Comment: I thought they gave a price after he asked for the domain

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: You're misunderstanding the (see in situ)

I thought they gave a price after he asked for the domain

I don't think it is cyber-squatting unless they pursued him for the payment. Unless they've changed the rules, I believe you can even maintain a website critical of its domain-name subject, as long as the content is primarily aimed at informing visitors about them. You couldn't have RonPaul.com as a dedicated porn-site, or a Pittsburgh Steeler fan-site, but you could have an anti-life neo-con website attacking every aspect of Ron Paul's philosophy and teachings.

I understood they they did not try to sell it to him, but that when his representative sought to gain possession, that they eventually told him what they regarded was its value to them, based on what they would have to do to continue their work under another domain name.

If what you say is correct then their mistake was to be willing to consider allowing him to get the domain name at all. They should have simply said 'No, we want to keep using it ourselves' and nothing else, every time he asked for it until he came up with an offer greater than $250,000. Only in that way could they avoid your definition of cyber-squatting. In effect, you are saying that Ron Paul tricked them into giving him a price so that he could accuse them of cyber-squatting, such chicanery is something I would have hoped was beneath the great man.

Manus
Pro-Life, pro-family, pro-freedom, pro-worker, pro Ron Paul