There is no attempt at a "justification of using an international body to confiscate somebody's property".
if one reads the complaint:
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.
"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.
"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: