Ron Paul tweets on RonPaul.com Issue - and discussion

[green73]

Seeing Lew being the only celebrity mouthpiece weighing in on this just seems to confirm my hunch that the Lew Rockwell wing is feeling sad that they're not being invited to cash in on the C4L, and he wants to use the Ron Paul site to essentially revive the newsletters for a new generation.

I think, although I will never be able to prove it, and this is of course sheer speculation, it also indicates that Lew is probably accessing Ron Paul's Twitter, and that he probably wrote the Kyle tweet specifically to appeal to the radical libertarians - his personal cash cow.

This is such rubbish. Seriously, you should be embarrassed.

 

[angelatc]

Why did Ron wait so long to bring this claim? He did not feel he could do so as a public official. Once he became a private citizen again, he was freed.

I didn't know for sure, but I thought that might be the reason he waited to take action.

What does that mean? Does it mean that he did not want to hurt himself politically? Or does that mean he is asserting the domain holder lost rights when Ron Paul retired?

 

[Matt Collins]

Seeing Lew being the only celebrity mouthpiece weighing in on this just seems to confirm my hunch that the Lew Rockwell wing is feeling sad that they're not being invited to cash in on the C4L, and he wants to use the Ron Paul site to essentially revive the newsletters for a new generation.

I think, although I will never be able to prove it, and this is of course sheer speculation, it also indicates that Lew is probably accessing Ron Paul's Twitter, and that he probably wrote the Kyle tweet specifically to appeal to the radical libertarians - his personal cash cow.

See this -

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...om-fiasco-be-a-lesson-to-the-liberty-movement

 

[PatriotOne]

except ICANN is not a UN agency...

Look.

ICANN
WIPO
UN
NAF

Ok? ICANN is not a UN agency, its a United States Corporation. WIPO is a department of the UN. NAF is not a UN agency, it's a United States Corporation.

ICANN says take your pick from this list WIPO ... NAF

Ok?

NAF is not "assigned". Ron Paul literally in every sense of the word appealed to the WIPO, UN. ICANN didn't "make" him do that. No one signed a contract to make him do that. It was a choice.

These are facts, not an arguments.

I can appreciate the misunderstanding. But, 3 lawyers Ron Paul has ought know the difference, yes?

I stand corrected but honestly I find this sticking point kind of silly. If Ron had choices of where to file the complaint then him picking WIPO does fit the free market model.....no?

Besides there is this......so it doesn't appear to be a good way to get completely away from the United Nations through ICANN anyways.

In the early 2000s, there had been speculation that the United Nations might signal a takeover of ICANN,[20] followed by a negative reaction from the US government[15] and worries about a division of the Internet[21] the World Summit on the Information Society in Tunisia in November 2005 agreed not to get involved in the day-to-day and technical operations of ICANN. However it also agreed to set up an international Internet Governance Forum (UNITED NATIONS), with a consultative role on the future governance of the Internet. ICANN's Government Advisory Committee is currently set up to provide advice to ICANN regarding public policy issues and has participation by many of the world's governments.[22]

 

[PatriotOne]

What does that mean? Does it mean that he did not want to hurt himself politically? Or does that mean he is asserting the domain holder lost rights when Ron Paul retired?

I think it means Ron didn't have as many rights when he was a government official as he does as a private citizen.

 

[angelatc]

I think it means Ron didn't have as many rights when he was a government official as he does as a private citizen.

So, he's asserting the domain holder lost rights only because Ron Paul retired?

 

[newbitech]

I stand corrected but honestly I find this sticking point kind of silly. If Ron had choices of where to file the complaint then him picking WIPO does fit the free market model.....no?

Besides there is this......so it doesn't appear to be a good way to get completely away from the United Nations through ICANN anyways.

In the early 2000s, there had been speculation that the United Nations might signal a takeover of ICANN,[20] followed by a negative reaction from the US government[15] and worries about a division of the Internet[21] the World Summit on the Information Society in Tunisia in November 2005 agreed not to get involved in the day-to-day and technical operations of ICANN. However it also agreed to set up an international Internet Governance Forum (UNITED NATIONS), with a consultative role on the future governance of the Internet. ICANN's Government Advisory Committee is currently set up to provide advice to ICANN regarding public policy issues and has participation by many of the world's governments.[22]

See here is the thing.

Did you see the reaction by so many people saying that ronpaul.com was lying about Ron Paul going to the UN? Do you see how this became the basis for so many people's arguments that ronpaul.com was and has been acting in bad faith.

Even now, you agree that Ron Paul did go to the UN, but will you be able to take back that negative sentiment towards RonPaul.com and maybe now give them a fair shake, rather than thinking they are some people trying to hurt Ron Paul?

Ron Paul is hurting them. Ron Paul will HAVE to show these people are "bad" people in order to win his domain. People are cheering that on and bashing these people with no truth basis, or very clouded truth basis.

I just don't think that is fair. We have NO evidence, 0, ZIP, NADA, that these people are bad people. We have mountains, 5 years worth that shows them to be awesome supporters, and one of many supporters who diligently day in and day out ran a key cog in the Ron Paul Revolution Internet MACHINE.

Now, they ask for money for their work and its like BULLSHIT BITCHES, give it to Ron NOW, and damn the consequences!

That is just wrong and lacks principle on just about every level I can think of.

 

[fr33]

So, he's asserting the domain holder lost rights only because Ron Paul retired?

Public officials cannot trademark their name like private citizens can.

