8 ms·

For the record we did NOT receive any communication from NIC.ly before they pulled the vb.ly domain. We had received other emails from them previously includin

by dotBen 16y ago

For the record we did NOT receive any communication from NIC.ly before they pulled the vb.ly domain. We had received other emails from them previously including our domain renewal notice just a month and a half before so I know they had a working email address for us and that we were receiving their other correspondence. They've made out in their statement that we ignored their email - given how upset myself and Violet Blue have been over this I would urge people to consider whether these are the actions of two people who would intentionally ignore such a significant warning. Why would we do that? I do, however, feel relieved that they will not be letting anyone else register the domain - we were concerned from a security perspective of someone else registering the domain and re-routing existing vb.ly links out there to insecure or spoofed websites. (we hadn't highlighted this concern previously because we didn't want to give anyone ideas but now they have said the domain is 'locked' I'm happy to talk about that concern)

jacquesm 16y ago
hey Ben, Not to add insult to injury, but it is very hard - next to impossible - to believe your version of this over the nic.ly version or vice-versa given the available evidence. All there is are stories. You are the 'injured party' and it is to your advantage to present your case as strong as possible, and not being warned is of course going to make the other side look bad. They in turn are going to make it seem as though they did everything they could and only used the disabling as a last resort. From what I understand though, you were happy to operate this service under their terms and conditions, knowing full well that they could repossess the domain at a moments notice. I would very much like to believe that they never sent you any email but it's going to be very hard for you to prove that conclusively, they are going to have an equally hard time showing that they warned you, but even if they didn't it will not change things much (as far as I can see they're not going to have a change of heart any time soon). If I were you I'd pick a .com that has a good ring to it and relaunch, use the current media frenzy around the story to get your new name out there before you are 'old news'. That way you get to rescue as much of the wreckage as possible. Think about the future, not about the past. Good luck!
- dotBen 16y ago
  Not to add insult to injury, but it is very hard - next to impossible - to believe your version of this over the nic.ly version or vice-versa given the available evidence. We didn't receive any prior warnings. If you're, essentially, saying you don't believe me then that's your call. I'm not sure what more I can do. Sad.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    No, what I'm saying is that for an outsider it is impossible to know the truth, no matter who you would want to believe or who you care about most. Personally, I think you should be able to do whatever you want with domains that you register in your name and that you paid for, so I'm sympathetic to your case. But the time to move on is NOW, not three weeks from now so use your 15 minutes of fame to relaunch your service on a new domain while the media hype lasts or you'll have to start completely from scratch. You might even be able to turn this whole thing to your advantage, I'm not a fan of URL shorteners in any way, but if you're going to do one then make use of this, turn a disadvantage in to an opportunity. I'd never even heard of vb.ly before, I have now, and I'm sure that a relaunch on a very short timeframe would still get you some media coverage.
    - dotBen 16y ago
