6 ms·

If you read the article, you will discover that the author asserts that this situation is different, because it's the first time that a .com domain registered t

If you read the article, you will discover that the author asserts that this situation is different, because it's the first time that a .com domain registered through a foreign registrar has been subject to seizure by US authorities. I don't know enough about the history of domain seizures to know whether this is true or not, but if so, it definitely represents an increased level of enforcement by US authorities -- if I owned a company operated and registered outside the US, I'd now think twice about using a .com name as my primary address.

larrys 15y ago
"if I owned a company operated and registered outside the US, I'd now think twice about using a .com name as my primary address." Why? Is that just on principle? Or do you see this behavior by the government as rising to the level of the US taking down sites that flout or even break the law in a de minimis way? Keep in mind that to do what they did there is a level of case preparation required to get the proper signoffs to make this happen. I think if someone is doing something illegal they have something to worry about, sure. But for 99.9% of the web sites out there why is this a cause for worry? Edit (since I can't reply to below): "the "convenience factor" of owning a .com no longer outweighs the potential risk" The reason to own a .com is not convenience. It's ubiquity at least in the US. Speaking as someone in the business who deals with customers of registration domains all the time (and also with people buying valuable domains) at this time using a non .com domain is a non-starter for the majority of people.
- cmatthias 15y ago
  "Why? Is that just on principle? Or do you see this behavior by the government as rising to the level of the US taking down sites that flout or even break the law in a de minimis way?" I think it's a combination of several factors. One is definitely principle. The other major reason is that if I'm running a business from outside the US, and do not deal with US customers or business partners, why should I waste my time figuring out whether what I'm doing is contrary to some law in one US state, just to ensure that the US doesn't steal my domain from me? Especially in some industries, there are vastly different notions of what is considered appropriate in the US vs. Europe (see the sports betting example). My opinion is that based on cases such as this, the "convenience factor" of owning a .com no longer outweighs the potential risk of losing the domain on the whim of the US government.
  - drucken 15y ago
    Exactly. This can only be a boon for the .EU domain, ccTLDs and all their registers, especially those which allow second-level domain names like .de. There is simply too much uncertainty with using American-hosted domains already and it is increasing every week.
- litek 15y ago
  I think the cause for concern is the mere possibility that you can be drawn in to a legal battle in a foreign country over your domain, without even operating in it.
- Vivtek 15y ago
  They weren't doing anything illegal - where they were. Do you think you should be punished for doing something that's illegal anywhere in the world?
  - unavoidable 15y ago
    The legal argument to this is that they were doing business with people in a jurisdiction where it was illegal (i.e. certain forms of betting in the US). Because they had business transactions in this jurisdiction, they have broken the laws there and can be tried in those courts.
    - Vivtek 15y ago
      I eagerly await all the Sharia law trials of anyone who's posted a bit.ly link to a pornographic picture, then. And they're not being tried in those courts. Their domain has simply been seized because that's easier than winning in court.
      - ma2rten 15y ago
        You are missing the point. Libya can totally trail someone for hosting any porn site under Sharia law. It is completely irrelevant what the TLD is or were the servers are hosted. The only thing that is important is that it is accessible from within Libya. If you want to protect yourself from this you need to block out all Libyan IPs. At least this is the case for many laws in many jurisdictions, I obviously don't know anything the Libyan one. However, if the site is hosted under a Libyan TLD this gives them additional power to block the site. This is a very unfortunate situation for website owners around the world, but this is the way it is.
      - unavoidable 15y ago
        Don't know why everyone downvoted. I'm only stating the legal reality, not making a comment on whether that's "moral" or "right".
      - ubernostrum 15y ago
        Actually... If you are in one country, and are clearly and unambiguously doing business with someone in another country -- with written agreements, money/goods/etc. transferring -- then it's simply not a new idea that you may end up subject in some way to the laws of that other country. It also isn't a particularly scary idea. The idea that "on the internet" is some sort of magical extra-jurisdictional space is the new and scary idea.
- cmatthias 15y ago
  (HN makes you wait a few minutes before you can reply. That's why the reply link was missing.) "The reason to own a .com is not convenience. It's ubiquity at least in the US." I know. I was not talking about the US. "at this time using a non .com domain is a non-starter for the majority of people." I disagree. For anyone who is not in the US (which is the majority of people), having a non-.com domain is probably not a big deal.
  - ma2rten 15y ago
    It is if you are running an international business, I'd assume that OP meant convenience as in not having to register a domain for every possible country.

