on the idea of Natural Rights, a position that EPJ's RW has advanced, *this* process is clearly governed by a set of designed rights fully disclosed in advance. This is a completely separate domain from that of natural rights. This matter is governed by designed un-natural rights fully disclosed.
"Instead, Dr. Paul is going through a dispute resolution process by a governing body and using a set of rules and procedures that were fully disclosed to everyone involved from the beginning. Private contract."
DeleteThe fact that a UN agency is involved as an arbitrator (as well as the other steps in such a dispute resolution) is driven by rules the *registrant* agreed to, not Ron Paul. Ron Paul is forced to play by these rules if he believes he has a basis for dispute. Yet the registrant (and the countless internet-posting detractors) paints Ron Paul in the negative light - screaming that he is going to the UN of all places!
You said it well - private contract; with the dispute mechanism built in and agreed to as part of the contract. I have no idea if Ron Paul will win or not - but this is the process to resolve just this question.
http://www.stephankinsella.com/paf-podcast/kol016-ron-paul-vs-ronpaul-com-adam-vs-the-man-interview/
ReplyDeleteThank you for bringing this to my attention.
DeletePatent, copyright, trademark are not settled issues in the libertarian community. I may not own my name or my reputation, but with or without trademark, I might decide it is appropriate to defend my name and reputation in any non-violent manner I see fit – including taking my case to the village elders for their judgment.
Kinsella suggests these IP issues are in the top six nefarious actions of the state. I think there are many in the libertarian camp that might not place such a high emphasis on this. I have never given deep thought to this, however my own feeling is that, in a private community, an inventor or writer is free to attempt to protect his work through contract or any other non-coercive means he chooses. I find nothing inherently wrong with trying to protect the work.
As to the impact on Dr. Paul’s reputation for taking this action, it is a factor I assume he has weighed. It is also one for each individual to apply in his / her view of Dr. Paul. One way or another, Dr. Paul, like each of the rest of us, will have to deal with the consequences – good and bad – of his actions.
To the extent that there is any freedom in the world in 100 years (of which I expect more, not less), I am quite certain how history will remember Dr. Paul.
To the extent that there is any freedom in the world in 100 years (of which I expect more, not less), I am quite certain how history will remember Dr. Paul.
DeleteBut that's not the point, is it? Has ANYBODY claimed that this action negates all the good work Ron Paul has done? The point is: THIS ACTION IS WRONG. That is all.
"the registrants agreed to these procedures at the time of registration." - but is this something they necessarily have to agree to before they can obtain a website? Certainly that is coercion is it not. I am not against Ron Paul on this but I do not think the registrants agreeing to the procedures is such a big issue if without agreeing one cannot get a website.
ReplyDeleteThe reason I emphasized that it was the registrant who agreed to the procedure up front is because many are rushing to condemn Ron Paul for going to the UN (even in this, tangentially). Ron had no choice about the path once he decided to take action.
DeleteThat the registrant had to agree to these procedures seems to demonstrate that there wasn't a pure "homestead." For the registrant to have to agree to the procedures suggests that some higher authority was going to remain in control of certain aspects of the use of the domain name.
It seems more like a license, one where the registrant must agree to play by certain rules if he wants to stay in the game.
I say all of this without suggesting one side or the other has the better case. I do not know nor is it material to me. Individuals who are competent (or at least authorized) in such matters will determine the outcome.
I will add...
Delete"...but is this something they necessarily have to agree to before they can obtain a website? Certainly that is coercion is it not."
In a libertarian society (just as in today's society), the registrants would have no "right" to have a website. Therefore there is no coercion.
If the registrants want to make use of the entirety of internet infrastructure in support of their venture, the owners of that infrastructure have every right to place conditions on the use.
What's missing from the column is an acknowledgement that there is no other way to get a domain than to "voluntarily" agree to whatever rules, nonsense or not, are put forth. There is no negotiation process. Take it or leave it. One can, of course, refrain from participating in the domain process, and from a strictly legalistic point of view, the current owners have nothing to complain about, but I think it's legitimate, and correct, for them to point out that the current rules are pretty much B***S***. And to protest that what Ron Paul is trying to do is morally wrong.
