6 ms·

Rightly so - don't peruse country-specific TLDs for your app or service vanity BS. This especially concerns .io!

by brrtbrrt 3y ago

ARandomerDude 3y ago
> Rightly so Why?
- Pet_Ant 3y ago
  Because TLDs are supposed to mean things.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    But how will they signal to the world their devout adherence to Marxist-Leninist principles?!?!
    - rvnx 3y ago
      They can use .su domains
- NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
  I think the premise is something like "you wouldn't incorporate your startup in a West African dictatorship, why would you let the same country govern your domain name?"
- gnulinux 3y ago
  Because TLD is the property of a sovereign. A sovereign that does not report to the US Government. For US business to use their property as their face to the world (such as pm.me) they need to understand and accept that they're putting their business fate in the hands of a sovereign. Things like OP (X Government takes back .xy TLD) happen, people need to pay attention to power, and geopolitics.
  - ARandomerDude 3y ago
    That may be a good reason for a company to avoid certain TLDs but it certainly doesn’t make it right for a government to just cancel a legitimate business. So if Mali confiscates a TLD “rightly so” seems like an unreasonable response. “This is a warning to all of us” makes sense however.
    - throwanem 3y ago
      What does "sovereign" mean to you?
    - gnulinux 3y ago
      Do you understand that there is no such thing as "illegal" in international "law"? Sovereigns can literally do anything, and everything, and absolutely everything they want. So it is "right", maybe not ethically, but certainly legally. "The Government of Mali" does not report to anyone [1], so there is no institution to rule this as wrong, or a human process that can overrule the decision. Other sovereigns -- hopefully one of them counts you as a citizen and involves you in its processes through democracy -- can simply boycott, or embargo them, or dissuade them through diplomacy, or armed forces. Unless you understand this, you don't have a good model of what "the Government of Mali" means, and thus it doesn't make sense to make business with "the Government of Mali". [1] Well, except maybe to the people of Mali, or the constitution of Mali, but that's an internal "implementation detail" that's abstracted away from you, unless you're a citizen of Mali.
      - smsm42 3y ago
        Strictly speaking you are right, but people commonly use "illegal" as "in violation of international treaties". Since there's no super-national sovereign to enforce those, it's not the same sort of illegal as we usually mean, but it is functionally close. That said, from what I understand, ccTLDs are owned by countries they are allocated to (maybe with some corner cases, but irrelevant here), so Mali is certainly not doing anything wrong even in the above "legal" sense by asserting their ownership.
  - 3y ago
nocoiner 3y ago
I always found it hilarious when .ly was a trendy domain and people were literally building businesses on it. Like, you’re going to put your fate in the hands of Muammar Gaddafi?
- carabiner 3y ago
  [flagged]
- dylan604 3y ago
  Hasn't he been dead since 2011? So, whose hands are they actually putting that fate in is what you should be concerned since your boogeyman is no more dangerous than the Freddy Krueger.
  - 0x0 3y ago
    According to wikipedia, bitly started in 2008 and was in fact twitter's default url shortener in 2009, at which point Gaddafi was very much still in charge.
    - CameronNemo 3y ago
      I think that Twitter got the last laugh during the Arab Spring.
hanniabu 3y ago
So one owned by a company is better? No. This is why .eth domains are great. Ethereum solving yet another problem that HN complains about on the daily, but will still claim it has no usecase.
- pmlnr 3y ago
  You don't understand: most cctlds are in the relevant country's hand, but there are exceptions, like .io. The ones like .eth or .bit are a bad joke. If you want something that's truly yours, generate a .onion.
  - rglullis 3y ago
    Even if it is in the country's hands, it can be taken from a legitimate owner or be abused. That's what parent is talking about. ENS are fully permissionless, no one can take it from you.
    - eropple 3y ago
      Nobody can take it from you. Nobody would, either, because they are valueless and nobody uses them. "Use an .onion" is genuinely better advice. (I wouldn't do that either, but an .onion at least has a reason to exist.)
      - DANmode 3y ago
        This is rude, and valueless.
        pmlnr 3y ago
        What, stating a fact? Who is using .eth and .bit then?
        DANmode 3y ago
        Regardless of what you or I may think of this web3/Ethereum communities and adjacent, millions have adopted ENS. It's leaking out into normal DNS.
eatonphil 3y ago
I understand the warning in general. But isn't .io, specifically, connected with the British government? And isn't the British government fairly stable/pro-business? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.io https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.io
- jlund-molfese 3y ago
  For now! But you probably read about the territorial dispute at the end of the article. Totally possible that the British government won't be controlling that domain at some point in the next 10-20 years.
  - mod50ack 3y ago
    It's really quite unlikely that the management of the .io domain will change. There are currently negotiations about the Chagos Archipelago. They involve mostly the right to return (for the Chagossians) and the rent on the military base (for Mauritius). There have been calls for the Chagossians to receive whatever portion of the domain fees go to the UK government (how much that is isn't really known), but nobody has called for the .io domain to stop existing or be changed in management. The resulting arrangement would virtually certainly be something like Tuvalu and .tv. Nobody is suggesting that they go into a Freenom-style domain mess like .ml and a few other domains (which some countries decided to just give away for free).
    - jlund-molfese 3y ago
      Hey, who knows. But if you choose .io, you're gambling on the future of your internet property in a way that the owners of traditional domains like .com simply don't have to worry about. What if someone decides to start a media campaign for divestiture of .io domains? It's not particularly likely, but it's a risk to weigh against the benefits of a cool domain.
- joemi 3y ago
  The article you linked to makes it sound like the future of .io is up to debate and not necessarily stable, IMO.
tiltowait 3y ago
Until this thread, I didn't even realize that .me and .io were ccTLDs. (I should have realized with .me, because I've seen it long enough, but I didn't start noticing .io until after the TLD explosion). I wouldn't be surprised if many were in the same boat. Registrars should probably warn if buying a ccTLD.
- pests 3y ago
  Is it any better trusting random third party companies who had enough cash to register their own TLD?
writeslowly 3y ago
I assumed .io was still under the UK government, which is pretty stable as far as central governments go, but it's hard to actually tell whether it's them or some sort of venture capital thing from wikipedia.