larrys 15y ago

"if I owned a company operated and registered outside the US, I'd now think twice about using a .com name as my primary address." Why? Is that just on principle? Or do you see this behavior by the government as rising to the level of the US taking down sites that flout or even break the law in a de minimis way? Keep in mind that to do what they did there is a level of case preparation required to get the proper signoffs to make this happen. I think if someone is doing something illegal they have something to worry about, sure. But for 99.9% of the web sites out there why is this a cause for worry? Edit (since I can't reply to below): "the "convenience factor" of owning a .com no longer outweighs the potential risk" The reason to own a .com is not convenience. It's ubiquity at least in the US. Speaking as someone in the business who deals with customers of registration domains all the time (and also with people buying valuable domains) at this time using a non .com domain is a non-starter for the majority of people.

cmatthias 15y ago
"Why? Is that just on principle? Or do you see this behavior by the government as rising to the level of the US taking down sites that flout or even break the law in a de minimis way?" I think it's a combination of several factors. One is definitely principle. The other major reason is that if I'm running a business from outside the US, and do not deal with US customers or business partners, why should I waste my time figuring out whether what I'm doing is contrary to some law in one US state, just to ensure that the US doesn't steal my domain from me? Especially in some industries, there are vastly different notions of what is considered appropriate in the US vs. Europe (see the sports betting example). My opinion is that based on cases such as this, the "convenience factor" of owning a .com no longer outweighs the potential risk of losing the domain on the whim of the US government.
- drucken 15y ago
  Exactly. This can only be a boon for the .EU domain, ccTLDs and all their registers, especially those which allow second-level domain names like .de. There is simply too much uncertainty with using American-hosted domains already and it is increasing every week.
litek 15y ago
I think the cause for concern is the mere possibility that you can be drawn in to a legal battle in a foreign country over your domain, without even operating in it.
Vivtek 15y ago
They weren't doing anything illegal - where they were. Do you think you should be punished for doing something that's illegal anywhere in the world?
- unavoidable 15y ago
  The legal argument to this is that they were doing business with people in a jurisdiction where it was illegal (i.e. certain forms of betting in the US). Because they had business transactions in this jurisdiction, they have broken the laws there and can be tried in those courts.
  - Vivtek 15y ago
    I eagerly await all the Sharia law trials of anyone who's posted a bit.ly link to a pornographic picture, then. And they're not being tried in those courts. Their domain has simply been seized because that's easier than winning in court.
    - ma2rten 15y ago
      You are missing the point. Libya can totally trail someone for hosting any porn site under Sharia law. It is completely irrelevant what the TLD is or were the servers are hosted. The only thing that is important is that it is accessible from within Libya. If you want to protect yourself from this you need to block out all Libyan IPs. At least this is the case for many laws in many jurisdictions, I obviously don't know anything the Libyan one. However, if the site is hosted under a Libyan TLD this gives them additional power to block the site. This is a very unfortunate situation for website owners around the world, but this is the way it is.
    - unavoidable 15y ago
      Don't know why everyone downvoted. I'm only stating the legal reality, not making a comment on whether that's "moral" or "right".
    - ubernostrum 15y ago
      Actually... If you are in one country, and are clearly and unambiguously doing business with someone in another country -- with written agreements, money/goods/etc. transferring -- then it's simply not a new idea that you may end up subject in some way to the laws of that other country. It also isn't a particularly scary idea. The idea that "on the internet" is some sort of magical extra-jurisdictional space is the new and scary idea.
cmatthias 15y ago
(HN makes you wait a few minutes before you can reply. That's why the reply link was missing.) "The reason to own a .com is not convenience. It's ubiquity at least in the US." I know. I was not talking about the US. "at this time using a non .com domain is a non-starter for the majority of people." I disagree. For anyone who is not in the US (which is the majority of people), having a non-.com domain is probably not a big deal.
- ma2rten 15y ago
  It is if you are running an international business, I'd assume that OP meant convenience as in not having to register a domain for every possible country.