6 ms·

A few years ago I had a .us TLD. I eventually decided that I probably shouldn't be reliant on a country code for my domain, it's the same reason why I don't us

by ajdude 1y ago

A few years ago I had a .us TLD. I eventually decided that I probably shouldn't be reliant on a country code for my domain, it's the same reason why I don't use .io I'm not saying that this couldn't have happened with a gTLD But why put your brand at the mercy of a government like that?

jsheard 1y ago
> it's the same reason why I don't use .io Dodged a bullet there given that .io is at risk of being discontinued altogether. It hasn't been decided yet, but better to not have that dangling over your head.
- eli 1y ago
  I don't think that's a real risk
  - jsheard 1y ago
    It wouldn't be the first time a ccTLD has been retired after its country ceased to be, though it would be the most disruptive given how popular it is, hence the uncertainty as to what they'll do this time.
    - apitman 1y ago
      Whatever happens is going to set some really important precedent for sure.
      - TheDong 1y ago
        I think '.su' is already that precedent, since it had many active domains, recently had active registration, and ICANN has announced plans to phase it out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.su https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.su See also '.yu' and friends, which have already been deleted.
        ascorbic 1y ago
        The fact that the country ceased to exist a year after .su was created and yet the TLD still exists 34 years later is probably precedent for the opposite.
        apitman 1y ago
        How many domains are we talking though, and how many .io are there? Genuine question since I have no idea.
    - sgarland 1y ago
      If I were Mauritius, I would be hitting tech companies left and right to secure a permanent income stream. You guys want to kick indigenous people off their land for military bases? Enjoy your new bill for .io domains.
      - barry-cotter 1y ago
        The Chagossians are not by any meaningful standards indigenous. The land was uninhabited when George Washington was rebelling against the British. If the Chagossians are indigenous so are old stock white Americans. And Mauritius have treated the Chagossians like dirt for decades, with no signs of that changing. None of this is to deny the Chagossians were extremely ill treated by the British, but the idea that the Mauritanians have any interest in the welfare of the Chagossians is ridiculous.
        Y_Y 1y ago
        I have some sympathy for your position, but I'll add that the prevailing moral opinion seems to be "whoever got there first is the rightful owner". Of course you have to allow for armchair ethnologists not being particularly good at distinguishing between similar groups and later revisionism. A lot of Pacific islands territories have complicated histories like this (e.g. Hawaii, New Zealand), but the focus usually ends up on whatever bastards most recently took over from the previous bastards (relative levels of bastardy notwithstanding).
        Sunspark 1y ago
        Absolutely. For example, the Maoris are not the original indigenous. What happened to them you may ask? They became literal dinner for the Maoris. This has happened elsewhere too. True original indigenous are rare. The thing with the island of Diego Garcia is quite strange and I strongly suspect there is corruption involved. The UK wishes to divest itself? Instead of holding an auction where the rest of the planet can bid on purchasing the territory, the UK decided that Mauritius would take it (who doesn't really want it) and to entice them, the UK is going to PAY Mauritius to take the territory and leave the base alone. The amount is £90 million annually, adjusted for inflation for 99 years. This is a lot of money, why not just NOT turn it over and not have to give away £90 million a year for a century? So, it begs the question.. is someone from the UK side benefiting from this no-bid deal? Give the island to me, and I won't charge the UK to have the base.
    - seszett 1y ago
      That territory is not going to "cease to be", it's just going to change hands. The uncertainty was entirely created as an easy way to get views.
- xp84 1y ago
  You can bet it wouldn't be actually discontinued, but you can bet when/if the UK gives away the island to Mauritius or whatever, they'll lease the rights to the highest bidder, and those people will be free to extort everyone with a valuable .io domain.
- j45 1y ago
  This news to me, thanks for sharing.
- ryan29 1y ago
  It's going to be interesting to see what they do. One of the core arguments when claiming the domain industry enjoys a competitive market is that switching costs are bearable and that switching TLDs is an option if registries increase prices too much. So ICANN has a non-trivial choice to make. Either they maintain the position that switching costs are bearable and let .io disappear, or they admit that TLD switching is impossible and save .io, which will make it hard to argue the threat of (registrants) TLD switching keeps the industry competitive.
