Ron Paul tweets on RonPaul.com Issue - and discussion

[sailingaway]

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

which Ron couldn't use as a politician the way he plans to now, and maybe had less ability to challenge, but now he is in the private sector will need to do business just as everyone else does. He had a House page before.

I don't know how much Ron personally knew about the web page availability and so forth, I think he just was just busy with other projects.

I don't mean to imply I don't think there is right on both sides, I do. And I don't even know who will win, but someone ignoring a challenge under the rules of the domain to try to buy it anyhow to do the right thing, which Ron did, was met with what he understands to be a stick up price. I don't know what other things may have happened to trigger the filing, but it was on the market, and I could see where he wouldn't want HIS NAME sold to someone else at a premium based on his own fame and popularity - potentially being sold to someone unfriendly.

 

[PatriotOne]

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.

My opinion was based on the original selling price of $848k. And since then I've seen several things that also bother me like the statement in the complaint (page 8) that the owner's only action in regards to the domain was registering it and then leasing it out to a third party for a fee. If that's the case, then I think we should stop referring to him as Saint ronpaul.com. That statement, if true, implies the guy who leased the website did all the work...not the owner.

Maybe we all should be keeping an open mind instead of taking sides until all the evidence is out. LOL...now that I typed that out even I realize is impossible for this crowd.

 

[pacodever]

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

Don't bring beards into this. It is divisive enough.

 

[SewrRatt]

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

I just looked up the rules and I was mistaken, actually. They do depend on trademark. Ron definitely still fits the legal definition of public figure according to wikipedia, so as far as I can tell he can't trademark his name and his request for control of the domain name will probably fail.

 

[sailingaway]

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?

This site doesn't have the other Ron Paul's picture and persona plastered all over it, and Ron trademarked his name speaking and as author before 2007 anyhow.

 

[sailingaway]

I just looked up the rules and I was mistaken, actually. They do depend on trademark. Ron definitely still fits the legal definition of public figure according to wikipedia, so as far as I can tell he can't trademark his name and his request for control of the domain name will probably fail.

No, Hillary Clinton and Boris Johnson both won theirs etc.

 

[angelatc]

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.

I don't think it can change hands while this issue is pending. I am pretty sure I read that in there somewhere.

Maybe the change pertains to their legal representation?

 

[angelatc]

No, Hillary Clinton and Boris Johnson both won theirs etc.

The owner of HillaryClinton.com had no Hillary Clinton content on her site, and did not even bother to file a response to the complaint. The site was nothing but pop up ads, generic search engines, and google banners.

Do you want to explain how the BackBoris.com site is also different than RonPaul.com, or should I?

Bill Clinton lost his, as did Lady Gaga.

 

[sailingaway]

Actually some of the claims I looked at had 'sur replies' by complainant so I am hoping Ron adds that the media was multiple times confused by who owned the site, thinking it was his, and that the actual date the guy got it was later than 2001, when it pretty clearly was spurred by Ron's own persona, since those things seem to matter in some of the claims.

but I hope it settles before it gets there.

 

[sailingaway]

My opinion was based on the original selling price of $848k. And since then I've seen several things that also bother me like the statement in the complaint (page 8) that the owner's only action in regards to the domain was registering it and then leasing it out to a third party for a fee. If that's the case, then I think we should stop referring to him as Saint ronpaul.com. That statement, if true, implies the guy who leased the website did all the work...not the owner.

Maybe we all should be keeping an open mind instead of taking sides until all the evidence is out. LOL...now that I typed that out even I realize is impossible for this crowd.

re the bolded, that would also mean he WAS getting the money off Ron's name because he himself ONLY had income stream interaction with the name and its value was CLEARLY that it was tied to Ron.

 

[angelatc]

This site doesn't have the other Ron Paul's picture and persona plastered all over it, and Ron trademarked his name speaking and as author before 2007 anyhow.

He couldn't. The other Ron Paul trademarked the name. That's public record. Additionally, there were several polls taken during the 2008 campaign that indicated that name recognition was a huge problem for Ron Paul. He wasn't the household name that he is today.

The argument that cost the owner of HillaryClinton.com centered on the fact that the site included no HillaryClinton content what so ever. So, that also seems to point in favor of RonPaul.com.

 

[sailingaway]

The owner of HillaryClinton.com had no Hillary Clinton content on her site, and did not even bother to file a response to the complaint. The site was nothing but pop up ads, generic search engines, and google banners.

Do you want to explain how the BackBoris.com site is also different than RonPaul.com, or should I?

Bill Clinton lost his, as did Lady Gaga.

They are all different, some win and some lose. I can absolutely see Ron winning, but I can see him losing, as well. This is different from the other claims I have seen including the ones you mention and the ones I mention. The principles in there seem to cut in Ron's favor to me, but I most certainly am not an expert, I'm just poking into this. I also wouldn't want to bet my name or entire compensation on it, and I think they should negotiate a settlement

 

[sailingaway]

He couldn't. The other Ron Paul trademarked the name. That's public record. Additionally, there were several polls taken during the 2008 campaign that indicated that name recognition was a huge problem for Ron Paul. He wasn't the household name that he is today.

The argument that cost the owner of HillaryClinton.com centered on the fact that the site included no HillaryClinton content what so ever. So, that also seems to point in favor of RonPaul.com.