ReplyDeletePaul had years and YEARS to take the domain name if he wanted it. Now, Johnny-come-lately, he decides to expropriate it. He's gone down several notches in my estimation.
JdL, please see my reply immediately above regarding the requirement for agreeing to these terms by the registrant.
DeleteAs to why Ron Paul waited until now to take this action, I do not know. I have read some reasons; I suspect these are all based on speculation. These range from versions of Ron milked these guys while he was a candidate and now doesn't need them anymore to Ron felt he couldn't take such an action while in office.
Given the nature of the man, as demonstrated over 40 years of public life, I tend to believe the actual reason leans toward the more innocent, as opposed to the more nefarious.
JdL, please see my reply immediately above regarding the requirement for agreeing to these terms by the registrant.
DeleteYes, that's why I acknowledged that from a legalistic standpoint this is all on the up-and-up.
Here's an admittedly extreme example of the point I'm trying to make: a pregnant woman shows up on the doorstep of Mr. Jerk, dying from fatigue and cold. It's miles to any other dwelling. He agrees to take her in and nurse her back to health, if she'll agree to let him cut off the right hand of her baby when it is born. After the birth, he shows up, cleaver in hand. Is she wrong to protest?
Given the nature of the man, as demonstrated over 40 years of public life, I tend to believe the actual reason leans toward the more innocent, as opposed to the more nefarious.
I don't really care what his reasons were. He failed to avail himself of the opportunity to secure that domain, and he should bear the consequences, not run whining to some trumped-up board.
If the registrants want to make use of the entirety of internet infrastructure in support of their venture, the owners of that infrastructure have every right to place conditions on the use.
How did these "owners" acquire this "ownership"? My knowledge is admittedly spotty, but if I'm not mistaken, many tax dollars have gone into the infrastructure of the internet. It seems entirely bogus to me to hand over "ownership" to some arbitrary panel of bozos who make ridiculous, arbitrary, and immoral rules.
“Here's an admittedly extreme example of the point I'm trying to make:”
DeleteThere is distress in the example you use. There is none in the example of the website domain registration. The registrants were not forced to begin a web site – they were under no distress to do this. No one threatened them with death if they didn’t open the website.
“He failed to avail himself of the opportunity to secure that domain, and he should bear the consequences…”
He will bear the consequences either way – either by leaving it alone even though he felt wronged somehow, or by taking the action he has taken.
“How did these "owners" acquire this "ownership"?”
Every property has an owner. The owner is in his right to control, use, and disposition of the property. Do I like that in this case the ownership is not clean, cut-and-dry private? No. But that doesn’t change the fact that the owner gets to make the rules regarding use of property. Who besides the owner should?
There are public universities throughout the US. Do I like that these are state-owned and controlled? No. But someone has to decide the rules of use, or am I missing something? Who should it be if not the owners of the university?
Now, I am not talking about state-activities that would not be proper in a libertarian society – again, drone piloting as that task is commonly understood.
But there are state-activities that, absent the state control, would be legitimate in a libertarian society. A university education would certainly be a possibility in a libertarian society, as would domain name registration and the corresponding dispute adjudication.
“It seems entirely bogus to me to hand over "ownership" to some arbitrary panel of bozos who make ridiculous, arbitrary, and immoral rules.”
Someone gets to decide the rules. And if you don’t like the rules, don’t play the game. Someone will arbitrate the rules. If you don’t like the arbitrators, don’t play the game. No one is under pressure or duress to register a domain name.
To claim that someone is “forced” to register a domain name is incorrect. To compare it to an example (even extreme) of a person making a terrible choice in a life-and-death situation is an invalid comparison.
I have made choices to not enter agreements with partners that I felt were unreliable. This is the choice the domain name registrants had if they didn't like the partner or the rules.
Domain name registrants are not forced to play the game.
You quote the word "forced" three times, as if I had used it. Did I?
DeleteYes, someone has to own whatever-it-is, and as owner makes the rules. Does it follow that it's illegitimate to challenge that ownership, and therefore the rules made by the so-called "owner"? Does it follow that it's illegitimate to protest the rules, even if ownership is not in dispute, if they are experienced as arbitrary and immoral?
