The vb.ly domain was seized and shut down by the Libyan government.
Folks, stop to think before you buy some cute domain name with a .ly extension. That’s the domain registrar run by the Libyan government, and they have control over all .ly domains. (The same goes for all the country-specific domains.)
If you’ve got an online business, your domain is your business. Lose the domain, and you’re done. Even if you could somehow sue to get it back, it’ll be too late to save your company.
To be clear: The domain name registrar for any country has the right to issue and revoke any domains they want. I’m saying it is a stupid move for any entrepreneur to bet your entire business on this well-know risk.
I can’t understand why investors have given Bit.ly $13.5 million. Their only business asset is their domain, and they don’t control it.
Your domain is your brand, is your service, is your entire business. And you decide that Libya is the best place to secure it? Duh.
I found it funny how both these stories came out this week. They seemed to contradict each other so greatly — with everyone praising Bit.ly’s growth and utility, while vb.ly was cast a villain.
Great recap of the events with a smart word of caution.
If this is true, it shows how totally out of whack VC can be. It’s a slave to the hype machine. Minor point, but it’s Libya, not Lybia.
Whoa! Thanks for catching the typos, Simon. Fixed.
This same article is written every 6 months over the past two years. Google for it. Not news. Why not write how bit.ly has derisked the domain situation through j.mp and the literally thousands of white label domains on bit.ly Pro and bit.ly Enterprise (yhoo.it, myspa.ce, amzn.to, nyti.ms, pep.si, n.pr)? That’s at least shows an understanding of the current market beyond seasonal knee-jerk alarmist journalism. Plenty of countries have seized control of or refused to assign domains that go against their policies (note: read the wikipedia entry for the Cook Islands). At the end of the day, all domains are leased, not owned, so the risk you’ve described is a universal one. That vb.ly violated clear usage ToS constraints by becoming a vice laden service, shortening or otherwise, was a risk they took alone. To compare the two companies is like saying an elephant should be afraid because an ant got killed by a shoe. Ridiculous.
I thought the vb.ly domain was pulled as it violated clear policy limitations?
“Earl” – that’s an awfully well-informed and angry comment from an anonymous poster. Do you by any chance word for bit.ly?