  - immibis 1y ago
    Fortunately, ICANN is based in America, where there's no law that markets have to be fair or that you can't lie.
lucb1e 1y ago
What TLD is not subject to a country's laws? .aq? .su? Edit: .eu might be an even better candidate for this requirement, but you can ask British former domain owners how that worked out gTLDs just subject you to an additional layer of incompetence, namely from the company running it. The government where they're located can still come knocking. It's also not like e.g. .nl is run by the Dutch government officials, it's a nonprofit started by some people in the 80s iirc
- bongodongobob 1y ago
  It's the specific country being referenced, I think.
  - swores 1y ago
    They wrote that they were talking about country code TLDs vs not, not about US vs. other countries. (Which is what I would've said too, it's a more general point than thinking about anything specific to one country.) Ironically that one country happens to be the one that also controls gTLDs like .com, as others have pointed out, so arguably .us is the one ccTLD that isn't any more or less likely to be reliable.
- numpad0 1y ago
  Presumably the idea is that fabricating a legal offense to shut down a ccTLD would be easier than it would be for regular TLDs. I don't know if that's actually the case, I've heard some shady sites are using .su(Soviet Union) to avoid judicial actions.
  - lucb1e 1y ago
    Wait, we're talking about buying domain names right? Not about buying countries in order to own a ccTLD rather than a 'regular' TLD So then you don't have to produce an offence that takes the TLD down (whichever kind) but one that makes a judge within the country that the TLD operator operates in approve a takedown notice for your domain name or even get the TLD operator to cooperate voluntarily
- 1y ago
VWWHFSfQ 1y ago
> But why put your brand at the mercy of a government like that? Literally every single TLD is administered by a government. .com itself is under jurisdiction of USA and operated by Verisign
- AStonesThrow 1y ago
  > Literally every single TLD is administered by a government. False. I’m not sure what you’re trying to assert, but governments don’t necessarily need to control/admin gTLDs, and as far as ccTLDs go, they’re under jurisdiction of the corresponding nation, usually, but they’re going to be “administered” by a tech company that holds a contract. Anyway, “.com” does indeed answer to U.S. jurisdiction, despite being technically a gTLD, but registrations are not restricted to US-based entities. The main things that keep “.com” associated with the USA include the history/legacy of this quintessential “original” domain, as well as a general support from major countries that provide a “second-level” commercial domain, such as “.co.uk”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.com
  - nottorp 1y ago
    > “.com” does indeed answer to U.S. jurisdiction ... which is a problem lately ... and may have been even in the past for some niches ...
- johnisgood 1y ago
  What about .name?
  - areyourllySorry 1y ago
    also verisign. https://icannwiki.org/.name https://icannwiki.org/.name
- ryan29 1y ago
  > .com itself is under jurisdiction of USA and operated by Verisign Barely. The NTIA gave up all their leverage over .com in 2018. The only thing the US can do at this point is let the cooperative agreement auto-renew to limit price increases. I wouldn't be surprised if the US withdrew from the agreement altogether at this point. Then .com would fall under the joint control of ICANN and Verisign.
omcnoe 1y ago
Zoom are already at the mercy of the government by virtue of being incorporated in the US, and having the majority of their staff there. "Generic" TLD's like .com come under US purview also anyway.
- deepsun 1y ago
  .us is more special, e.g. the owner should be a US entity, and must be public (Private Domain functionality is disabled for .us).
SkyeCA 1y ago
> But why put your brand at the mercy of a government like that? I tend to trust my government (Canada) and I appreciate that WHOIS information is hidden by default for .ca domains. I live here and always will so it seems fit to use the national TLD for representing myself and my work.
- varun_ch 1y ago
  same here with .ch! I trust Switzerland’s stability way more than I’d trust any business or country. I’m not actually sure if there’s any ccTLD more trustworthy. (yes I know that the TLD is ‘managed’ by a private company but still)
- tephra 1y ago
  IIRC CIRA who is the delegated ccTLD manager of .ca is not a government entity (this is quite common in the ccTLD space actually, a lot of ccTLD are being managed by foundations or non-profits).
  - wlonkly 1y ago
    They're not, they're a (refreshingly transparent) non-profit -- but the government has the ability to reassign management of .ca to another organization as they wish.