You attempt to make a distinction between my ("admittedly extreme") example and this case using the word "distress". My comparison is therefore "invalid". Well, I never meant to imply that the situations were equivalent, only to imply that the same kinds of considerations apply.
The internet is practically the only game in town for communicating ideas these days. The owners of RonPaul.com would not literally die if he yanks it away from them, but it could be the metaphoric death of their ongoing work. Or perhaps just a diminution, but in any case a severe disruption. This is not to be lightly dismissed, in my opinion.
“You quote the word "forced" three times, as if I had used it. Did I?”
DeleteNo you did not. I apologize.
“Yes, someone has to own whatever-it-is, and as owner makes the rules. Does it follow that it's illegitimate to challenge that ownership, and therefore the rules made by the so-called "owner"? Does it follow that it's illegitimate to protest the rules, even if ownership is not in dispute, if they are experienced as arbitrary and immoral?”
No, it is quite appropriate to protest the rules. It is also quite appropriate to advocate change to the rules. But this is not what the controversy is about, nor is it the subject of my post.
“…but it could be the metaphoric death of their ongoing work….This is not to be lightly dismissed, in my opinion.”
I do not. Is there something I wrote that suggests otherwise?
Great post bi-skeet, really great.
ReplyDeletePeople are basically turning around what I like to call the "Libertarian Hypocrisy Fallacy" on RP. Walter Block talks about this with regards to the traveling on state roads, employment at state schools, and the exchange of state money. His response, echoing Murray and rightfully so is, "so what?!? That's the system, so until there's an alternative, what do you expect for any reasonable person to do?"
As many suspected, RP IS playing by the rules as he usually does, and getting heat for it, as he usually does.
"That's the system, so until there's an alternative, what do you expect for any reasonable person to do?"
DeleteI believe implied in this statement (and your post) is that it is acceptable to use such a system as long as the underlying purpose would be acceptable in a libertarian society.
A more libertarian society would certainly have roads and sidewalks; it likely wouldn’t have drone pilot operators (as used today). So it is acceptable as long as the underlying purpose is acceptable.
Non-violent dispute resolution should be acceptable in any society.
I believe that the insistence by your group of calling ICANN a private organization is about as disingenuous as it gets and puts your right along with MSNBC as far as reporting what's ACTUALLY GOING ON.
ReplyDeleteICANN is a government sponsored MONOPOLY no much different than the federal reserve. You quoted Wiki says "private this" and "private that" but you left out this Wiki quote: "The original mandate for ICANN came from the United States government, spanning the presidential administrations of both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush."
VERY CONVENIENT. Stop embarrassing yourselves and at least report ALL of the relevant details. I have had back and forth e-mails with Lew himself and he pulls this same "private" BS.
This is theft. The state suits you all just fine when it does your bidding. Ron should have said something a decade ago.
Derrick, there is no "group" here.
Delete"ICANN is a government sponsored MONOPOLY no much different than the federal reserve."
I suppose your insistence about this suggests that you do not use Federal Reserve Notes or the banking system, because the Fed is a government sponsored monopoly. Using currency and banking would be legitimate in a libertarian society, would it not?
This *fact* of yours, that of the “government sponsored monopoly,” is secondary to (or irrelevant when placed against) two questions: 1) would this function of domain name registration and dispute resolution be legitimate in a libertarian society? I suggest, yes. 2) Is the process Ron Paul is following for dispute resolution the established process? The answer, to my layman’s understanding, is yes.
“Stop embarrassing yourselves and at least report ALL of the relevant details.”
Only God is capable of this. I am not embarrassed by my shortcomings when the standard is God.
Faulty logic. My use of Federal Reserve notes do not infringe upon the property rights of other individuals. Ron Paul taking this domain name does infringe upon the rights of the homesteader of this domain.
DeleteThe function of a DNR could possibly be legitimate, that is another discussion entirely, but not if the contracts were created out of force. Obvious. To me and other real libertarians anyways.
Reporting all the details honestly isn't something that only god is capable of. You all know and have purposely (you aren't dumb enough for it to be an accident) avoided the obvious fact that ICANN is a government sponsored monopoly.
I have a hardware business. It is private. There are no other hardware businesses that can force anyone to use their hardware or that are in the very least in bed with the government every other night.
