4 ms·

That's what they say now. Maybe it was their original motivation; maybe not. But I know for a fact they've confiscated names in order to resell them in the pa

by pg 16y ago

That's what they say now. Maybe it was their original motivation; maybe not. But I know for a fact they've confiscated names in order to resell them in the past, because they did it to Answerly.

jacquesm 16y ago
Yes, that's what makes this hard, but keeping an eye on them is trivial, and it would be easy enough to call them out on this for any future violations where they sell the domain. What was their stated reason for repossessing the answerly domain? The bit in the other thread reads like this: "We purchased .ly variant of our domain name through an authorized Libyan registrar about 10 months ago. It was seized back without explanation a few days later. When I contacted the registrar I was told that the domain was available for "four figures" through domains.ly (an aftermarket .ly reseller service that is operated by the same authorized registrar we used to purchase the domain initially). The domain wasn't critical, so we didn't pursue it any further.", so that seems to be a ploy by the (greedy) registrar rather than by NIC.ly from what I can see. Did that make the news in any way?
- tptacek 16y ago
  And when you "call them out on this" and they ignore you, because domain registration revenue is a pittance next to the revenues they get from petrochemicals, what's your next step?
  - boundlessdreamz 16y ago
    That doesn't make sense. If they ignore you because the revenue is pittance, then they wouldn't bother with trying to resell the domains either.
    - tptacek 16y ago
      The revenue from the largest domain registrars in the world won't move the dials on the Libyan GDP. And .LY isn't even close to one of the largest TLDs. The Libyan economy is dominated by an 11-figure petrochemical industry. I'm not seeing the "if" here.
      - boundlessdreamz 16y ago
        1. The revenue from petrochemicals is not going to NIC.ly. 2. You contested jacquesm's argument that NIC.ly can be "called out" when the sell the domain. You said that, NIC.ly will probably ignore that because the domain registering revenue is a pittance. If that is true, then NIC.ly won't try to confiscate and then sell a domain. Why go to all that trouble when they can sit back and enjoy petrochemical dollars. a: So if NIC.ly thinks domain registration revenues are a pittance, then they won't sell the domain. b: If it is not a pittance they can be called out because they have to listen to valid complaints. Otherwise no one will register .ly domains
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    I won't be buying their domains any more. Just like I do now... But I also won't be giving them the benefit of the doubt, which given the evidence is the only course of action in this case. They clearly spelled out what they were going to do, there are cases on record of the NIC.ly institution contacting other website owners regarding their content and if Ben & Co had simply decided to go for a .com instead of .ly for their 'sex positive' (whatever that means) URL shortener instead of trying to walk this very fine line then none of this would have happened. It's just that they will not be able to hide behind that trick more than once, so they just cut off some of their own room to maneuver in a very public way. If a .ly ever gets repossessed and re-sold within a timespan short enough that the press still remembers they'll be torn to shreds. And anybody that continues to base their business on a .ly has been properly warned and should move away from there.
    - nollidge 16y ago
      Here's what sex-positive means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_positive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_positive
      - jacquesm 16y ago
        That's in direct conflict with the NIC.ly regulations: "3.5 The Applicant certifies that, to the best of his/her knowledge the domain name is not being registered for any activities/purpose not permitted under Libyan law." Which is based on Islamic law, which is notorious for heavy handed limitations on what people can do in their version of morality. "4.2 Domain names must not contain obscene, scandalous, indecent, or contrary to Libyan law or Islamic morality words, phrases nor abbreviations." http://nic.ly/regulations.php http://nic.ly/regulations.php So just saying that that is your mission already rules out a .ly domain for you, even if the actual domain name itself is still within the rules, polyandrous relationships, free sexuality (especially free female sexuality) and so on are likely to offend. That does not make it right. But you have to pick your battles.
  - dotBen 16y ago
    I think it's worth pointing out here that NIC.ly != Libyan Government. Yes, it's part of Libyan Telecom (which maybe government owned, I don't know) - but in all of my writing on the subject at least I've been careful to separate the two. Clearly the decision making process around all this is being done by a few individuals at NIC.ly, not the Libyan Government.
    - wdewind 16y ago
      Wait, why is that clear?
      - dotBen 16y ago
        It's clear to me because I'm the person who's been communicating with NIC.ly on this issue.

