Wired.com published a story today entitled “Uncle Sam: If It Ends in .Com, It’s .Seizable”.
The story goes on to talk about what all of us in the domain industry already know, that if a domain registry is a US corporation, domain names under the extension can be seized by the US government.
Those include .com, .net. org, biz, .us, .tv .name and .cc all of which are operated by Registries located in the United States
“”EasyDNS, an internet infrastructure company, protested that the “ramifications of this are no less than chilling and every single organization branded or operating under .com, .net, .org, .biz etc. needs to ask themselves about their vulnerability to the whims of U.S. federal and state lawmakers.”
But despite EasyDNS and others’ outrage, the U.S. government says it’s gone that route hundreds of times. Furthermore, it says it has the right to seize any .com, .net and .org domain name because the companies that have the contracts to administer them are based on United States soil, according to Nicole Navas, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman.””
So the question becomes in the age of new gTLD’s would a new registry have an advantage if it was formed and subject to the jurisdiction other than the US or the UK (whose government has also taken down sites) especially for TLD like .Web which is expected to be one of the most sought after new strings.
A .web located in a non-seizure jurisdiction maybe able to use its jurisdiction as one of its main selling points.
How many more registrations would a registry based in a non-seizure jurisdiction get, as more and more sites are seized in the US?
::::: Crowd Funding World ::::: says
maybe to have more profits from its business
Andrew says
Nah. If the registrar is based in the U.S. then they’ll go to them. If not, they’ll seize it based on the registry having a contract with ICANN, a U.S. corporation.
Joe says
LOL @ Andrew
john says
multiple application and based in gibraltar = massive profit
Kevin Murphy says
It will get interesting if they go after .info or .co addresses. Afilias is technically Irish and .CO Internet is technically Colombian, but both have substantial operations in the US.
Jon says
This is one of the more desperate pro new-tlds arguments I have seen. US government can in theory seize any US-based asset like any US home. Every US homeowner knows it, I am guessing 99.99% could not care less. Yet another argument searching for a solution to a problem than does not exist.
Furthermore, in terms of property rights, anyone who operates a legal (in the US) biz would be much better off having domain operate under US legal system than UN, or offshore, or some third world.
Michael H. Berkens says
Andrew
Not if you register the domain at a non-us based registrar.
The non-US based registrars did not comply with the seizure order in the Kentucky domain gambling seizure case of a couple of years ago which was directed towards the registrars.
Unknowndomainer says
.web is likely to be one of the most sought after?
The “web” is so early 90’s – why would web be preferable to “net” which is at least late 90’s?
It’s all controlled via DNS and he who controls the name controls the power and failing that? He who controls the traffic controls the power. Not to mention that the registrar is important and the only registrar that is favorable with respect to domainers – are the ones that domainers own.
Location of registry means nothing compared to the legalese in a TLD domain registration anyway. That will say something like “we can revoke this name, cease operations, or do what we want, whenever we want, yo”… if you don’t like it…”come sue us in our city, our state, on your own dime”.
Have you read the .XXX agreement, for example?
Jason S says
@ Berkens,
Not entirely safe there. The case of Bodog.Com
“The domain name was registered in Canada with Vancouver-based Domain-Clip. In past years, registering a domain name with a non-U.S. registrar and avoiding U.S. servers was viewed as sufficient to fall outside U.S. jurisdiction. This is because a court order requiring the domain name registrar to transfer ownership of the domain (or redirect the site) was only enforceable in the jurisdiction in which it was issued.
No longer.”
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Canadian+border+doesn+stop+pursuit+Bodog/6255323/story.html#ixzz1oMBdM11E
ri.sk says
I think that, even if it’s not at the outset, all domain name
activity (globally) will be on a level ‘playing field’ within a
year or two.
This is a little like the old idea of wondering whether you can
dodge corp tax payments by forming an offshore company;
you may be able to, for a while, but at some point it’s going to
come right back and bite you in the ass…
Back in the real World says
MHB –
What registrars and what gaming companies did not comply?
From what I have read, I may be wrong it happened once, US authorities can start an extradition process based on the fact that an email may have crossed US servers regardless of TLD in fraud/money laundering cases.
Also I think that the country, historically, that is least complient with information requests, this is back to domains although equally as applicable to banking, is Switzerland and swiss based server operators. If I am not mistaken Assange uses Swiss servers.
Back in the real World says
Ri.sk –
I dont get what you are saying. Are you saying that there will be a general tax on internet businesses? This wouldnt make sense. Sorry mate can you clarify?
Michael H. Berkens says
Back
http://www.thedomains.com/2009/10/21/breaking-news-british-court-refuses-to-enforce-kentucky-domain-seizure-order/
Offshore Hosting says
Mike,
Great points, many people have already decided not to leave it to change and moved their hosting to greener pastures.
We’ve been hosting online entrepreneurs with concerns about their privacy & data security from our data centers in The Bahamas & Bermuda since 2001.
To cap it off, we have a stable government and our own e-Commerce Legislation to protect your rights while being hosted in our facilities.
PS. The beer is cold and the beach is pretty nice too.
– Richard
Michael H. Berkens says
Jason
That is because it was a .com domain which is operated by a US Registry
I’m saying is if you had a NON-US Registry AND a non-US Based Registrar you would have a different situation
Brad says
This seems like a pretty weak pro new gTLD argument.
To start with just because a registry is based in another country that does not mean the domains are free from seizure. There are different legalities that come into play when it comes to citizenship, where the registrar is located, usage, servers, and other factors.
If you have registries based in third world countries, or other countries with limited legal recourse, the extension will by scammer friendly. Awesome.
You are basically just reinforcing an argument against gTLD that corporations have. They are going to make it far easier for scammers and far more expensive for TM holders to defend.
Brad
BrianWick says
.com is the only one on the shelf – so we just need to deal with it
mike says
It’s the same thing as everyone that is so worried about their “privacy”
If you are not doing anything wrong, then what are you worried about?
Unless you are running a site that fringes on being illegal (gambling, file sharing etc), then you don’t need to worry about you domain being seized. UDRP is more of an issue. I assume their will be some sort of UDRP process for gtlds. What if someone registers toyota.cash?
Michael H. Berkens says
Mike
Well that’s the age old argument, if you have nothing to hide then why not let the police enter any house they want whenever they want.
In this situation regarding domains, there have been innocent sites that have been seized.
Some were returned fairly quickly but were labeled for a short time as being classified as a child porn site, in another case it took a year and what we can only assume was a small fortune in legal fees to get the domain back.
The problem I have with the procedure its a seizure first and trial latter situation.
Also laws vary all over the world so what is illegal in the US is perfectly legal in other countries
Offshore Hosting says
Mike,
Here’s why people are worried about their privacy & data security:
When the FBI (or other agencies) takes a whole rack of equipment out of a DC when they’re looking for only one server
http://gizmodo.com/5814238/fbi-raids-data-center-seizes-servers-knocks-big-sites-offline
You’d be surprised how often this happens.
– Richard
``` says
Not sure this is necessarily a pro-ICANN new gtld argument.
Nothing says the offshore registry has to be an ICANN registry.
Anyone could run an offshore registry and have all their affiliated registrars based offshore as well. And there’s nothing that says that they have to sell names at high prices, either.
What is a registry? A highly complex operation that only a handful of people in the world can manage? No.
It’s a list of names and numbers, a system for serving them via computer and a system for updating them via computer. Today’s computers, even the ones consumers own, have more than enough power and storage capacity to to handle these tasks.
A registry is just a way to get a number.
It’s a directory. It’s like a phone book.
There is no single phone book for all the world. There never has been.