+1 Clayton for all your posts in this thread. How about turning them into a Voluntarist Reader article?
My initial reaction to this was the same as John James’. Wenzel’s and (especially) Rockwell’s defenses are weak, but having read Clayton’s posts on this, I have changed my mind. I now don’t see anything unlibertarian about what Ron Paul is doing here. All talk of “owning”, “homesteading”, “trading” or “stealing” a domain name is misguided, because it presupposes that a name is something that can be owned, and all anti-IP libertarians know that this is not the case. A claim to own a name, a pattern, or any other idea, is just a mischievous way for creators of names/patterns/ideas to claim ownership of physical objects containing or using that name/pattern/idea.
A domain name can’t be owned (or homesteaded or traded or stolen) because it isn’t a physical object. This isn’t a property conflict, and it has little to do with IP. The dispute here is that we have two parties trying to influence the policy-interpretation of a private (albeit government-privileged) institution. There is nothing unlibertarian about petitioning a private organisation to make a policy-interpretation decision in your favor.
The rules of ICANN resemble the principles of libertarianism (homesteading and voluntary exchange), but this is only a resemblance. In general, ICANN operates a first-come-first-served policy when it comes to initially registering domain names, but this isn’t homesteading except in a metaphorical sense, because nothing is passing from a state of being unowned to a state of being owned. Because domain names are not (cannot be) owned, the act of “trading” domain names is similarly a metaphor only. When one individual “buys” a domain name from another individual, what is happening is that money is paid so that the “seller” renounces his registration with ICANN so that the “buyer” can then register with ICANN. ICANN’s policies allow this to be done, which makes its policy resemble the libertarian principle of voluntary exchange, but this too is just a metaphor.
According to it’s own policy, in exceptional cases ICANN can decide to terminate one individual’s registration of a domain name and allow another individual to register it. Part of the contract agreed to by the first registrant explained that this could be done and outlined the exceptional circumstances in which it can be done. The only question is about whether these specific circumstances are exceptional, as outlined in the contract - that is what this dispute is about. Based on my assessment of the strength of the complaint, informed by Stephan Kinsella’s expert opinion, I believe that this is NOT an exceptional case, and the complaint will not be upheld. But there’s nothing unlibertarian about trying, even if the policy clause that the complaint is based on would probably not be a policy clause of a free market version of ICANN.