Still waiting for a libertarian defense of why someone who properly homesteaded a domain name should be forced to give it up to ANYONE.
Derrick, if you continue to post without having read what has been written, I too will ignore you.
DeleteIt isn't a pure homestead issue: if someone has authority to require the registrant to meet certain terms, if he doesn't meet those terms then there will be consequences.
The registrant doesn't own every aspect of the internet, upon which his site operates. One or more other entities are involved, and these relationships are governed in various manners. These entities have set conditions under which a registrant must operate. In the case of the domain name registrant, the relationship is governed as I have outlined here.
This is closer to a license. The registrant has conditions that must be met if he is to continue using the domain name.
Sorry, something got screwed up, my first response below was intended to be in this thread.
DeleteI will post exactly what I said to Lew in those e-mails...this is where he cut off communication after 3 back and forths...
ReplyDeleteI told him that if Ron Paul has a right to this domain name then you all, as a group, should be able to come up with a PRINCIPLED and LIBERTARIAN explanation as to why he has the rights to it.
All this ICANN BS and EVERYTHING ELSE is totally irrelevant. Please explain to me using libertarian philosophy and principles why Ron should be able to forcibly take this domain name.
I really want to hear it. As I told Lew, I'd rather be wrong than sit by and watch men that I have immense respect for behave like statists.
Lew was silent. Will you be silent too?
His name is Ron Paul. Although there are many with the name “Ron Paul” on earth, there is only one Ron Paul on earth where this name matters. He may not have a right to his reputation, but he certainly has a right to manage and defend the public perception of his reputation.
DeleteHe may have a right in contract - this is for the arbitration panel to decide. The contract was agreed to by the registrant. Contracts (written and unwritten) are one of the foundations of a libertarian society.
You are forced with guns to sign the contract or you are not allowed to have a domain. It doesn't make it alright to steal just because the gunvernment says it's alright. What if the gunvernment made me sign a contract, through the use of its guns, that said I'd do certain things if they allowed me to breathe their air? Is this legitimate in your mind as well? A contract has no teeth, in a libertarian society, if it is constructed under the circumstances of force.
DeleteAlso, I see that you are the arbiter of when something "matters."
Again, please explain on libertarian principle and philosophy why RP has a claim to this domain.
The owners of RonPaul.com also own ronpaul.net, ronpaul2008.com, ronpaul.info, etc. So why isn't Ron Paul attempting to seize those? Should the owners get to keep all of their RonPaul domains, some of them or none of them? Why is Ron Paul more entitles to a .COm than a .NET?
DeleteI own RonPaul.NAME
Ron Paul wants his name and I got his .NAME
I don't see why I should get to keep my ronpaul.NAME domain while the RonPaul.com folks have to lose theirs....same goes for all the other Ron Paul sites...ronpaulforums.com, dailypaul.com, ronpaulmarket.com, etc. Those sites also registered a famous person’s name and are making money off it.
Derrick
DeleteNo one has a *right* to having a web site. You want a domain name? The entity or entities that own(s) and operate(s) the systems upon which your site will reside and function can make the rules. If you don’t like the rules, don’t play the game. By what *right* do you claim to tell the owner of the good otherwise?
As to my being the arbiter of the only Ron Paul that matters, do a Google search. Tell me how far down the list you go before you find another. Of all of the links, tell me how many are for people other than this Ron Paul.
As to the libertarian principle, I have explained it. You don’t have to agree or accept it. But don’t keep asking.
Your argument comes down to Wenzel's argument...might makes right.
DeleteYou are essentially saying that Ron has no right to the website either. So, you will appeal to the guys with the guns and hope they treat you like a VIP.
You haven't answered the libertarian part. No one has. Wenzel has at least attempted too. Every answer you give frames it as "libertarian" but within the constructs of the state sponsored monopoly ICANN. You have yet to explain, without mentioning ICANN, why Ron Paul should be able to forcibly take a domain that was homesteaded, maintained, improved, and operated by someone else for many years.
Also, you have already been outed by this whole episode, but I am not the one telling others what they can do with their property. You are. ICANN did not obtain it's authority over the domain names in a legitimate manner. The domains are only ICANN's to do as they please with because there are a million government guns behind them telling everyone so.
