Thursday afternoon Judge Thomas Wingate issued a ruling that he would not dismiss the case brought against domain owners which included seizure of their names. A forfeiture hearing has been scheduled for November 17th.
A copy of the decision can be seen here
have read the decision in full.
The court found it had jurisdiction over the 141 domains seized by the commonwealth.
The court found that Domains names by virtue of of “its scarcity and desirability, domain names have economic value.
Domain names are “property” subject the the courts jurisdiction and subject to civil forfeiture.
However, and here is the important part, the court made the distinction between domains that were “parked” and domains that were used to operate a gambling site.
“”””The court recognizes that as to any of the 141 defendants domain names that identify websites as informational only, the seizure order must be rescinded.””
However the court found that “Internet gambling operators and their domain names are present in Kentucky.”
So if you have a parking page the Commonwealth has no jurisdiction but if your operating a site, then your doing business in the state and your subject to its jurisdiction.
The court then found a domain name to be a gambling device included in the language of Kentucky Statue because “domain names are designed to attract players”. “”Internet domain names…create and maintain a virtual casino, and contain the vice at which the statute is directed.”
The court went on to say the “domain names have been designed to reach our state” as the operators of the domain could have blocked, filter or deny access based on geographical location, such as the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
The court also dismissed the argument that a domain name’s presence is where it is owned or housed, essentially ruling that Internet domain issues are matters which individual states, even “municipalities” have a right to adjudicate.
Another scary part of this ruling is that domain names are not only subject to in rem jurisdiction, but that control can be seized, without the basic due process of notice and hearing by any municipality.
The courts ruling is basically if you operate a gambling site and block Kentucky then you can keep your domain and if you don’t then you will forfeit the domain.
The court will hold another hearing on November 17th to see if the domain operators have complied with the blocking order. Those who have will get their domains back. Those who don’t will forfeit the domains to the state.
Interestingly the Judge’s order said nothing on the question of damages that the state wanted. Te judge made no ruling on damage, fines or recouping money made by sites operating in Kentucky.
So what does all this mean?
In my opinion the judge made up law to come to the conclusion the Governor of Kentucky wanted him to come to. The ruling of the judge makes little sense. He concludes that domains are property although a long line of cases says its not.
The question now becomes will anyone subject to this order appeal the ruling, or will they simply block Kentucky and allow this ruling to stand?
The one savings grace from this opinion is that informational domains cannot be seized.
However sites “doing business” can be.
Who is at risk for a similar action?
In my opinion all Geo Sites and Adult sites top the list.
If a state can regulate the internet so can a county, city, town, or as the judge said any “municipality”.
A municipality can pass a law saying its unlawful to have a domain confusingly similar to the name of the municipality, county, city, state, etc, and then seize domains as being in violation of the law.
Adult sites and are also very vulnerable in our opinion. For just one example, if it’s against the law of a city or county to sell adult toys and the city finds a site selling adult toys, they can seize the domain.
Any domain that might have run afoul of the “Snowe Bill” might also be subject to seizure by some jurisdiction at some point. Those would include domains confusingly similar to government agencies or services, on a national or regional basis
You know have to ask yourself what next jurisdiction will act, and what will they do.
What is the cost of defending yourself in one of these proceedings (tens of Thousands of Dollars) even if you get your domains back and the real question becomes, what is the benefit of having a US based registrar?
I cannot answer these questions for you.
I cannot advise you how you should conduct your business.
All I can tell you is what we have done.
Last month we moved all our domains to an “offshore” registrar, NameVault.com
If you look at our whois record for any of our domains you will see they reflect the registrar Namevault.
NameVault.com is a ICANN accredited registrar which is located in the Bahamas.
We believe that this registrar represents the only true “offshore” registrar solution.
We are also pleased to note that Namevault.com is now the 6th fastest growing registrar in the world as ranked by Icann.
If you want to contact them you can at sales@namevault.com
You will have to make your own decision.
We came to the conclusion that there is no advantage of using a US based registrar as it seems the US is the only country seeking to regulate the internet on a daily basis.
