domains The Digital Colonialism Behind .tv and .ly

[Lox]

In the 1980s, when USC scientist Jon Postel co-created the internet’s domain name infrastructure, he decided that each country needed its own unique extension. He devised a network of country code top-level domains that would append URLs. By 1985, he’d assigned the first three: .us (for the United States), .uk (for the United Kingdom) and .il (for Israel). Within a decade, an entire almanac of these domains—.in (India), .br (Brazil), .au (Australia)—had formed. Niue had its own, too.

For these country-specific extensions to function, they needed an administrator—someone to sell the domain names, provide technical support and take a cut of the profits as compensation. Postel did not think to grant administrative power over them to the relevant governments; instead, he began entrusting management responsibility on a first-come, first-served basis. Postel gave himself administrative rights to .us, and he handed the .uk rights to a professor at University College London. As one internet official later remarked, this approach embodied the early spirit of the internet, an expectation of “the good faith and interest in serving the public of all involved.”

Times changed...

Read more (Wired)

 

[DanSanchez]

Absurd premise, the country in question likely had zero infrastructure to service the needs of the extension or was unable to make the investment (risk!) required to properly administer it. To call it "Neo colonialism" is utterly ignorant to those facts, of course it had to come from a sheltered politician who stands to economically benefit from the clear advantages the extension has gained under capable leadership.

In fact, they didn't even understand what they had to begin with!

"The .nu deal wasn’t fraud—the government of Niue did sign off on the transfer to Semich—but it did raise questions. Richard Hipa, the manager of Niue’s telecom company, explained in 2006 that the island’s leadership hadn’t understood what they were signing away. They thought the domain extension was “like an international dialing code prefix,” he said—nothing of value."

Nothing like some victim-driven narrative to deprive businesses of profits they earned through capital risk, hard work, and delivery of value.

 

[Name Trader]

I wonder if any of the countries who have assigned names don't have any electricity

 

[Nametree]

the country in question likely had zero infrastructure to service the needs of the extension or was unable to make the investment (risk!) required to properly administer it.

Funny how the justification for pillaging other people's resources always comes back to "but, they couldn't have handled it themselves!"

Just because it's legal doesn't make it right.

 

[branding]

Funny how the justification for pillaging other people's resources always comes back to "but, they couldn't have handled it themselves!"

Just because it's legal doesn't make it right.

It's not only about the past. They still wouldn't be able to handle it themselves. That's the point. If they are to obtain their ccTLD again they will sell it off once more and gain from a lot of effort others have put into it.

At the time they did get a fair deal. I take issue that they also claim 'lost profit'. IIS did a stellar job at managing the TLD and has been building the TLD into what it is today. Repurposed ccTLDs can basically be looked at as being ngTLDs. They build this out to be the 3rd most used extension of the country. What ccTLD registry can claim that? Without the adaption of the swedish and some other countries it would be a worthless extension. This adaption would most likely never have happened if it would have been ran by Niue.

They should also take into account the ways in which they profited from this deal. At the time is was no cheap task to enroll decent connections to the web on islands. The realisation of their connection definitely pushed their economy just as well.

That being said, I'm all for countries running their own TLD. It's how it should be done this day and age.

 

[Nametree]

It's not only about the past. They still wouldn't be able to handle it themselves. That's the point. If they are to obtain their ccTLD again they will sell it off once more and gain from a lot of effort others have put into it.

At the time they did get a fair deal. I take issue that they also claim 'lost profit'. IIS did a stellar job at managing the TLD and has been building the TLD into what it is today. Repurposed ccTLDs can basically be looked at as being ngTLDs. They build this out to be the 3rd most used extension of the country. What ccTLD registry can claim that? Without the adaption of the swedish and some other countries it would be a worthless extension. This adaption would most likely never have happened if it would have been ran by Niue.

They should also take into account the ways in which they profited from this deal. At the time is was no cheap task to enroll decent connections to the web on islands. The realisation of their connection definitely pushed their economy just as well.

That being said, I'm all for countries running their own TLD. It's how it should be done this day and age.

Even if they can't handle it, they should get the right to decide what to do with it. The way .tv works seems to be most fair given the circumstances: a limited contract the country gets to decide whether to renew, cancel, or re-assign every so many years.

At the time most of these ccTLDs were assigned, some of these islands had little, or no internet access -- you've gotta admit there's something obviously exploitative when foreign interests get to make a bunch of money and they can't even get online.

 

[equity78]

Even if they can't handle it, they should get the right to decide what to do with it. The way .tv works seems to be most fair given the circumstances: a limited contract the country gets to decide whether to renew, cancel, or re-assign every so many years.

At the time most of these ccTLDs were assigned, some of these islands had little, or no internet access -- you've gotta admit there's something obviously exploitative when foreign interests get to make a bunch of money and they can't even get online.

.TV got a fair deal I have been covering it for a long time, when the new contract comes up they should be able to get another good deal. But they had no capability to run it themselves. When Jason Chapnik and Microsoft got there two decades ago there was more than one option on the table.

 

[DanSanchez]

Funny how the justification for pillaging other people's resources always comes back to "but, they couldn't have handled it themselves!"

Just because it's legal doesn't make it right.

In other words, you would have let the plaintiff country stay in the darkness forever, instead of helping them take on the task of managing the TLD in exchange for bringing them online? A task that likely has millions in costs, initial and ongoing.

Even if they can't handle it, they should get the right to decide what to do with it. The way .tv works seems to be most fair given the circumstances: a limited contract the country gets to decide whether to renew, cancel, or re-assign every so many years.