      Personally, I think you should be able to do whatever you want with domains that you register in your name and that you paid for Do you not think that, really, this is the key issue and is a million more times more important for everyone than what we were doing with the url shortener itself? I've spend a large amount of my career helping to build a free press (http:/bbc.co.uk/news) and it's something I believe strongly in. Violet has published 30+ books on sex and sexuality and is a guest on Oprah and other outlets. I've got a good name for myself across the UK and San Francisco start-up scene even if you've never heard of me. I don't think we need to use this to get publicity for ourselves or our service (which was never really commercial, we ran it for the benefit of the community). The reason we're making a big deal of this is the censorship angle and making sure that everyone else who has a .ly knows what is going on. We could have just let them do this and no one would have known.
reedlaw 16y ago
What about your claim: ...while we contest that there was NO pornography or adult material on vb.ly... Next to their claim: ...the domain’s purpose (proclaimed by its registrants themselves) was to serve as a ‘sex friendly URL shortener’, mainly for adult uses...
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- dotBen 16y ago
  Sure, So when we were finally able to email directly with NIC.ly (post deletion) they said that the domain was removed because they didn't like the 'scantily clad' lady on the front page (and only page) of the site (which was Violet, in this photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dotben/3674835644/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/dotben/3674835644/) They're essentially now changing their tune for PR reasons. The site's purpose was NOT to shorten pornographic urls, it was described as a "sex positive" url shortener in line with Violet's work as a best-selling author and academic in this space. being "sex positive" is not the same as saying "shorten your porn here". However the wider issue, as I've stated at http://benmetcalfe.com/blog/2010/10/our-response-to-nic-lys-statement-on-the-vb-ly-domain-deletion/ http://benmetcalfe.com/blog/2010/10/our-response-to-nic-lys-... is why is a domain registry asserting editorial control over a website that uses its domain. People should be very concerned about that.
  - reedlaw 16y ago
    What does "sex positive" mean?
    - nollidge 16y ago
      I was going to say "google it" but then realized that may not be work-safe :) Anyway here's wikipedia's description of the movement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_positive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_positive
  - mootothemax 16y ago
tptacek 16y ago
Here is Amnesty's most recent report on human rights in Libya: http://www.amnestyusa.org/annualreport.php?id=ar&yr=2008&c=LBY http://www.amnestyusa.org/annualreport.php?id=ar&yr=2008... Can you explain to me why anyone could be expected to mobilize over "censorship" of your URL shortener? The Libyan government kills journalists. All they did to you was shut off your Libyan vanity domain name.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  Why do you keep insisting that the NIC.ly people are part of the Libyan government? Even the 'victim' in this case is quite careful to make the distinction between the two. I don't doubt there are contacts between the two and I'm sure they operate with the permission of the Libyan government but they're not one and the same.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    NIC.ly is, to the best of my (casual) understanding, run by a company incorporated in Libya. I see no meaningful distinction to draw. It is not, for instance, as if the TLD was operated by Verisign, and pressure on the NIC could cause them to disrupt or shut down the TLD in protest.
  - meatsock 16y ago
    well they're the official data service of a soverign, so it seems if you put a tool that powerful in the hands of anyone they'd use it. You're implying theres seperation between autocratic power and anything without it being explicitly stated?
dmoney 16y ago
> given how upset myself and Violet Blue have been over this Why get upset about it? Why not find a non-libyan domain and move on?

