The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!
37 votes

Israel Anderson: Ron Paul has NOT gone to the UN to strong-arm

Great video and explanation about the Ron Paul vs story.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

So if ICANN says

Ron Paul can pay to have his domain name at the price Tim asks.. then what?

I'd guess

RP will simply walk away unless Tim lowers the price considerably. Otherwise, Tim will either sell it to someone else at a drastically reduced price or if he can't, eventually lose interest and allow his domain ownership to lapse. As I said, just my guess.

It's as good a guess as any ((((Missy))))

It's just a shame no matter how I look at it.

I'm listening to tutorials on this subject. This one now

Thanks Granger

It is a shame. Hopefully the arbitration will result in a settlement that satisfies both parties. Thanks for the link.

I'll be celebrating.

I'll be celebrating.

Nonsense. Ron Paul IS

Nonsense. Ron Paul IS appealing to WIPO, which is a UN Agency.

You DO NOT have the option of voluntarily agreeing to ICANN policies when you purchase a domain. It's mandatory. You cannot purchase a domain name without checking the "I Agree to Five Million Policies" consent box, which includes ICANN. It would be different if you could purchase a domain and were given two options: one, I Agree to Policies, two: Click Here to checkout without agreeing. You don't have that option. Don't pretend like it's voluntary.

The bottom line is this: Ron Paul has legal rights to use corporatist lawyers and appeal to international government bodies to seize property that his supporters purchased on the free market five years ago to support his campaign. But let's stop acting like Ron Paul is not being a hypocritical libertarian. Or like he's the Lord and Savior. Clearly, he's a politician.

In fact, his case references Hillary Clinton's case to wrestle away her domain without payment to the owner.

This gives new meaning to "Eminent Domain."

INCORRECT... did not lapse

In response to the video:

First, I agree about the domain name dispute resolution process as described in this video. Ron Paul is going about it correctly. That's simply how the domain dispute process works.

However, the domain name DID NOT lapse.

The domain name registration shows a creation date of 22-NOV-2000. What that means is that while it may have been transferred to other parties, the domain has been continually registered since 22-NOV-2000.

Campaign For Liberty could not have let the domain lapse, because CFL did not exist back in Nov 2000. was sold at auction for $25,000 back in January 2008. Also before the Campaign For Liberty existed. The Campaign For Liberty was founded on June 10, 2008. could not have been let to lapse by Campaign For Liberty staff or anyone else.

Here's a link to a forum thread back in January 2008 discussing when the domain was listed for sale on eBay and when it sold for $25,000:!

Personally, I tried to acquire as well, directly from the guy who owned it, approximately a week before when it was listed on eBay. I had just learned about Ron Paul and wanted to secure the domain (so detractors could not get it) and I would have either setup a page with links to RP's sites or simply contacted the campaign to transfer the domain to them. Another individual named Ron Paul owned the domain name prior to when it was sold on eBay in Jan '08. That is what was expressed to me via email. That other Ron Paul had an agent represent him in selling, which they proceeded to do on eBay. I still have the emails from both the other guy named Ron Paul as well as emails from the agent who handled the sale.

So, just so this is all clear, as far as I understand it, did not lapse but was rather purchased on eBay in January 2008. The domain has been continually registered since 22-NOV-2000.


That clarifies a lot of questions for me.

Ronald earnest Paul never owned then abandoned that domain name.

Free includes debt-free!

I suspect Ron Paul wants his name. $500 from ICANN

They want to sell him $249,500 worth of content.

Free includes debt-free!

The domain name dispute

The domain name dispute resolution process is not a content dispute resolution process. This has nothing to do with the content on It is only about the domain name.


That's just packaging.

That's just packaging. They're selling it for $250k. And why shouldn't they? They already discounted it thousands of dollars. Isn't the domain name worth more than John Tate's annual salary of (approx) $160k?

so why the fuck are you still using that name dipshit

there isn't a ralph nader somewhere you can blow one to?

Apparenty he doesn't want fan content.

I never thought him to be narcissistic.

Free includes debt-free!