He wasn't the household name he is today but it seems the lessee of the site immediately used it to reflect HIM, his persona, his picture, and initially did not even have the small tag of 'fan site'.

So it appears the owner who leased it to him (and I assume his no longer planning to lease it is why it is on the market) got an income stream based on its being Ron's name he was leasing out and nothing else, if what has been said about this lease is true. That seems to bolster Ron's position. And Ron's trademark predates the 2007 one but there is no indication the trademark was transfered in any event, so this isn't a situation of battling trademarks.

 

[SewrRatt]

Let's all just agree that the issue is completely black and white, the rules

...bad faith...intentionally...

are objective in nature, and by applying for arbitration Ron has revealed his true identity as Lucifer, Prince of Darkness.

 

[angelatc]

Actually some of the claims I looked at had 'sur replies' by complainant so I am hoping Ron adds that the media was multiple times confused by who owned the site, thinking it was his, and that the actual date the guy got it was later than 2001, when it pretty clearly was spurred by Ron's own persona, since those things seem to matter in some of the claims.

but I hope it settles before it gets there.

See, I think the other Ron Paul trademarked the name Ron Paul because his name was Ron Paul, and the name of his business was "Ron Paul Consulting." If he was aware of the politician Ron Paul in 2001, then he was ahead of the curve. He was also smart enough to trademark the name, to protect himself from losing the right to use his own name.

For many, many years 7-11 could not do business in Indiana as 7-11, because some little guy in Indiana owned a convenience store with that name there.

 

[angelatc]

He wasn't the household name he is today but it seems the lessee of the site immediately used it to reflect HIM, his persona, his picture, and initially did not even have the small tag of 'fan site'.

So it appears the owner who leased it to him (and I assume his no longer planning to lease it is why it is on the market) got an income stream based on its being Ron's name he was leasing out and nothing else, if what has been said about this lease is true. That seems to bolster Ron's position. And Ron's trademark predates the 2007 one but there is no indication the trademark was transfered in any event, so this isn't a situation of battling trademarks.

I'm not sure who the lessee is. I know that made that claim, but did they give any details?

 

[sailingaway]

See, I think the other Ron Paul trademarked the name Ron Paul because his name was Ron Paul, and the name of his business was "Ron Paul Consulting." If he was aware of the politician Ron Paul in 2001, then he was ahead of the curve. He was also smart enough to trademark the name, to protect himself from losing the right to use his own name.

For many, many years 7-11 could not do business in Indiana as 7-11, because some little guy in Indiana owned a convenience store with that name there.

Whether Ron could have handled it in 2007 differently is besides the point. If the site was being used by another Ron Paul and reflected Ron Paul Consulting instead of having Ronald Earnest Paul's picture and work all over it, it would be a very different case. But it isn't.

 

[PatriotOne]

I don't think it can change hands while this issue is pending. I am pretty sure I read that in there somewhere.

Maybe the change pertains to their legal representation?

I copied and pasted the differences in registration info yesterday in another thread.


2/11 the reg info said this:

Domain Name: RONPAUL.COM
Registrar: FABULOUS.COM PTY LTD.
Whois Server: whois.fabulous.com
Referral URL: http://www.fabulous.com
Name Server: MYNS1.FABULOUS.COM
Name Server: MYNS2.FABULOUS.COM
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Status: clientUpdateProhibited
Updated Date: 10-feb-2013
Creation Date: 22-nov-2000
Expiration Date: 22-nov-2020

http://who.godaddy.com/whois.aspx?k=...rog_id=GoDaddy

2/12 the registration info said this:

Domain ronpaul.com:
JNR Corp
Apartado 29832, ElDorado
Ciudad de Panama, PA 00000 PA

Administrative contact:
Technical contact:
Billing contact:
JNR Corp
JNR Corp
[email protected]
Apartado 29832, ElDorado
Ciudad de Panama, PA 00000 PA
Phone: +507.64938568
Fax:

Record dates:
Record created on: 2000-11-22 18:05:56 UTC
Record modified on: 2013-02-10 21:06:32 UTC
Record expires on: 2020-11-22 UTC

Nameservers:
myns1.fabulous.com
myns2.fabulous.com

Note: Automated collection of data from this database is strictly prohibited.

Registrar: FABULOUS.COM PTY LTD.
Whois Server: whois.fabulous.com
Creation Date: 22-NOV-2000
Updated Date: 10-FEB-2013
Expiration Date: 22-NOV-2020

Nameserver: MYNS1.FABULOUS.COM
Nameserver: MYNS2.FABULOUS.COM

Registry Status: clientTransferProhibited
Registry Status: clientUpdateProhibited

Being the domain registration amatuer that I am, can someone explain what this means? Did the site change ownership or ?????

Newbitech???

 

[angelatc]

He wasn't the household name he is today but it seems the lessee of the site immediately used it to reflect HIM, his persona, his picture, and initially did not even have the small tag of 'fan site'. .

But the content argument does not work against him. That's what lost the case for Lady Gaga and Tupac.

 

[sailingaway]

I'm not sure who the lessee is. I know that made that claim, but did they give any details?

No. I don't know more than has been said about it here. I don't know a lot of things. And I give Ron the benefit of the doubt. From what I see he approached this in good faith, trying to do the 'right thing' beyond what he had to do under domain rules. Whereas I do see it as the other guy (maybe not the lessee? Don't know) spinning facts to smear him on the internet to create pressure. So I just hope they settle and resolve the whole thing.