Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
The Internet Republicans Your Rights Online

WIPO Panel Says Ron Paul Guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking 303

An anonymous reader writes "Ron Paul lost his two cybersquatting complaints against and In the case of, Paul was been found guilty of 'reverse domain name hijacking'. A reverse domain name hijacking finding means that the arbitration panel believes the case was filed in bad faith, resulting in the abuse of the administrative process. The panel ruled this way since Paul filed the case after the owner of had already offered to give him the domain for free. The panel also ruled against Paul for the domain name."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WIPO Panel Says Ron Paul Guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

Comments Filter:
  • Re:For free? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23, 2013 @05:49PM (#43807407)
    The .com wanted $250,000 []
  • Re:For free? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Fluffeh ( 1273756 ) on Thursday May 23, 2013 @05:49PM (#43807415)

    Why was Ron Paul trying to use the force of government to coerce someone into doing something they were already going to do?

    From the article (Really, sometimes reading it gives a whole new insight into a story):

    The owners had offered to sell to Paul but also offered to give him as an alternative if Paul didn’t want to buy the .com.

  • by Crosshair84 ( 2598247 ) on Thursday May 23, 2013 @06:00PM (#43807505)
    Here is what I posted in the last thread on this:

    According to whois, was registered in 2000 while was registered in 1999. The current owner of is DN Capital Inc, a company based in Panama, while is owned by WKF Corp, another company based in Panama.

    This right here is sending up red flags. A "fan site" whose domain name is owned by some corporation in Panama? This isn't some Hary Alderson in Vermont who owns the domain name, as one might expect from a fan site. It is some company in Panama who, for all we know, may or may not be a shell company.

    Second, Ron Paul DID NOT go to "The UN" for this, he went to the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, whose JOB it is to settle disputes like this. There is nothing hypocritical about this. WIPO would exist absent the UN for this purpose. He may not LIKE the UN, but he is working within the system as it currently exists even though he would like that system changed. I don't like the city government where I live and wish it were set up differently, but you bet your butt I go to them when I have a problem or need something taken care of under their jurisdiction.

    RP wanted only the domain name, yet the "owners" of the site wanted to sell him the whole thing for a huge chunk of cash? That's not "Fan site", that's "trying to hit up a public figure for money and cash out". Wanting to sell the whole nine yards so eagerly, and for so much, doesn't sound like any "fan site" I've ever heard of.

    Sorry, the owners of are looking awfully shady. Say what you want about Dr. Paul, the owners of the domain are not looking so innocent and it is looking that Dr, Paul may have a decent case for cybersquatting. We simply don't have enough information to be 100% sure. Considering Dr. Paul's past, I'm tending toward giving him the benefit of the doubt for now, but I would certainly like more information before definitively siding one way or the other on this. There is probably a lot of details that we don't know about.
  • Re:For free? (Score:4, Informative)

    by diamondmagic ( 877411 ) on Thursday May 23, 2013 @06:23PM (#43807669) Homepage

    To quote Lew Rockwell []:

    Ron is not using the State to acquire He could have brought a lawsuit in US government courts, but he did not. He is seeking to have ICANN enforce its own rules against cybersquatting, including the rule against registering a famous person’s name and making money off it. Anyone registering a URL agrees to keep all the rules, just as he must pay a recurring fee. A URL is not private property in the normal sense. It is a license, and ICANN is a private, non-profit organization.

    Ron is not calling on the UN. ICANN has four approved arbitration organizations. Because the guys registered Ron's name in Australia, the international arbitration option must be used. Yes, it is associated with the UN. Too bad, but one must play the cards one is dealt. The UN itself is not involved, though note—whatever else is wrong with it—the UN is not a State.

    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.

Can anyone remember when the times were not hard, and money not scarce?