As I said before. No one has answered the libertarian question. Every answer you give assumes ICANN has a legitimate claim to the domains as their "property" OR that they at least have legitimate authority to manage the DNS system. They do not.
Just as I use dollars because it makes my life better. I use the internet (I run an online hardware store) and "own" (at least I think I own, until someone like you comes along to take it from me.) many domains because it makes my life better. That doesn't mean that I have to agree that ICANN is legit or that the Fed is legit.
Again, you are assuming ICANN is the owner of all these domains. They are not. They "own" them because there are guns pointed at anyone that wants to seriously disagree.
DeleteAs far as the Ron Paul that matters. Again, faulty logic. The general opinion of the public or a particular search engine has nothing to do with someone's claim of ownership. Unless you have no principles or if you are in a statist, totalitarian society where the majority run roughshod over the minority. I'm sure you have principles, right?
If the Ron we know has a claim to it, then so does every other Ron Paul on the planet.
Derrick, I can see why Rockwell stopped replying to you. I will try one last time:
Delete“You are essentially saying that Ron has no right to the website either.”
I say no such thing.
“You haven't answered the libertarian part.”
Contracts and licenses are libertarian. Meeting obligations is libertarian. Non-violent adjudication of disputes is libertarian. Web-name registration contradicts no libertarian principle that I am aware of. The only issue is that the underlying entity comes with some taint of government. Yet all functions taken on by this entity would be acceptable in a libertarian society.
Rothbard and others have spoken quite well about this dilemma. Please familiarize yourself with his writings on this.
“Every answer you give frames it as "libertarian" but within the constructs of the state sponsored monopoly ICANN.”
Walking is also libertarian, yet every time I do it I find myself within the constructs of a state sponsored sidewalk.
What are you suggesting? That if the only place available to appeal for justice is in a government (or quasi-government) system, a libertarian is just out of luck? Please. Show me the established libertarian principles that lead you to this conclusion.
“ICANN did not obtain it's authority over the domain names in a legitimate manner.”
Even if this is true, it doesn’t change the fact that they have authority.
“Every answer you give assumes ICANN has a legitimate claim to the domains as their "property" OR that they at least have legitimate authority to manage the DNS system. They do not.”
I say nothing about the system as it is currently established is legitimate in a libertarian sense. What I say is that the function is legitimate. What I suggest is that owners of the property (in this case, the internet and the backbone and all aspects that make this system function) get to decide the rules for its use. That the “owners” come with a government taint is secondary. Would I rather see a more free-market system? Certainly. Would a free-market system be more legitimate? Yes.
The currency and banking system as it is currently established is not legitimate, yet the function served by these is legitimate. You fail to see the problem with your reasoning.
“That doesn't mean that I have to agree that ICANN is legit or that the Fed is legit.”
I have not asked you to.
“Again, you are assuming ICANN is the owner of all these domains. They are not.”
But they are. Or at least they have the authority to assign and adjudicate.
“They "own" them because there are guns pointed at anyone that wants to seriously disagree.”
I don’t disagree.
“If the Ron we know has a claim to it, then so does every other Ron Paul on the planet.”
Let them file a claim, if they are so inclined.
Derrick, you have said your peace, I have said mine. Unless you come to the table with something new, I will let my comments until now stand as is.
In the meantime, I will post whatever you send as long as it stays respectful.
"No one has a *right* to having a website"
DeleteI agreed. But if no one has a right to having a website, then Ron Paul doesn't either.
And you agree, or at least "don't disagree" that ICANN only has authority only because of the brute force of the gunvernment behind them.
So...this essentially comes down to an appeal to a group of thugs with guns, hoping that they will favor a VIP over an average person.
This is why my focus has been on someone explaining to me what claim Ron has to the website WITHOUT appealing to an authority such as ICANN. If ICANN developed and operated in a free market, then I would obviously (as I am consistent) have to accept their decision as private organization that can do as it pleases. However this is not the case. Ron needs to prove, at least to some degree that he has a LEGITIMATE claim to the domain using ONLY libertarian philosophy. Any appeal to the current state of affairs only proves/demonstrates what is allowable by law, not what is the MORALLY CORRECT thing to do.
You guys are killing your credibility. In my opinion you are showing yourselves to favor state intervention when it suits you.