The ICA which filed a brief in this case responded to the decision as follows:
“The Internet Commerce Association is extremely disappointed in the decision issued by the Court this afternoon. This is a dangerous decision not just for domain name investors and developers but for all who value commerce and free speech on the Internet. The Court has incorrectly held that domain names are a form of property subject to in rem jurisdiction anywhere on the face of the Earth where their associated websites may be viewed on a computer screen. Even worse, it has endorsed the seizure of domain names absent notice and hearing, violating basic principles of due process. If the logic of this decision was broadly adopted then Internet commerce and speech would be at risk on a global basis. For example, U.S. companies conducting legal business activities in this nation could be subject to seizure orders for their domain names issued by foreign courts for lack of compliance with local law and regulation merely because their websites can be viewed abroad. Even more worrisome, the courts of totalitarian regimes could issue seizures orders against domain names used to spread truth and advocate freedom to their repressed populations. The remedy proposed by the court – geographic blocking so that none of the subject websites can be viewed from within Kentucky – is infeasible for individual domain names which could be subject to different laws and regulation in thousands of jurisdictions worldwide.
“The ICA does appreciate that Judge Wingate has indicated that he will continue to let us participate in this case as friends of the court. Given the high stakes for freedom, commerce, and the rights of domain name owners, the ICA plans to remain actively engaged in this critically important litigation.”
I can agree with you that some states may try to apply this decision to Adult sites, but Geo sites? Geo sites do nothing illegal under any law in the US. Remember, it is not the name itself this is being faulted here, it is how the name is being used. On the other hand, there are states that restrict gambling and porn, and, until this decision is overturned, some may attempt to use it.
NameVault is timing out for me.
My concern is if I have a problem with NameVault….do I have to go to the Bahamas to pursue them? This is the same concern I have had in the past with Fabulous….. I just don’t know if my fears, in either case, are warranted or not.
Johnny
The site is working fine for me.
As far as pursuing them, they are ICANN accredited and therefore there should be no reason to chase them, or fabulous, especially after ICANN learned its lesson from registerfly.
Currently, I haven’t make any move. I wanna wait others to move first and share their experience. Bahamas, Panama… are actually stable and business-friendly enough but I’m really afraid who knows after huge portfolios come into their countries, they might do something to rip off everything.
The U.S is killing itself by this decision. This is stupid. F*ck kentucky.
David
Way back when I sold the domain Myflorida.com to the state, they made a threat just for a minute towards the effect of, your not the state of Florida, maybe we can just take that domain from you.
That was 10 years ago.
If a governmental body passed a Snowe Bill type law that made it illegal to own a domain confusing similar to a governmental body including the name of a city, state or county, they could then enforce the law by seizing the domain.
You are not talking about logic or reason.
You are looking at the government taking something they want, that you have.
Could happen
Easy
David
Also let’s not forget that the Commonwealth of Kentucky is fine with Churchill Downs operating an online gambling site online within Kentucky.
The judge did not deal with that issue at all
Michael:
We have to differentiate between a state simply going after a name and a state going after a name because of its content. For example, Kentucky wouldn’t bother with a “gambling” name like ILoveGamblingInKentucky.com unless the site actually had gambling on it.
On the other hand, California going after California.com just because they’d want the domain name is an entirely different matter. Furthermore, the UDRP has long set precedent for those type of actions (MyrtleBeach.com, StMoritz.com, etc). To the best of my knowledge there is no legal precendent for a state attempting to take a name because of its content and I believe it will be overturned.
David
Having said all of that tell me what is the Advantage of using a US registrar, with the threat of this type of action and having to defend it if it does?
Another off-shore ICANN-accredited registrar I found is Internet.bs. I’m looking to review them, but feel free to check them out also.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m not sure if having a name with an off-shore registrar offers that much protection. The registrar may not have not comply with a US court order, but wouldn’t a US owner be found in contempt if he or she didn’t comply?
NameVault is timing out for me too. That could be a real problem if it happens on a regular basis. Hopefully their nameservers don’t time out.