by ajdude 1y ago

jsheard 1y ago

> it's the same reason why I don't use .io Dodged a bullet there given that .io is at risk of being discontinued altogether. It hasn't been decided yet, but better to not have that dangling over your head.

eli 1y ago
I don't think that's a real risk
- jsheard 1y ago
  It wouldn't be the first time a ccTLD has been retired after its country ceased to be, though it would be the most disruptive given how popular it is, hence the uncertainty as to what they'll do this time.
  - apitman 1y ago
    Whatever happens is going to set some really important precedent for sure.
    - TheDong 1y ago
      I think '.su' is already that precedent, since it had many active domains, recently had active registration, and ICANN has announced plans to phase it out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.su https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.su See also '.yu' and friends, which have already been deleted.
      - ascorbic 1y ago
        The fact that the country ceased to exist a year after .su was created and yet the TLD still exists 34 years later is probably precedent for the opposite.
      - apitman 1y ago
        How many domains are we talking though, and how many .io are there? Genuine question since I have no idea.
  - sgarland 1y ago
    If I were Mauritius, I would be hitting tech companies left and right to secure a permanent income stream. You guys want to kick indigenous people off their land for military bases? Enjoy your new bill for .io domains.
    - barry-cotter 1y ago
      The Chagossians are not by any meaningful standards indigenous. The land was uninhabited when George Washington was rebelling against the British. If the Chagossians are indigenous so are old stock white Americans. And Mauritius have treated the Chagossians like dirt for decades, with no signs of that changing. None of this is to deny the Chagossians were extremely ill treated by the British, but the idea that the Mauritanians have any interest in the welfare of the Chagossians is ridiculous.
      - Y_Y 1y ago
        I have some sympathy for your position, but I'll add that the prevailing moral opinion seems to be "whoever got there first is the rightful owner". Of course you have to allow for armchair ethnologists not being particularly good at distinguishing between similar groups and later revisionism. A lot of Pacific islands territories have complicated histories like this (e.g. Hawaii, New Zealand), but the focus usually ends up on whatever bastards most recently took over from the previous bastards (relative levels of bastardy notwithstanding).
        Sunspark 1y ago
        Absolutely. For example, the Maoris are not the original indigenous. What happened to them you may ask? They became literal dinner for the Maoris. This has happened elsewhere too. True original indigenous are rare. The thing with the island of Diego Garcia is quite strange and I strongly suspect there is corruption involved. The UK wishes to divest itself? Instead of holding an auction where the rest of the planet can bid on purchasing the territory, the UK decided that Mauritius would take it (who doesn't really want it) and to entice them, the UK is going to PAY Mauritius to take the territory and leave the base alone. The amount is £90 million annually, adjusted for inflation for 99 years. This is a lot of money, why not just NOT turn it over and not have to give away £90 million a year for a century? So, it begs the question.. is someone from the UK side benefiting from this no-bid deal? Give the island to me, and I won't charge the UK to have the base.
  - seszett 1y ago
    That territory is not going to "cease to be", it's just going to change hands. The uncertainty was entirely created as an easy way to get views.
xp84 1y ago
You can bet it wouldn't be actually discontinued, but you can bet when/if the UK gives away the island to Mauritius or whatever, they'll lease the rights to the highest bidder, and those people will be free to extort everyone with a valuable .io domain.
j45 1y ago
This news to me, thanks for sharing.
ryan29 1y ago
It's going to be interesting to see what they do. One of the core arguments when claiming the domain industry enjoys a competitive market is that switching costs are bearable and that switching TLDs is an option if registries increase prices too much. So ICANN has a non-trivial choice to make. Either they maintain the position that switching costs are bearable and let .io disappear, or they admit that TLD switching is impossible and save .io, which will make it hard to argue the threat of (registrants) TLD switching keeps the industry competitive.
- immibis 1y ago
  Fortunately, ICANN is based in America, where there's no law that markets have to be fair or that you can't lie.