Rightly so - don't peruse country-specific TLDs for your app or service vanity BS. This especially concerns .io!

ARandomerDude 3y ago

> Rightly so Why?

Pet_Ant 3y ago
Because TLDs are supposed to mean things.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  But how will they signal to the world their devout adherence to Marxist-Leninist principles?!?!
  - rvnx 3y ago
    They can use .su domains
NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
I think the premise is something like "you wouldn't incorporate your startup in a West African dictatorship, why would you let the same country govern your domain name?"
gnulinux 3y ago
Because TLD is the property of a sovereign. A sovereign that does not report to the US Government. For US business to use their property as their face to the world (such as pm.me) they need to understand and accept that they're putting their business fate in the hands of a sovereign. Things like OP (X Government takes back .xy TLD) happen, people need to pay attention to power, and geopolitics.
- ARandomerDude 3y ago
  That may be a good reason for a company to avoid certain TLDs but it certainly doesn’t make it right for a government to just cancel a legitimate business. So if Mali confiscates a TLD “rightly so” seems like an unreasonable response. “This is a warning to all of us” makes sense however.
  - throwanem 3y ago
    What does "sovereign" mean to you?
  - gnulinux 3y ago
    Do you understand that there is no such thing as "illegal" in international "law"? Sovereigns can literally do anything, and everything, and absolutely everything they want. So it is "right", maybe not ethically, but certainly legally. "The Government of Mali" does not report to anyone [1], so there is no institution to rule this as wrong, or a human process that can overrule the decision. Other sovereigns -- hopefully one of them counts you as a citizen and involves you in its processes through democracy -- can simply boycott, or embargo them, or dissuade them through diplomacy, or armed forces. Unless you understand this, you don't have a good model of what "the Government of Mali" means, and thus it doesn't make sense to make business with "the Government of Mali". [1] Well, except maybe to the people of Mali, or the constitution of Mali, but that's an internal "implementation detail" that's abstracted away from you, unless you're a citizen of Mali.
    - smsm42 3y ago
      Strictly speaking you are right, but people commonly use "illegal" as "in violation of international treaties". Since there's no super-national sovereign to enforce those, it's not the same sort of illegal as we usually mean, but it is functionally close. That said, from what I understand, ccTLDs are owned by countries they are allocated to (maybe with some corner cases, but irrelevant here), so Mali is certainly not doing anything wrong even in the above "legal" sense by asserting their ownership.
- 3y ago

nocoiner 3y ago

I always found it hilarious when .ly was a trendy domain and people were literally building businesses on it. Like, you’re going to put your fate in the hands of Muammar Gaddafi?

