1 vote

Ron Paul once owned RonPaul.com?

The current owners of RonPaul.com stated they bought the domain to "prevent it from getting into enemy hands". This would imply that before they purchased the domain, it was not in enemy hands and thus must have been in the hands of of Ron Paul himself, right?

A whois history check on RonPaul.com shows it was first registered in Nov 22, 2000 to "Pop Art LLC" without every specifying a person's name. Later, it showed "Tom Paul" from Pop Art. Is this one of RP's relatives?

If it's true that Ron Paul once owned RonPaul.com and that he let his domain expire (to save a couple of bucks), then can someone explain the libertarian, voluntarist principles of why Ron Paul is now entitled to RonPaul.com at 0 cost and without the consent of the current owners?

Here's the DNS Record:

Registration Service Provided By: Pop Art , Inc.
Contact: domainadmin@popart.com

Domain name: ronpaul.com

Registrant Contact:
Pop Art LLC
Tom Paul (tom@popart.com)
015032424292
Fax: 015032422491
618 NW Glisan St., STE 401
Portland, Oregon 97209
US

Administrative Contact:
Pop Art , Inc.
Pop Art Domain Administrator (domainadmin@popart.com)
+1.5032424292
Fax:
718 SW Alder St., Ste 300
Portland, OR 97205
US

Technical Contact:
Pop Art, Inc.
Pop Art DNS (dns@popart.com)
+1.5032424292
Fax:
718 SW Alder Street, STE 300
Portland, OR 97205
US

Status: Locked

Name Servers:
ns.opusnet.com
ns2.opusnet.com

Creation date: 22 Nov 2000 13:05:57
Expiration date: 22 Nov 2007 00:00:00



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Michael Nystrom's picture

As far as I understand

It was previously owned by a different guy named Ron Paul.

This would imply that before they purchased the domains, it was not in enemy hands and that must have been in the hands of of Ron Paul himself, right?

No. Or technically, yes. In the hands of "Ron Paul," but not the one we're familiar with. Not the same one who filed the WIPO arbitration to wrest it away from its current owners.

I forget where I read it, but as I recall, it was owned by a barber named Ron Paul. He wasn't a fan of Ron Paul, the presidential candidate, so he held onto it until after the election ended, then he sold it at auction, where it ended up going for $25,000 to the current owners.

If it's true that Ron Paul once owned RonPaul.com and that he let his domain expire (to save a couple of bucks), then can someone explain the libertarian, voluntarist principles of why Ron Paul is now entitled to RonPaul.com at 0 cost and without the consent of the current owners?

So, I don't think the first part is true. As for the second party, there is no libertarian, voluntarist principle that would justify a taking from the current owners and handing it back to Ron Paul. The libertarian, voluntarist way would be for the two parties to mutually agree on a price.

I don't think I'm the only one who is shocked and offended by the route that Ron Paul chose to take in this case.

He's the man.

So if the current owners

So if the current owners payed $25k back then and are now asking $250k (after all that's happened), it seems seems like a reasonable asking price (probably even under market value).

To give it away for free after paying 25k and investing much more in "sweat capital", that just does not seem like sound free market approach. But to have it wrested via WIPO without compensation, well that would be just plain old theft IMO.