I do appreciate you posting my remarks though, good day.
You have declined to post my last response. You just said you would. Other posts have been approved while I wait. Please follow through with your promise.
DeleteMy mistake and I apologize, it had been awhile since I posted and I misread the time stamps. I was thrown by how quickly my last posts were approved.
DeleteThanks for your time and thoughtful analysis on this point. Your logic and conclusions resonate with me, from a libertarian society perspective.
ReplyDeleteBut one thing that kept pressing on me while I was reading your piece is Matthew 5:38 through 5:44. My understanding of that Scripture is that the use of force, even in defense, is inconsistent with the will of God. "Force," even in defense, is the use of means other than the means of God in an effort to produce an ends. And we ought never use any means other than the means of God in trying to achieve ends.
Jesus commands us to love our enemies. This means we are supposed to love (the "agape"/unconditional version) the people who attack us or who threaten some self interest of ours. In other words, love is the means Jesus uses to resist evil (our enemies), and love is also the only means Jesus authorizes people to use, even in defense.
It's this use of force (even in defense) as a means that I regret. I'm hoping Dr. Paul drops this effort.
It seems to me there is much more to this than you suggest:
DeleteJohn 18:10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus. 11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?
Jesus didn’t say “Peter, you heathen! We have been together for years, yet I didn’t know you carried a sword! What are you doing?”
Jesus was not surprised or appalled that Peter had a sword and in fact used it. Jesus only knew that this time was not the time to use it. God’s time for Jesus had come.
John 2: 14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: 15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; 16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.
I will suggest that Jesus used force, and the force was not in violation of God’s will.
I do not suggest Dr. Paul is doing God’s will here; I only propose that the issue of force based in the Bible is more complex than you suggest.
Thanks for the response and for approving my comment. I'm familiar with both of those other Scriptures you cite.
DeleteI submit that the account of Jesus' arrest in Matthew is also worth considering, in the context of your first example. (Plus it's timely, from a current events perspective.)
In Matthew 26:52, Jesus responds to Peter's violence by commanding Peter to put away the sword, saying those famous words: "all who draw the sword will die by the sword." (NIV's version) He then goes on to speak to fulfilling Scripture.
So my understanding of this scene, taking both John's and Matthew's accounts into, um, account, is that Jesus is speaking more broadly than just telling Peter that that moment right then wasn't the right moment for violence. My understanding is Jesus is telling Peter (and all of us) that using violence, even in defense of the faultless innocent, is never OK, because of where it leads. Violence begets violence. (And love begets love.)
* * * * *
By the way, I hope it's clear I'm just presenting my understanding of Jesus' teachings. I do believe my view (use of force even in defense is not authorized by Jesus) is correct, but I certainly don't know or claim to know I am correct. And I hope I'm not coming across as claiming to KNOW that any of this is right. I do not!
:-)
garrett, I appreciate the conversation. I too only present my understanding, limited as it is.
DeleteI guess my point is, if Jesus was against violence always and in all circumstances, why did Peter carry a sword? Did Jesus not know this fact?
Why overturn the tables at the temple? This was a violent act, no?
In any case, there are Christian believers on both sides of this - purely pacifist vs for defense. I won't claim to have the last word.
I am uncertain that I would consider overturning tables as violence....not even aggression. Under the system of private temple law, Jesus( being a Rabbi) was justified in removing trespassers( the money changers were trespassing on private property). Jesus was clearly removing trespassers,who knew better than to be where they were at, as was his obligation under Jewish law. The Book says that he drove them out, it does not say that he struck them. It is HIGHLY controversial to assert that Christ Pantocrator resorts to violence. It is true that Jesus knew about in advance and allowed Peter to keep his sword but did not allow him to use it. It is a matter of tradition that Peter carried a dussack, which it intended exclusively for defense. It is also thought that Jesus allowed the presence of the weapon in order to demonstrate that not even a weapon of defense would be needed to achieve the Kingdom of Heaven.
DeleteIf we wish to rely exclusively on Christian anthropology to achieve our ends then we need do no more than to do as instructed in Matthew 19:21; there we will find perfection. Since I am sure that most of us do not have the spiritual violence within us to follow that command, Jesus has allowed other less severe paths to deification.