Great post with great response -valid points
At the end of the day domainers can play that is all I can say lets have it the domainers way.
David and Mike, For a US company to move domains to an offshore registrar. There is only one small advantage in doing so. You simply get out of an unfriendly state jurisdiction and state courts of where that registrar is located. For example if you had your names at register.com or directnic.com, you’re no longer subject to New York or Louisiana jurisdictions. In the very least it does not subject you to that specific state in cases involving copyright, TM or other IP litigation. As far as whats happening in KY, i highly doubt such a move would protect you if the current ruling is allowed to stand.
So the judge ruled that domains are property in KY. Can someone smarter than me explain implications of such a ruling ? Up until this move only one state in the union has officially ruled that domains are property and thats California. In every other state they’re considered contracts.
David
I dont think an owner can be found to be in contempt as they were not ordered to do anything in this case, the registrars we ordered to take action
JP
All I can tell you is that we successfully transferred over 65,000 domains in a week.
Guys
This is the comments from GamblingCompliance.com:
At this stage, the full consequences of yesterday’s decision in Kentucky are not clear. One prominent US-based internet intellectual property lawyer suggested to GamblingCompliance prior to yesterday’s decision that the case would likely move to a state or federal appeals court, where it would be likely to attract greater interest from the wider e-commerce sector.
“This could set a horrible precedent for domain name registrants and a negative precedent for e-commerce in general,” the lawyer said.
“It would quickly force all manner of domain name registrars to move offshore.”
FX
I see it as all advantages and no disadvantage to move to an offshore registry.
In the end it would leave a bad impression of Kentucky, or the US by extension, upon a wide e-commerce community.
USA = land of opportunity. Unless you have a gambling domain. Or make more than $250,000 a year.
@David
internet.bs appears to be a Bahamas paper company hosted out of Germany. They don’t appear to be offshore.
We have been running our data center in Nassau, Bahamas since 2001.
We have seen many domainers and regular entrepreneurs alike use non-USA registrars and host in our facility over the years so that they are not subject to US law, yet have close proximity to the USA. We boast 40ms latency to major US cities, and that’s faster than a lot of US based data centers, and almost all the facilities in Canada, to be honest.
This Kentucky issue has little to do with gambling and much more to do with threats against all domain owners in the coming years.
By using an offshore registrar and offshore hosting company you are providing yourself with a level of insulation against these kinds of actions, as well as attacks on freedom of speech, threats of being sued etc.
Let me be clear. US court orders are unenforceable in the Bahamas.
Unless you are doing something illegal such as fraud, money laundering, spam etc, then you really should consider moving your domains out of the US and avoid getting a Kentucky headache down the road.
– Richard
Richard
Well said
David
Also well said
I wonder how this will affect the other countries of the world wanting the “Internet” to be controlled outside the US
The Kentucky court, by characterizing domains as property, has effectively “taken” property without due process or equal protection under the U.S. Constitution. This MUST be overturned by a Federal Appellate Court as it is blatantly unconstitutional on its face.
Part of the ruling was “Judge Wingate also declared that Internet geoblocking – the banning of all computers traced to Kentucky-based Internet service providers – was one way of bringing the sites into alignment with Kentucky law. ”
I’ve been mulling this over for awhile and I assume that those sites could have “geoblocked” Kentucky and been safe (they might have to geoblock every state) – I can sort of see the logic, although I don’t consider it valid logic.
Regardless, it works in the sense that “gamblingsite.com” is available everywhere by default so they should geoblock it in Kentucky.
I’m having some trouble bringing it over to geo domains – where would they have to geoblock to be legal? Everywhere but the city? Everywhere except the city?
Or would they have to “genericblock” ie no poker on the california.com site but marijuana sales are OK?
As I said, I was just brooding about a few things and it seemed as if that part I quoted from the judge’s ruling was an important detail that carried some weight – the ability to block. Is it that if there isn’t a reasonable way to block then you are OK?
Is the alternative what is going on in Australia (http://www.efa.org.au/) right now? Should it be up to the state to block the offensive sites?