lucb1e 1y ago

What TLD is not subject to a country's laws? .aq? .su? Edit: .eu might be an even better candidate for this requirement, but you can ask British former domain owners how that worked out gTLDs just subject you to an additional layer of incompetence, namely from the company running it. The government where they're located can still come knocking. It's also not like e.g. .nl is run by the Dutch government officials, it's a nonprofit started by some people in the 80s iirc

bongodongobob 1y ago
It's the specific country being referenced, I think.
- swores 1y ago
  They wrote that they were talking about country code TLDs vs not, not about US vs. other countries. (Which is what I would've said too, it's a more general point than thinking about anything specific to one country.) Ironically that one country happens to be the one that also controls gTLDs like .com, as others have pointed out, so arguably .us is the one ccTLD that isn't any more or less likely to be reliable.
numpad0 1y ago
Presumably the idea is that fabricating a legal offense to shut down a ccTLD would be easier than it would be for regular TLDs. I don't know if that's actually the case, I've heard some shady sites are using .su(Soviet Union) to avoid judicial actions.
- lucb1e 1y ago
  Wait, we're talking about buying domain names right? Not about buying countries in order to own a ccTLD rather than a 'regular' TLD So then you don't have to produce an offence that takes the TLD down (whichever kind) but one that makes a judge within the country that the TLD operator operates in approve a takedown notice for your domain name or even get the TLD operator to cooperate voluntarily
1y ago

VWWHFSfQ 1y ago

> But why put your brand at the mercy of a government like that? Literally every single TLD is administered by a government. .com itself is under jurisdiction of USA and operated by Verisign

AStonesThrow 1y ago
> Literally every single TLD is administered by a government. False. I’m not sure what you’re trying to assert, but governments don’t necessarily need to control/admin gTLDs, and as far as ccTLDs go, they’re under jurisdiction of the corresponding nation, usually, but they’re going to be “administered” by a tech company that holds a contract. Anyway, “.com” does indeed answer to U.S. jurisdiction, despite being technically a gTLD, but registrations are not restricted to US-based entities. The main things that keep “.com” associated with the USA include the history/legacy of this quintessential “original” domain, as well as a general support from major countries that provide a “second-level” commercial domain, such as “.co.uk”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.com
- nottorp 1y ago
  > “.com” does indeed answer to U.S. jurisdiction ... which is a problem lately ... and may have been even in the past for some niches ...
johnisgood 1y ago
What about .name?
- areyourllySorry 1y ago
  also verisign. https://icannwiki.org/.name https://icannwiki.org/.name
ryan29 1y ago
> .com itself is under jurisdiction of USA and operated by Verisign Barely. The NTIA gave up all their leverage over .com in 2018. The only thing the US can do at this point is let the cooperative agreement auto-renew to limit price increases. I wouldn't be surprised if the US withdrew from the agreement altogether at this point. Then .com would fall under the joint control of ICANN and Verisign.

omcnoe 1y ago

Zoom are already at the mercy of the government by virtue of being incorporated in the US, and having the majority of their staff there. "Generic" TLD's like .com come under US purview also anyway.

deepsun 1y ago
.us is more special, e.g. the owner should be a US entity, and must be public (Private Domain functionality is disabled for .us).

SkyeCA 1y ago

> But why put your brand at the mercy of a government like that? I tend to trust my government (Canada) and I appreciate that WHOIS information is hidden by default for .ca domains. I live here and always will so it seems fit to use the national TLD for representing myself and my work.

varun_ch 1y ago
same here with .ch! I trust Switzerland’s stability way more than I’d trust any business or country. I’m not actually sure if there’s any ccTLD more trustworthy. (yes I know that the TLD is ‘managed’ by a private company but still)
tephra 1y ago
IIRC CIRA who is the delegated ccTLD manager of .ca is not a government entity (this is quite common in the ccTLD space actually, a lot of ccTLD are being managed by foundations or non-profits).
- wlonkly 1y ago
  They're not, they're a (refreshingly transparent) non-profit -- but the government has the ability to reassign management of .ca to another organization as they wish.