5 ms·
The interesting question is if all those domains belong to US citizens. If the US only seizes domains of their own citizens that's somewhat OK for me. If the
by gst 16y ago
The interesting question is if all those domains belong to US citizens.
If the US only seizes domains of their own citizens that's somewhat OK for me.
If the US also sizes domains of other nation's citizens I guess in the future I'll only use domain names outside the jurisdication of the US. But if that's the case I wonder why they haven't taken down PirateBay yet.
- c1utch 16y agoI believe the .com domain was originally for the US, so the US government has jurisdiction regardless of where the owner of the domain lives. .ly domains were being seized by their government even though the domains were being operated by American companies.
- regularfry 16y agoA common misconception, that. .com is not a country-code TLD. It was never intended for use by one country; it's explicitly a generic top-level domain, for use by international organisations. What gives the US "jurisdiction" is that it's nominally controlled by VeriSign and thence ICANN, which is a US quango, so owners of .com domains are in a legal relationship with a US entity. Outside the US, people have been known to get quite worked up about this arrangement, and there have been serious suggestions that ICANN should cede control (or transfer directly) to a UN body. Whether interference as in this case is legal in international law is, as far as I know, untested. The TLD which was originally intended for use by US commercial organisations was .co.us, which nobody seems to bother with.
- kronusaturn 16y agoNope, .co.us was (and is) intended for Colorado. There never has been a second-level domain under .us specifically for commercial organizations.
- regularfry 16y agoWhoops, good catch.
- yread 16y agowell from the whois records some of the domains were registered on email addresses from chinese providers.