VIDEO: Ron Paul files suit for RonPaul.com (Fox News)

[sailingaway]

The method is to allow the owner of the site to freely ask anything he chooses. That's how free markets work.

Clearly that isn't how the rules of the domain he got the site from work, they are spelled out in the agreement for the domain, and Ron is claiming under them.

 

[sailingaway]

Anything wrong with that? Lew Rockwell lives off the liberty movement...Tom Woods, etc.

I stopped going to RonPaul dot com when I heard he had scooped up Ron's 2008 youtube channel and wouldn't give it back when asked, when it accidentally went out of registration. I think if a lot of people had known it was not only not Ron's site (as many people seem to have been confused) but someone holding up a stickup price for him to get his own name back, a lot might feel that way.

 

[angelatc]

Clearly that isn't how the rules of the domain he got the site from work, they are spelled out in the agreement for the domain, and Ron is claiming under them.

They got the site on eBay, so that's how the value was determined at that time.

I haven't seen any portion of the ICANN terms spelling out how domains are to be valued when reselling - perhaps you can point me to that part?

It seems to me that they were perfectly willing to buy the site - isn't that how the conversation started? When they couldn't get the price they wanted, they resorted to suing for it. To me, that means the initial offer was made in bad faith. They had no intentions of actually negotiating honestly.

 

[sailingaway]

True, but if Ron is only valuing the domain, that number could come far below what the site owner is earning from his site, and therefore offer no incentive to sell. I indicated earlier that one of the valuation services value this site at 7100 bucks, I would think that the current site owner is making more than that.

Ron said he had it estimated at $50,000 in the complaint. qh4dotcom, for example, had earlier said he thought the fair price to pay was the $25,000 the guy paid on ebay (which I think Ron doesn't even know about). So if Ron was willing to pay in the neighborhood of what he thought its fair value was, $50,000, he was planning more than that. If the $50,000 valuation is wrong, then the owner should suggest another way to value the site by neutral third parties or something.

 

[sailingaway]

They got the site on eBay, so that's how the value was determined at that time.

I haven't seen any portion of the ICANN terms spelling out how domains are to be valued when reselling - perhaps you can point me to that part?

Apparently it says they are free if the guy broke the rules and used them for cybersquatting and that is what the claim is about -- a claim Ron only just filed, first trying to get it at fair value, in his own mind.

He may win or lose, but it is under those rules.

 

[angelatc]

Apparently it says they are free if the guy broke the rules and used them for cybersquatting and that is what the claim is about -- a claim Ron only just filed, first trying to get it at fair value, in his own mind.

He may win or lose, but it is under those rules.

But that's a different discussion. We were talking about free markets. You are correct in that domain holders aren't given a free market option, but that doesn't mean Ron Paul couldn't / shouldn't make a series of offers based on free market principles.

I think you're really being niave. You honestly think that the fact that their initial offer is exactly double what the site holders paid for it is just a coincidence, and that Ron doesn't know they paid $25k for it originally?

If Paul believed he's entitled for it for free, why offer anything at all?

 

[CPUd]

They got the site on eBay, so that's how the value was determined at that time.

I haven't seen any portion of the ICANN terms spelling out how domains are to be valued when reselling - perhaps you can point me to that part?

It seems to me that they were perfectly willing to buy the site - isn't that how the conversation started? When they couldn't get the price they wanted, they resorted to suing for it. To me, that means the initial offer was made in bad faith. They had no intentions of actually negotiating honestly.

ICANN doesn't get involved in aftermarket pricing. What would have happened is, when the current owner put the $25K in escrow for the ebay purchase, the original owner would initiate a transfer; during the transfer process, the new owner must enter into the same agreement with the registrar as if it were a new registration.

http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/transfers/name-holder-faqs

(check some of the linked forms on that page)

 

[fr33]

And that's what this is about. There are people that Paul associates with that have decided that they want to make a living off the liberty movement, and they have decided the bully approach is the cheapest way for them to accomplish their goals.

Anything wrong with that? Lew Rockwell lives off the liberty movement...Tom Woods, etc.

People like Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell actually produce something. The current domain owner just uses Ron Paul's actions to make money.

 

[angelatc]

People like Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell actually produce something. The current domain owner just uses Ron Paul's actions to make money.

Really? What does Lew Rockwell produce?

ETA: NM - you mean original content. That's probably a valid point.

Back in the early days RonPaul.com also produced original content - not sure if they still do or not.

ETA - yes, it looks like they do. http://www.ronpaul.com/2013-02-05/rand-paul-introduces-bill-to-audit-the-federal-reserve/

 

[sailingaway]

But that's a different discussion. We were talking about free markets. You are correct in that domain holders aren't given a free market option, but that doesn't mean Ron Paul couldn't / shouldn't make a series of offers based on free market principles.