I'm talking about the list

I'm talking about the list they offered with the domain. Not the website.

only if someone is willing to pay

So far, looks like no one is. Some people around here seem to think the domain owners are entitled to truckloads of RP's money whether he thinks the domain name is worth it or not. Nothing wrong with RP utilizing contract law (which he's always promoted as libertarian) to dispute ownership. He might win and he might lose, but there's no logical reason I can see to smear Dr. Paul over this issue. is probably worth is probably worth significantly more than that. I believe the value is likely in the millions.

HOWEVER, that does not mean anyone is entitled to try to sell Ron Paul his own name online. Ron Paul is the only owner of his name/brand/trademark both offline and online.

Just because a trademark .com or famous name .com is available does not mean it can be registered, or purchased, then sold to the owner of the name/trademark. That is referred to as cyber squatting, which was specifically made illegal in 1999 with the anti cyber squatting act.


Who the f*ck

really believes that Ron Paul is not subject to criticisms by his supporters, simply because he is "Following Agreed Upon Procedure for Blah f*cking Blah!"? Does it really matter?... is that the real argument?... this guy is a tool.

Dr. Paul should have the decency to pay fair market value for Ron 250,000 sounds pretty f*cking generous... regardless of whether or not there exists some bullsh*t process through UN policy, to settle disputes regarding domain names.

Would this same Jackoff defend Obama the same way, if it were discovered he was holding United States Citizens indefinitely in secret prisons without trial? Would he say "Well he is just Following Agreed Upon Procedure regarding possible Terrorist Blah the F*ckety Blah!". Way to completely miss the point Jerkoff.

Ron Paul should be more gracious to the people for whom he owes a GREAT DEBT. F*ck these idiots who bend his ear and "inform" him of what he should do... (I'm only speculating, of course). This should not even be an issue... seriously... what the hell is wrong with Dr. Paul?...

Dr. Paul, Please settle this amicably.

Based on this logic, you

Based on this logic, you should be able to go out and register the trademark .com of any business or individual you want and then sell it to them for lots of money, simply because their name/trademark is valuable.

But that is not how the law works in regards to domain names or trademarks.

The Anti Cyber Squatting Act of 1999 specifically made it illegal to register domain names in bad faith, meaning you could not register a domain name which is another person's name or the name or trademark of a business and then sell it to them.



I do think people should be able to buy Domain Names and sell them "simply because their name/trademark is valuable".

It concerns me NOT that the UN law states otherwise, it is my contention that such laws go against Free Market Principals... Principals Ron Paul preaches about but circumvents when convenient for himself.

It's sad to hear Dr. Paul resorting to such legal rascality... For those of you who defend Dr. Paul as if he were a f*cking Saint and can do no wrong, please get your head out of the Mans ass and consider for the moment that he is NOT PERFECT in every decision he makes. He's a Man... plain and simple... not a GOD, Just a Man... who when opportunity presents itself, is equally susceptible toward using the system to gain for himself at the expense of others.

I love you Dr. Paul, just feel you are wrong about this one... morally. Legally,... I don't give a f*ck... but you are wrong Morally... Period.

Victor Escobar

He's far from wrong... fact, just as far from wrong as you are knowledgeable about the role of government. Government has few responsibilities, but among them are:

- enforcement of contracts (how we are all enslaved ie. - driver's license, ssn, passport, votet registration, etc.)
- coining of money (there are $350,000,000 U.S. notes in circulation you can utilize these tax exempt notes by redeeming all of your checks in lawful money pursuant to 12 usc 411).
- provide a standing army
- guard against fraud and misrepresentation

By hawking a domain on the cheap in hopes of sticking it to an honest company, you are engaging in fraud and misrepresentation, extortion, infringement on intellectual property, and possibly bribery. It misleads potential customers and can result in a loss of a lot of potential revenue. Try owning your own small business and getting f'ed over by some asshole that makes a living off of f'ing others over and your tune will change right quick. Like an asshole, everyone has an opinion, but at the end of the day the rule of law is all that matters.

In Fact???

"just as far from wrong as you are knowledgeable about the role of government"... what?... what the f*ck are you talking about?... Role of Government?...