 

[Confederate]

edit: n/m this was written by bearded-idiot lew rockwell

 

[newbitech]

eat more pie

lol

 

[SewrRatt]

Layman's explanation:

Domain names are not property! When you register a domain name, you pay a subscription to have "the internet" direct traffic to your website when someone types in a certain address. The organization in charge of this has rules. Those rules say you can't use someone else's name in the address unless they're a public figure or something like that. The ronpaul.com people can just register some other address, like ronpaulfansite.com or whatever, and keep their website. They can inform anyone who wants to keep visiting it about the new address and continue on. The reason they want to keep ronpaul.com is because they want people looking for Ron Paul's official website to be redirected to their own site.

Summary:
-Ronpaul.com people own the content of their website, not the subscription service that brings people there
-Said service has rules about not using someone else's name
-To continue using Ron's name without his consent is against the rules of the service and serves to hijack traffic away from where it's trying to go

 

[newbitech]

Layman's explanation:

Domain names are not property! When you register a domain name, you pay a subscription to have "the internet" direct traffic to your website when someone types in a certain address. The organization in charge of this has rules. Those rules say you can't use someone else's name in the address unless they're a public figure or something like that. The ronpaul.com people can just register some other address, like ronpaulfansite.com or whatever, and keep their website. They can inform anyone who wants to keep visiting it about the new address and continue on. The reason they want to keep ronpaul.com is because they want people looking for Ron Paul's official website to be redirected to their own site.

Summary:
-Ronpaul.com people own the content of their website, not the subscription service that brings people there
-Said service has rules about not using someone else's name
-To continue using Ron's name without his consent is against the rules of the service and serves to hijack traffic away from where it's trying to go

addendum
-which Ron Paul was perfectly fine with while he was a politician, but he's not interested in all that anymore

 

[angelatc]

Public officials cannot trademark their name like private citizens can.

Yes, but as was pointed out in other threads, retiring does not make one less a politician. It makes one a retired politician.

Looking at Amazon and Zazzle, it looks like Reagan's stuff is largely in the public domain, and he was a movie star before he was a politician for heaven's sakes. Same with Arnold Schawarnegger, who lost a trademark case against a guy selling an Arnold bobble-head with a political message.

I'm not a lawyer, but I can't imagine the retirement suddenly gave Ron Paul some magical rights he didn't have before.

 

[SewrRatt]

addendum
-which Ron Paul was perfectly fine with while he was a politician, but he's not interested in all that anymore

So being constrained by the rules in that situation = being fine with it in your mind?

 

[SewrRatt]

Yes, but as was pointed out in other threads, retiring does not make one less a politician. It makes one a retired politician.

Looking at Amazon and Zazzle, it looks like Reagan's stuff is largely in the public domain, and he was a movie star before he was a politician for heaven's sakes. Same with Arnold Schawarnegger, who lost a trademark case against a guy selling an Arnold bobble-head with a political message.

I'm not a lawyer, but I can't imagine the retirement suddenly gave Ron Paul some magical rights he didn't have before.

He didn't get magical rights, and the current subscribers of the ronpaul.com domain don't have property rights to it in the first place. Trademark isn't the issue, the rules of ICANN are. Either there's something in the rules that allow him to claim the domain now that he's retired, or he always had the option and he's choosing to exercise it now.

 

[angelatc]

So being constrained by the rules in that situation = being fine with it in your mind?

You have misstated the rules though.

LadyGaga.org is not run by LadyGaga, who lost her attempt to gain control of the site. There is no prohibition specifically against running a site in someone else's name.

 

[angelatc]

He didn't get magical rights, and the current subscribers of the ronpaul.com domain don't have property rights to it in the first place. Trademark isn't the issue, the rules of ICANN are. Either there's something in the rules that allow him to claim the domain now that he's retired, or he always had the option and he's choosing to exercise it now.

You're missing the third option - that he doesn't have any rights to claim the domain.

He did not have the option prior to 2009, because the trademark "Ron Paul" belong to another man named "Ron Paul."

That RonPaul owned the .com, and sold it in the open market. Politician Ron Paul passed it up.

Are you asserting that the original domain holder had no right to sell it to anybody except someone else named Ron Paul?

 

[newbitech]

So being constrained by the rules in that situation = being fine with it in your mind?

which rules which constraint? I want to answer, but I don't want to misunderstand the question.

 

[SewrRatt]

You're missing the third option - that he doesn't have any rights to claim the domain.

He did not have the option prior to 2009, because the trademark "Ron Paul" belong to another man named "Ron Paul."

That RonPaul owned the .com, and sold it in the open market. Politician Ron Paul passed it up.

Are you asserting that the original domain holder had no right to sell it to anybody except someone else named Ron Paul?

If that's the case then his request will be denied and the point is moot.

 

[sailingaway]

Because the RP.com guys registered Ron's name in Australia, the international arbitration option must be used. Yes, it is associated with the UN.

yes he had 4 options. One was the WIPO/UN options. Another was NAF, not UN option.

There are something like four options on the list but there is also something about submitting to court jurisdiction which might impact which would be appropriate. In any event the agreement certainly names this site as one of few to go to, and each has its own supplemental rules. Ron is proceeding under the ICANN agreement terms, he didn't pick it out all on his own. Currently after 1/10/2013 when the whosis was changed, the owner is apparently in a different country than Australia, hopefully it hasn't changed hands in the interim, or maybe the registration location was different than where the owner was? But it is still international, if that had an impact.