I think you're really being niave. You honestly think that the fact that their initial offer is exactly double what the site holders paid for it is just a coincidence, and that Ron doesn't know they paid $25k for it originally?

If Paul believed he's entitled for it for free, why offer anything at all?

No you are talking about free markets. Since this isn't a free market, since both Ron and the site owner are bound by a different system, I'm not talking about that. I am talking about a) what the rules actually are, and b) what a good person trying to do the right thing would do.

I see why Ron would try b) even though he had ability to get more under a) but I can also see something may have happened in negotiations, the facts of which I don't know, to make him think he was being held up in a way that wasn't fair, so his trying to be fair himself would end up in an unfair result to himself. In which case he might have gone back to a).

I don't know what made Ron decide to drop the negotiations to buy it he had started, we don't have his side of that. Maybe the guy threatened to smear him in the media as seems to be being done. Maybe he said 'I'll sell it and your worst enemies will pay more' and put it on the market as whosis shows it is on the market, and maybe that made Ron decide he had to go this route. I don't know. I would have handled it differently from what I do know, but I am going to give Ron the benefit of the doubt until I know what exactly happened.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

People like Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell actually produce something. The current domain owner just uses Ron Paul's actions to make money.

How is that different than this site or Daily Paul? For that matter the same can be said about Drudge

 

[sailingaway]

How is that different than this site or Daily Paul? For that matter the same can be said about Drudge

The point is the site Ron wants is his own name, and there appear to be rules about that that the domain owner agreed to and it appears we will find out how the tribunal designated by the domain agreement feels about them on this topic unless the parties settle.

 

[angelatc]

No you are talking about free markets. Since this isn't a free market, since both Ron and the site owner are bound by a different system, I'm not talking about that. I am talking about a) what the rules actually are, and b) what a good person trying to do the right thing would do.

I see why Ron would try b) even though he had ability to get more under a) but I can also see something may have happened in negotiations, the facts of which I don't know, to make him think he was being held up in a way that wasn't fair, so his trying to be fair himself would end up in an unfair result to himself. In which case he might have gone back to a).

I don't know what made Ron decide to drop the negotiations to buy it he had started, we don't have his side of that. Maybe the guy threatened to smear him in the media as seems to be being done. Maybe he said 'I'll sell it and your worst enemies will pay more' and put it on the market as whosis shows it is on the market, and maybe that made Ron decide he had to go this route. I don't know. I would have handled it differently from what I do know, but I am going to give Ron the benefit of the doubt until I know what exactly happened.

That's where we disagree. There is nothing stopping Ron Paul from negotiating a mutually agreed upon price for the site, and nothing forcing him to use the ICANN arbitration process. And since he is an outspoken critic of bureaucratic entanglements and a known supporter of free markets, it seems hypocritical for him to take the low road here. (He didn't have to sign this contract - only the domain holder had to.)

The way I see it, Ron Paul made his offer in bad faith, knowing full well that if they didn't roll over and give up the site, he was going to just sue them and try to take it away with force. (Unless of course, his offer contained that disclosure.)

 

[sailingaway]

That's where we disagree. There is nothing stopping Ron Paul from negotiating a mutually agreed upon price for the site, and nothing forcing him to use the ICANN arbitration process.

The way I see it, Ron Paul made his offer in bad faith, knowing full well that if they didn't roll over and give up the site, he was going to just sue them and try to take it away with force. (Unless of course, his offer contained that disclosure.)

You are right that we disagree.

 

[fr33]

How is that different than this site or Daily Paul? For that matter the same can be said about Drudge

The daily paul produces original content. Arbitration could be initiated over it but not likely since the daily paul doesn't even use imagery of Ron any more.

I don't know what drudge has to do with this.

 

[angelatc]

How is that different than this site or Daily Paul? For that matter the same can be said about Drudge

There isn't one, of course...except that Ron et al don't want this site.

 

[angelatc]

The daily paul produces original content. Arbitration could be initiated over it but not likely since the daily paul doesn't even use imagery of Ron any more.

I don't know what drudge has to do with this.

RonPaul.com produces original content too though.

 

[sailingaway]

Actually, this site isn't his name itself, 'forum' means discussion about, and the google preview before you even get here, states that it is inspired by Ron and to facilitate grass roots.

There are many other differences, content, purpose etc.

 

[angelatc]

Actually, this site isn't his name itself, 'forum' means discussion about, and the google preview before you even get here, states that it is inspired by Ron and to facilitate grass roots.

There are many other differences, content, purpose etc.

Only the trademark holder gets to decide what sites are associated with the trademark.

We have seen lots of people come here and address their posts to Ron. Apparently this site confuses them.

 

[jj-]

ICANN doesn't get involved in aftermarket pricing.

So ICANN people are better defenders of free markets than even the moderators at RonPaulForums.com?