At the time most of these ccTLDs were assigned, some of these islands had little, or no internet access -- you've gotta admit there's something obviously exploitative when foreign interests get to make a bunch of money and they can't even get online.

Way to contradict yourself here. They didn't even know what it was! Someone came in, offered SOMETHING IN EXCHANGE VOLUNTARILY and they accepted. The issue now is that they also want the money, guess who? The state! The one industry that produces nothing of value.

What makes you think they would have made a bunch of money? This requires a delivery and managing infrastructure, something they could not fathom, even assuming the extension would have made profits at this level or at all.

This social justice nonsense needs to be deleted, you can't make progress without risk, profit, and loss. You can't expect someone to do the work for free! Or do you gift your domains away when someone wants to buy them? Curious business model...

 

[Nametree]

In other words, you would have let the plaintiff country stay in the darkness forever, instead of helping them take on the task of managing the TLD in exchange for bringing them online? A task that likely has millions in costs, initial and ongoing.

Way to contradict yourself here. They didn't even know what it was! Someone came in, offered SOMETHING IN EXCHANGE VOLUNTARILY and they accepted.

You seem to be convinced that this guy actually delivered the services he promised, where did you get that from? Did he save the island from darkness and bring it online?

And what about the other contracts? What about .io, .ly? There's no question that once these rights were assigned to whomever, however, the rights holders had the power, and could choose to voluntarily give something back, or suck up all the profits. The question is whether those rights should have been assigned the way they were, and whether a sovereign country should have the right to control its TLD.

This social justice nonsense needs to be deleted.

Way to have a conversation there. Profits above all, Amen.

Cheers, I'm out.

 

[DanSanchez]

You seem to be convinced that this guy actually delivered the services he promised, where did you get that from? Did he save the island from darkness and bring it online?

And what about the other contracts? What about .io, .ly? There's no question that once these rights were assigned to whomever, however, the rights holders had the power, and could choose to voluntarily give something back, or suck up all the profits. The question is whether those rights should have been assigned the way they were, and whether a sovereign country should have the right to control its TLD.



Way to have a conversation there. Profits above all, Amen.

Cheers, I'm out.

The lawsuit certainly put a stop to any progress, at least it would in any business scenario. The a plaintiff demands additional compensation after a contract has been finalized, the other party has no reason to continue delivering until the claim is settled. I urge you to read the Vienna Convention, otherwise known as the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG).

I'm not talking about any other extensions, you lost the argument on this one so it's organic you try to sidetrack the conversation.

Right, calling you out on blindly siding with the plaintiff without knowing all the evidence is exactly what social justice is. Evidence dictates justice, not feelings. Profits have nothing to do with this. The extension made money, it is the only reason this case exists. For the plaintiff, it is absolutely about profits above all.

 

[Nametree]

The lawsuit certainly put a stop to any progress, at least it would in any business scenario. The a plaintiff demands additional compensation after a contract has been finalized, the other party has no reason to continue delivering until the claim is settled. I urge you to read the Vienna Convention, otherwise known as the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG).

Thanks for educating me. You still haven't pointed me to where you got the information that the man has been delivering on his promises, which seems to be the premise of your staunch defense. Talk about sidetracking.

 

[DanSanchez]

Thanks for educating me. You still haven't pointed me to where you got the information that the man has been delivering on his promises, which seems to be the premise of your staunch defense. Talk about sidetracking.

Read the case, I can't link to it now because I'm on mobile but it's all there. You took a uneducated stance and refuse to seek the information for yourself. Nothing to sidetrack. The deal is off and won't be delivered until the lawsuit is settled. That's why I quoted the CISG. It is law that is used in cases like this.

 

[branding]

Even if they can't handle it, they should get the right to decide what to do with it. The way .tv works seems to be most fair given the circumstances: a limited contract the country gets to decide whether to renew, cancel, or re-assign every so many years.

At the time most of these ccTLDs were assigned, some of these islands had little, or no internet access -- you've gotta admit there's something obviously exploitative when foreign interests get to make a bunch of money and they can't even get online.

I agree with you. And they did have that right and opportunity in the past and decided to 'sell' it for something that they concidered to be of more value to them.

Did they expect it to be a money maker? Probably not. Did they understand the value of TLD at the time? Probably not. But neither did I when I sold Bitcoins at €20 back in the day as that was actually a huge profit. Doesn't mean I got a bad deal, at the time.

Anyway, the Niue case is quite unique but if they were ever assigned the ccTLD again they better watch out. There would be a big risk involved. Their registrant base can afford to ditch them but Niue couldn't afford to lose their registrants in that scenario. They could kill the TLD real quick implementing the wrong approach.

Best solution would be to give them some proceeds from earnings, but why would the registry feel the need to do so if legally they have no obligation to do so and have gone above and beyond to build the extension to a solid, trusted one among their registrants?

You may even raise the question whether it would be in the island's inhabitants best interest that Niue is in charge of the TLD. Maybe from a monetary point of view but ccTLDs were never designed to be a moneymaker but given birth to secure a geo targeted online presence. It's complicated

 

[pb]

I wonder if any of the countries who have assigned names don't have any electricity

not really a country, but .hm for sure

 

[nothere]

Absurd premise, the country in question likely had zero infrastructure to service the needs ....

But now they do. And, yes, it is a national asset. Contracts were signed but one can wonder if they truly understood what they signed away. For a contract to be fair, both sides have to know what they get /give away.
Anyway, what's done is done. I think now they can outsource the .cctlds and keep virtually all the profits or make companies bid on the rights. No one really believes that management of names were signed away for eternity.