carabiner 3y ago
[flagged]
dylan604 3y ago
Hasn't he been dead since 2011? So, whose hands are they actually putting that fate in is what you should be concerned since your boogeyman is no more dangerous than the Freddy Krueger.
- 0x0 3y ago
  According to wikipedia, bitly started in 2008 and was in fact twitter's default url shortener in 2009, at which point Gaddafi was very much still in charge.
  - CameronNemo 3y ago
    I think that Twitter got the last laugh during the Arab Spring.

hanniabu 3y ago

So one owned by a company is better? No. This is why .eth domains are great. Ethereum solving yet another problem that HN complains about on the daily, but will still claim it has no usecase.

pmlnr 3y ago
You don't understand: most cctlds are in the relevant country's hand, but there are exceptions, like .io. The ones like .eth or .bit are a bad joke. If you want something that's truly yours, generate a .onion.
- rglullis 3y ago
  Even if it is in the country's hands, it can be taken from a legitimate owner or be abused. That's what parent is talking about. ENS are fully permissionless, no one can take it from you.
  - eropple 3y ago
    Nobody can take it from you. Nobody would, either, because they are valueless and nobody uses them. "Use an .onion" is genuinely better advice. (I wouldn't do that either, but an .onion at least has a reason to exist.)
    - DANmode 3y ago
      This is rude, and valueless.
      - pmlnr 3y ago
        What, stating a fact? Who is using .eth and .bit then?
        DANmode 3y ago
        Regardless of what you or I may think of this web3/Ethereum communities and adjacent, millions have adopted ENS. It's leaking out into normal DNS.

eatonphil 3y ago

I understand the warning in general. But isn't .io, specifically, connected with the British government? And isn't the British government fairly stable/pro-business? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.io https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.io

jlund-molfese 3y ago
For now! But you probably read about the territorial dispute at the end of the article. Totally possible that the British government won't be controlling that domain at some point in the next 10-20 years.
- mod50ack 3y ago
  It's really quite unlikely that the management of the .io domain will change. There are currently negotiations about the Chagos Archipelago. They involve mostly the right to return (for the Chagossians) and the rent on the military base (for Mauritius). There have been calls for the Chagossians to receive whatever portion of the domain fees go to the UK government (how much that is isn't really known), but nobody has called for the .io domain to stop existing or be changed in management. The resulting arrangement would virtually certainly be something like Tuvalu and .tv. Nobody is suggesting that they go into a Freenom-style domain mess like .ml and a few other domains (which some countries decided to just give away for free).
  - jlund-molfese 3y ago
    Hey, who knows. But if you choose .io, you're gambling on the future of your internet property in a way that the owners of traditional domains like .com simply don't have to worry about. What if someone decides to start a media campaign for divestiture of .io domains? It's not particularly likely, but it's a risk to weigh against the benefits of a cool domain.
joemi 3y ago
The article you linked to makes it sound like the future of .io is up to debate and not necessarily stable, IMO.

tiltowait 3y ago

Until this thread, I didn't even realize that .me and .io were ccTLDs. (I should have realized with .me, because I've seen it long enough, but I didn't start noticing .io until after the TLD explosion). I wouldn't be surprised if many were in the same boat. Registrars should probably warn if buying a ccTLD.

pests 3y ago
Is it any better trusting random third party companies who had enough cash to register their own TLD?

writeslowly 3y ago

I assumed .io was still under the UK government, which is pretty stable as far as central governments go, but it's hard to actually tell whether it's them or some sort of venture capital thing from wikipedia.