Hey, Buddy!

First off... Who the f*ck was talking about the "Role of Government"?... Do you know what you are typing, or do you use terms you don't understand? (like a few people around here).

I know my types of law... I know contract law or rather Equity Law... I know what the Uniform Commercial Code is you moron. I never gave a legal defense for Ron Paul being Wrong. Why don't you read someones post before you "Control V" your cookie-cutter opinion... If you, by chance, did read it, you should continue to read it until you "Comprehend" it... then write a response that bears any relevance to what I had said.

P.S. I love the "Asshole / Has An Opinion" line... Classic! Super Original... LOL!

Victor Escobar

Clinton's Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protections Act

The Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protections Act was passed by Bill Clinton in 1999.

I guarantee that if Ron Paul voted on the House version, his vote would have been "NO."

Since when does he or anybody on this site support Consumer Protections, especially those advanced by Bill and Hillary Clinton? And even if you do, the Claim makes fraudulent accusations against the site's owners. They had legitimate reasons for registering the website. Namely, to promote Ron Paul's campaign. Indeed, he did ask us to "Spread the message."

Absolutely correct.

Absolutely correct.

didn't tell me anything i didn't already know.

wish he would have. but, i stand by my assertion that ron paul is wanting to take something that belongs to someone else.

Christians should not be warmongers!

Does the registrant of

Does the registrant of own the Ron Paul brand and trademark?

They were fine having the domain name and running it as a fan site. Where they went wrong was when they tried to sell the domain name to Ron Paul.

That's how it works with domain names & trademarks online. Law has been fairly clear on this for more than a decade.

You cannot register and sell it to the Coca Cola company any more than you can register domain names of famous people and try to sell it to them.

Yes, fan sites are OK. However, running a fan site does not somehow create an exception where the fan site owner can then turn around to sell the domain name to the famous person or someone else. If that was the case domainers would have registered famous names by the tens of thousands & there would be fake placeholder fan sites everywhere to circumvent this area of domain & trademark law.


and this is why i think intellectual property is a little


Christians should not be warmongers!

Just keep in mind, this is

Just keep in mind, this is not a case where someone else named Ron Paul has the domain or where some business that has "Ron Paul" in their name but is completely unrelated to RP the politician.

If that was the case this all would be very different. In either of those cases the other Ron Paul or the business which coincidentally had "Ron Paul" in their name would both have very strong arguments for being able to keep the domain. They simply got to it first.

However, that is not the issue here. The domain name is indisputably being used in direct connection to Ron Paul the world famous politician. And he owns his name/brand/likeness/trademark both offline and online.

If the registrant of wanted to profit from the sale of this domain name they should have NEVER used the domain name in connection with Ron Paul the politician in any way whatsoever. There should have NEVER been a single mention of RP on that domain name (other than possibly stating at the bottom in a disclaimer that is not connected to Ron Paul the politician). And to strengthen their defense in a situation like this, they should have had a son named "Ron Paul _lastname_" or be running a business similarly named (kinda like ). The last thing they should have done is setup any type of Ron Paul politician related website on and still expected to be able to sell the domain name for a lot of money directly to Ron Paul.

They should have decided back when they started using the domain name... to position for a future sale of the domain or to run it as a Ron Paul grass roots campaign related website. But not both. Doing both, running the site then trying to sell the domain name to RP is the definition of bad faith use of the domain.


A name

A mans name is not intellectual property.

I don't know the law in this

I don't know the law in this aspect, but my guess is that an individual's name does become protected intellectual property when that name is made into a brand/trademark by the individual.


Intellectual Property

Is not real property. Once the information leaves your brain, sorry to say, but it then becomes public domain. And whether you agree or not, technology has made it very difficult to enforce intellectual property laws.

A case in point is singing happy birthday. If you were to follow the letter of the law, then every time you sing happy birthday you would need to pony up some royalties to the writer of that song.

And who is the one who gets to decided the arbitrary time period of how long a copyright can exist.

All copyright and intellectual law does is to stifle the market artificially.


Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. ~Thomas Paine