3 ms·

It's just noise: http://www.observer.com/2010/media/bitly-says-libya-scare-bunk-mitt-romney-shut-down-mittly http://www.observer.com/2010/media/bitly-says-libya

by aditya 16y ago

It's just noise: http://www.observer.com/2010/media/bitly-says-libya-scare-bunk-mitt-romney-shut-down-mittly http://www.observer.com/2010/media/bitly-says-libya-scare-bu...

meatsock 16y ago
the article says 'they've got nothing to worry about' in terms of being on a sexual mission but it doesnt rule out an evolution of .ly's opinion of it's stake in the deal, and it seems to me they'd have final say about it. The 'scare' was ly asserting what amounts to their territory, no?
InclinedPlane 16y ago
It's far from just noise. Any company betting its business on a ccTLD needs to have a sane and level-headed understanding of the risks involved. And .ly is one of the riskiest, because it's run by an anti-western, anti-US dictatorship. You may think that because the regime currently supports the continued existence of a particular web business today that they will forever, but the history of such regimes argues that there is a lot of risk in that assumption. The regime may change its mind based on arbitrary criteria. It may decide that bit.ly is no longer in its favors. It may decide to nationalize bit.ly, redirecting the domain to a Libyan owned copy of bit.ly, prepopulated with existing shortened urls gathered from searches. Or, the country may undergo a change of regime. What happens when (not if) Gaddaffi dies (he is already nearly 70)? What happens if the country undergoes another coup? What happens if the country renames itself and gets rid of the old TLD? This use/misuse of ccTLDs for commercial purposes (e.g. .tv, .ly, .it, .co, .to, etc.) is a relatively recent practice, there hasn't been enough time to decide if it's a safe practice or not. It'll likely take only one "disaster" to wake people up to the idea that there is indeed risk to basing your business on the cooperation of a country chosen solely because it has a catchy TLD abbreviation.
dotBen 16y ago
As one of the two (former) owners of vb.ly that got pulled, I'm sure bit.ly is concerned (and should be). Given he was having his investors sign contracts on a $10m Series B investment the same day, I'm not surprised John Borthwick said 'it was just noise' -- I'd have done the exact thing myself. It's what you do as an entrepreneur to get shit done. Doesn't mean it is just noise for them. The peanut gallery have gone to great lengths to tell us Libya is in its right to set whatever rules it likes about domains (and even content of sites), that it is reasonable for Libya to change those rules at any time and that it is even ok for Libya to interpret those laws differently on a case-by-case basis. (wow). So with that in mind, I'd be fairly concerned. Given the way things seem to be going over at NIC.ly I'd be interested to see what kind of arrangement NIC.ly propositions to Bit.ly if/when they decide they no longer like bit.ly linking to depictions of the prophet Mohammed (PBUH) or hardcore pornography. I'm sure they won't simply can the domain but come to some other arrangement (ie financial) to resolve this. And if I was bit.ly, with everything I have in play now, I'd accept rather than have my domain taken away from me and a significant part of my business shut down. It's just business (Internet = Serious Business)
- evansolomon 16y ago
  This is a small point, but funding doesn't get announced on the day it closes ever. So no one was signing anything related to this deal once the .ly stuff started happening.

by aditya 16y ago

It's just noise: http://www.observer.com/2010/media/bitly-says-libya-scare-bunk-mitt-romney-shut-down-mittly http://www.observer.com/2010/media/bitly-says-libya-scare-bu...

meatsock 16y ago

the article says 'they've got nothing to worry about' in terms of being on a sexual mission but it doesnt rule out an evolution of .ly's opinion of it's stake in the deal, and it seems to me they'd have final say about it. The 'scare' was ly asserting what amounts to their territory, no?

InclinedPlane 16y ago

It's far from just noise. Any company betting its business on a ccTLD needs to have a sane and level-headed understanding of the risks involved. And .ly is one of the riskiest, because it's run by an anti-western, anti-US dictatorship. You may think that because the regime currently supports the continued existence of a particular web business today that they will forever, but the history of such regimes argues that there is a lot of risk in that assumption. The regime may change its mind based on arbitrary criteria. It may decide that bit.ly is no longer in its favors. It may decide to nationalize bit.ly, redirecting the domain to a Libyan owned copy of bit.ly, prepopulated with existing shortened urls gathered from searches. Or, the country may undergo a change of regime. What happens when (not if) Gaddaffi dies (he is already nearly 70)? What happens if the country undergoes another coup? What happens if the country renames itself and gets rid of the old TLD? This use/misuse of ccTLDs for commercial purposes (e.g. .tv, .ly, .it, .co, .to, etc.) is a relatively recent practice, there hasn't been enough time to decide if it's a safe practice or not. It'll likely take only one "disaster" to wake people up to the idea that there is indeed risk to basing your business on the cooperation of a country chosen solely because it has a catchy TLD abbreviation.

dotBen 16y ago

As one of the two (former) owners of vb.ly that got pulled, I'm sure bit.ly is concerned (and should be). Given he was having his investors sign contracts on a $10m Series B investment the same day, I'm not surprised John Borthwick said 'it was just noise' -- I'd have done the exact thing myself. It's what you do as an entrepreneur to get shit done. Doesn't mean it is just noise for them. The peanut gallery have gone to great lengths to tell us Libya is in its right to set whatever rules it likes about domains (and even content of sites), that it is reasonable for Libya to change those rules at any time and that it is even ok for Libya to interpret those laws differently on a case-by-case basis. (wow). So with that in mind, I'd be fairly concerned. Given the way things seem to be going over at NIC.ly I'd be interested to see what kind of arrangement NIC.ly propositions to Bit.ly if/when they decide they no longer like bit.ly linking to depictions of the prophet Mohammed (PBUH) or hardcore pornography. I'm sure they won't simply can the domain but come to some other arrangement (ie financial) to resolve this. And if I was bit.ly, with everything I have in play now, I'd accept rather than have my domain taken away from me and a significant part of my business shut down. It's just business (Internet = Serious Business)

evansolomon 16y ago
This is a small point, but funding doesn't get announced on the day it closes ever. So no one was signing anything related to this deal once the .ly stuff started happening.