Comment: Where is the problem, really? I don't see any.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Ronpaul.com is private (see in situ)

Cyril's picture

Where is the problem, really? I don't see any.

There is no attempt at a "justification of using an international body to confiscate somebody's property".

if one reads the complaint:

http://www.ronpaul.com/images/Complaint.pdf

1. Ron Paul's folks only want to regain control of a domain name which literally goes after the homonym living person's name

2. the current "owners" of the domain name want $250K for it (see page 8)

3. Ron Paul's folks beg to differ: they had appraised it at $50K tops (also in page 8)

(which, IMO, is already quite a bit of money for MERELY a domain name)

4. hence, the latter are just FOLLOWING the Internet domain name disputes rules and are asking ICANN for arbitration on their case.

I really don't see any problem beyond the plaintiff and defendants disagreement.

Personally, I chose which camp's claim makes the more sense to me.

And whether we like or not how the ICANN is set up doesn't matter: there are rules. If we don't like them, let's try to change them or repeal them. Until then, one has to abide.

Where's Ron Paul's hypocrisy? I see ***NONE*** - see points (1) to (3), above.

This would be AN ENTIRELY different story, from MY point of view, if it were about claims over "DailyPaul.com" for instance - but THIS IS NOT the case.

Just my opinion.

Peace.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius