Bingo. That shows they’re full of shit. “Liberty package”? Who the fuck do they think they are? QVC?
Keep in mind, I think the whole thing is ridiculous because Paul’s complaint is based in trademark law. While that is an interesting argument about the registrant agreeing to the terms of the UDRP, I think in terms of a libertarian outlook, it’s a moot point. The last comment you quote talks about “main tenet of the free market”…sure, contract is…but de jure monopoly and “intellectual property” aren’t. Those things are both unlibertarian.
Essentially to own a domain you have to agree to this UDRP.
Obviously there’s two things wrong with this.
-
The relevant grounds in this case (as the commenter outlined) are: “When you register a domain, in accordance with ICANN policies, you warrant that you’re not infringing on the rights of a third party”…and as far as I can tell, the only “rights” they’re talking about are faux “intellectual property” rights. So the issue falls on its face there, as far as the libertarian is concerned. If the only complaint that you can file is that your “intellectual property rights” are being infringed, then you have no (libertarian) case.
-
The argument that “these respondants argeed to the terms of the ‘contract’ when they registered the domain” isn’t strong either, as it is essentially a monopolistic set of terms which are the only way one may come to own a domain. In other words, there would be no such mandatory agreement in a free society.
So not only are the premises of the agreement at odds with libertarian principles, but the nature of the agreement itself is as well.
As Kinsella said:
Put it this way: in a free society, there would be no reputation rights, no IP law, no trademark, no copyright, no right of publicity, so I doubt the private companies running the internet infrastructure woudl ever have a quasi-IP-based domain name dispute policy in the first place.