"It is HIGHLY controversial to assert that Christ Pantocrator resorts to violence."
DeletePerhaps. But, and I don't want to turn this into a theological debate, I read the Old Testament as well.
I agree that Ron Paul is using the arbiter that the register agreed to use. I appreciate the homework and citations you provided, as they did clear up some of the fuzziness of this issue. However, my concern is still this: Why does Ron Paul feel that he is entitled, or owed, or is the rightful owner of ronpaul dot com? And I love Lew Rockwell, but he is way out of bounds with his throwing around the words "cybersquatting" and the like. ronpaul dot com has done nothing but promote Ron Paul, and to use the words cybersquatting is irresponsible and petty.
ReplyDeleteSomeone was forward-thinking and acquired a domain that could be monetized. That domain, as far as I know, never spoke ill of Ron Paul, or libeled Ron Paul, or try to hamper to work/campaign of Ron Paul. Now the good Doctor should just walk away. There is only a dispute because he regrets that he didn't get the domain when he could have. I regret that I didn't invent the iPhone. Where does this madness end?
“Why does Ron Paul feel that he is entitled, or owed, or is the rightful owner of ronpaul dot com?”
DeleteOnly Ron Paul knows, and some clues are found in his filing.
However, I will paste here my speculation on this, taken from my post at February 14, 2013 at 7:48 AM.
-------------
His name is Ron Paul. Although there are many with the name “Ron Paul” on earth, there is only one Ron Paul on earth where this name matters. He may not have a right to his reputation, but he certainly has a right to manage and defend the public perception of his reputation.
He may have a right in contract - this is for the arbitration panel to decide. The contract was agreed to by the registrant. Contracts (written and unwritten) are one of the foundations of a libertarian society.
-------------
The owners of RonPaul.com also own ronpaul.net, ronpaul2008.com, ronpaul.info, etc. So why isn't Ron Paul attempting to seize those? Should the owners get to keep all of their RonPaul domains, some of them or none of them?
ReplyDeleteI own RonPaul.NAME
Ron Paul wants his name and I got his .NAME
I don't see why I should get to keep my ronpaul.NAME domain while the RonPaul.com folks have to lose theirs....same goes for all the other Ron Paul sites...ronpaulforums.com, dailypaul.com, ronpaulmarket.com, etc. Those sites also registered a famous person’s name and are making money off it.
By the way he can have RonPaul.NAME for free if he gives me a phone call and politely requests it...and he won't get it if he doesn't call and send me an attorney's letter.
Let me tell you the whole story about RonPaul.com...The current owners bought it on Ebay back in 2008 from a man whose name was also Ron Paul...they didn't cybersquat and initially register the domain themselves...I remember going to the Ebay auction back in 2008 and seeing RonPaul.com go for over $25,000...a Facebook friend of mine told me this
-------
"If Ron Paul could hire competent people, he would already own the damned thing. They are supporters who bought it at an auction, while his staff, as usual, ignored all the pleas from the grassroots to buy the damned thing for Ron.
No sympathy for him at all in this. The people that bought it kept the domain from falling into neocon hands, they spent their time and their money using the site to do nothing but support Ron and his message, and this is the thanks they get. No wonder libertarianism turns off so many people.
If Ron had any sense, he'd hire them to run the site. That's the win/win solution. But selling it to him would mean it will be run badly. If you doubt that for one second, check out his recent Facebook and Twitter posts. I suspect this is just another effort by those close to him to cash in on his name, now that the campaign well has run dry.
The story is this: another guy named Ron Paul owned it. He wasn't a fan and wouldn't sell it until the 2008 campaign was winding down. Then, he put it on eBay because they couldn't get on touch with Ron through the campaign.
I was one of the people calling and emailing the campaign. I had Benton's cell phone number - I personally left him messages. I called the office several times, I emailed the eBay listing to every Ron Paul contact I could find. The people that bought it did him a favor. Seeing millionaire Lew snark about the price they're asking is salt in the wound. Why the hell didn't he buy it back then, either?"
http://web.archive.org/web/20070509005106/http://www.ronpaul.com/
I think he should raise a money bomb to buy it...the 250K is negotiable so he'll pay less than that.