by dotBen 16y ago

jacquesm 16y ago

hey Ben, Not to add insult to injury, but it is very hard - next to impossible - to believe your version of this over the nic.ly version or vice-versa given the available evidence. All there is are stories. You are the 'injured party' and it is to your advantage to present your case as strong as possible, and not being warned is of course going to make the other side look bad. They in turn are going to make it seem as though they did everything they could and only used the disabling as a last resort. From what I understand though, you were happy to operate this service under their terms and conditions, knowing full well that they could repossess the domain at a moments notice. I would very much like to believe that they never sent you any email but it's going to be very hard for you to prove that conclusively, they are going to have an equally hard time showing that they warned you, but even if they didn't it will not change things much (as far as I can see they're not going to have a change of heart any time soon). If I were you I'd pick a .com that has a good ring to it and relaunch, use the current media frenzy around the story to get your new name out there before you are 'old news'. That way you get to rescue as much of the wreckage as possible. Think about the future, not about the past. Good luck!

dotBen 16y ago
Not to add insult to injury, but it is very hard - next to impossible - to believe your version of this over the nic.ly version or vice-versa given the available evidence. We didn't receive any prior warnings. If you're, essentially, saying you don't believe me then that's your call. I'm not sure what more I can do. Sad.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  No, what I'm saying is that for an outsider it is impossible to know the truth, no matter who you would want to believe or who you care about most. Personally, I think you should be able to do whatever you want with domains that you register in your name and that you paid for, so I'm sympathetic to your case. But the time to move on is NOW, not three weeks from now so use your 15 minutes of fame to relaunch your service on a new domain while the media hype lasts or you'll have to start completely from scratch. You might even be able to turn this whole thing to your advantage, I'm not a fan of URL shorteners in any way, but if you're going to do one then make use of this, turn a disadvantage in to an opportunity. I'd never even heard of vb.ly before, I have now, and I'm sure that a relaunch on a very short timeframe would still get you some media coverage.
  - dotBen 16y ago
    Personally, I think you should be able to do whatever you want with domains that you register in your name and that you paid for Do you not think that, really, this is the key issue and is a million more times more important for everyone than what we were doing with the url shortener itself? I've spend a large amount of my career helping to build a free press (http:/bbc.co.uk/news) and it's something I believe strongly in. Violet has published 30+ books on sex and sexuality and is a guest on Oprah and other outlets. I've got a good name for myself across the UK and San Francisco start-up scene even if you've never heard of me. I don't think we need to use this to get publicity for ourselves or our service (which was never really commercial, we ran it for the benefit of the community). The reason we're making a big deal of this is the censorship angle and making sure that everyone else who has a .ly knows what is going on. We could have just let them do this and no one would have known.

reedlaw 16y ago

What about your claim: ...while we contest that there was NO pornography or adult material on vb.ly... Next to their claim: ...the domain’s purpose (proclaimed by its registrants themselves) was to serve as a ‘sex friendly URL shortener’, mainly for adult uses...

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
dotBen 16y ago
Sure, So when we were finally able to email directly with NIC.ly (post deletion) they said that the domain was removed because they didn't like the 'scantily clad' lady on the front page (and only page) of the site (which was Violet, in this photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dotben/3674835644/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/dotben/3674835644/) They're essentially now changing their tune for PR reasons. The site's purpose was NOT to shorten pornographic urls, it was described as a "sex positive" url shortener in line with Violet's work as a best-selling author and academic in this space. being "sex positive" is not the same as saying "shorten your porn here". However the wider issue, as I've stated at http://benmetcalfe.com/blog/2010/10/our-response-to-nic-lys-statement-on-the-vb-ly-domain-deletion/ http://benmetcalfe.com/blog/2010/10/our-response-to-nic-lys-... is why is a domain registry asserting editorial control over a website that uses its domain. People should be very concerned about that.
- reedlaw 16y ago
  What does "sex positive" mean?
  - nollidge 16y ago
    I was going to say "google it" but then realized that may not be work-safe :) Anyway here's wikipedia's description of the movement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_positive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_positive
- mootothemax 16y ago

tptacek 16y ago

Here is Amnesty's most recent report on human rights in Libya: http://www.amnestyusa.org/annualreport.php?id=ar&yr=2008&c=LBY http://www.amnestyusa.org/annualreport.php?id=ar&yr=2008... Can you explain to me why anyone could be expected to mobilize over "censorship" of your URL shortener? The Libyan government kills journalists. All they did to you was shut off your Libyan vanity domain name.

jacquesm 16y ago
Why do you keep insisting that the NIC.ly people are part of the Libyan government? Even the 'victim' in this case is quite careful to make the distinction between the two. I don't doubt there are contacts between the two and I'm sure they operate with the permission of the Libyan government but they're not one and the same.
- tptacek 16y ago
  NIC.ly is, to the best of my (casual) understanding, run by a company incorporated in Libya. I see no meaningful distinction to draw. It is not, for instance, as if the TLD was operated by Verisign, and pressure on the NIC could cause them to disrupt or shut down the TLD in protest.
- meatsock 16y ago
  well they're the official data service of a soverign, so it seems if you put a tool that powerful in the hands of anyone they'd use it. You're implying theres seperation between autocratic power and anything without it being explicitly stated?

dmoney 16y ago

> given how upset myself and Violet Blue have been over this Why get upset about it? Why not find a non-libyan domain and move on?