by pg 16y ago

That's what they say now. Maybe it was their original motivation; maybe not. But I know for a fact they've confiscated names in order to resell them in the past, because they did it to Answerly.

jacquesm 16y ago

Yes, that's what makes this hard, but keeping an eye on them is trivial, and it would be easy enough to call them out on this for any future violations where they sell the domain. What was their stated reason for repossessing the answerly domain? The bit in the other thread reads like this: "We purchased .ly variant of our domain name through an authorized Libyan registrar about 10 months ago. It was seized back without explanation a few days later. When I contacted the registrar I was told that the domain was available for "four figures" through domains.ly (an aftermarket .ly reseller service that is operated by the same authorized registrar we used to purchase the domain initially). The domain wasn't critical, so we didn't pursue it any further.", so that seems to be a ploy by the (greedy) registrar rather than by NIC.ly from what I can see. Did that make the news in any way?

tptacek 16y ago
And when you "call them out on this" and they ignore you, because domain registration revenue is a pittance next to the revenues they get from petrochemicals, what's your next step?
- boundlessdreamz 16y ago
  That doesn't make sense. If they ignore you because the revenue is pittance, then they wouldn't bother with trying to resell the domains either.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    The revenue from the largest domain registrars in the world won't move the dials on the Libyan GDP. And .LY isn't even close to one of the largest TLDs. The Libyan economy is dominated by an 11-figure petrochemical industry. I'm not seeing the "if" here.
    - boundlessdreamz 16y ago
      1. The revenue from petrochemicals is not going to NIC.ly. 2. You contested jacquesm's argument that NIC.ly can be "called out" when the sell the domain. You said that, NIC.ly will probably ignore that because the domain registering revenue is a pittance. If that is true, then NIC.ly won't try to confiscate and then sell a domain. Why go to all that trouble when they can sit back and enjoy petrochemical dollars. a: So if NIC.ly thinks domain registration revenues are a pittance, then they won't sell the domain. b: If it is not a pittance they can be called out because they have to listen to valid complaints. Otherwise no one will register .ly domains
- jacquesm 16y ago
  I won't be buying their domains any more. Just like I do now... But I also won't be giving them the benefit of the doubt, which given the evidence is the only course of action in this case. They clearly spelled out what they were going to do, there are cases on record of the NIC.ly institution contacting other website owners regarding their content and if Ben & Co had simply decided to go for a .com instead of .ly for their 'sex positive' (whatever that means) URL shortener instead of trying to walk this very fine line then none of this would have happened. It's just that they will not be able to hide behind that trick more than once, so they just cut off some of their own room to maneuver in a very public way. If a .ly ever gets repossessed and re-sold within a timespan short enough that the press still remembers they'll be torn to shreds. And anybody that continues to base their business on a .ly has been properly warned and should move away from there.
  - nollidge 16y ago
    Here's what sex-positive means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_positive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_positive
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      That's in direct conflict with the NIC.ly regulations: "3.5 The Applicant certifies that, to the best of his/her knowledge the domain name is not being registered for any activities/purpose not permitted under Libyan law." Which is based on Islamic law, which is notorious for heavy handed limitations on what people can do in their version of morality. "4.2 Domain names must not contain obscene, scandalous, indecent, or contrary to Libyan law or Islamic morality words, phrases nor abbreviations." http://nic.ly/regulations.php http://nic.ly/regulations.php So just saying that that is your mission already rules out a .ly domain for you, even if the actual domain name itself is still within the rules, polyandrous relationships, free sexuality (especially free female sexuality) and so on are likely to offend. That does not make it right. But you have to pick your battles.
- dotBen 16y ago
  I think it's worth pointing out here that NIC.ly != Libyan Government. Yes, it's part of Libyan Telecom (which maybe government owned, I don't know) - but in all of my writing on the subject at least I've been careful to separate the two. Clearly the decision making process around all this is being done by a few individuals at NIC.ly, not the Libyan Government.
  - wdewind 16y ago
    Wait, why is that clear?
    - dotBen 16y ago
      It's clear to me because I'm the person who's been communicating with NIC.ly on this issue.