“… “Clean Feed” Internet censorship plan will not allow Australian adults to opt-out … mandatory for all Australians … revealed the existence of a second, secret black list …”
At any rate, I didn’t want to dismiss the threat to geodomains without thinking about it so I did, with no desire to reach a conclusion.
Mike,
Wouldn’t Fabulous be a great offshore option? I’m looking to move my 2,000+ domains but I don’t completely understand why you went with NameVault over Fab?
@Ed
Fabulous hosts their stuff in the USA. And it looks like they have an office in the USA as well.
Any foreign company that has a presence in the USA will be forced to comply with a US court order. Normally they will never get to that point, they will just get hand over domains or cancel web hosting so that they don’t get stuck in the middle of the court order and the client.
– Richard
So if we move off-shore to somewhere we feel is safer, which it probably is, what role does the fact that the registry itself (for .com) is based in the US? Doesn’t this create an underlying and insurmountable problem?
JP you just identified the most important factor, where the registry is located. Moving offshore will provide an extra layer of security but ultimately all that has to happen is for the seizure order to be issued to VeriSign and it won’t matter where in the world your registrar is located.
Moving offshore provides extra security at the moment as orders are most often directed at the registrar and are often from the wrong jurisdiction. Our registrar is located in Canada but nobody ever checks that prior to taking action and most often the court orders we receive are from the incorrect jurisdiction.
I, for one, welcome our new Kentuckyan overlords.
Quite frankly, this scares the hell out of me. It’s a spark that can start a fire that has the ability to take out a good portion of our business.
I know some of you are saying that this ruling doesn’t cross over well into geodomains; but it, at minimum, plants a seed.
First this, what’s next?
Once word gets out that you can use the courts to reverse hijack a domain name, it will become outrageously popular. Why are states, cities and counties any different?
Sounds like someone needs to find some of Kentucky’s “Online Property” that is that is causing a problem for someone somewhere else in the world and give them a taste of their own medicine. Nobody is perfect, I’m sure they’ve made a mistake somewhere that is a violation somewhere in the world.
Ed
I think a company in Australia, especially a public one has more ties to the US and being public would be hard pressed to take a public stance fighting the US government over a domain they don’t own.
Namevault.com being in the Bahamas and the Bahamas legal system being what it is, slow and slower, and NameVault.com being privately owned makes the difference
I see. Thanks for the additional info.
Agreed. It really depends on the legal details, and how much the parties involved are willing to push the issue further.
I read the decision again just a while ago. This Kentucky court declared domain names as “property”, but not sure how it’ll enforce that other than the registrars complying with it out of their own free will.
Next thing you know, them registrars are gonna get confused being served with orders from other courts in other countries saying domain names are property for whatever. Blech.
Dave
Like Howard said if domain are property then the owners of the property are entitled to due process before having their property taken.
Yes this ruling opens up any governmental body in the world to take action against domain names.
Who is to say any 3rd world government can’t get into reverse hijacking by creating a law against anything and everything they want. Why not dating? selling flowers online? sex?.
This decision is so blatantly stupid and political.
They could easily pass a law that says “any domain name that “promotes” online gamlbing is illegal” by by all the parked domains, domains with content, etc.
However, it is scary because anyone who has been in litigation knows that common sense does not always prevail in US counts. Kentucky just took a major step to making the free internet very much not free.
DN
Exactly
Any town, county, city, state or Commonwealth anywhere in the world can pass a law, then enforce it by seizing domains that violate it.
A terrible precinct, built around faulty logic and bad reasoning and all politically driven.
All domainers should be very scared.
And I still think having a registrar in a true “offshore” jurisdiction is the best answer, since they can so no to some radical state in the US, or China or anywhere else
“Any town, county, city, state or Commonwealth anywhere in the world can pass a law, then enforce it by seizing domains that violate it.”
the US already has.it is one of those countries.
ICANN needs to be removed from US control and moved outside of the country asap. This would be a good start.
Steve
I think under an Obama administration this is a very good possibility
Ok, I didn’t want to be the one to bring the registry risk up, but since it is out of the bag, I will comment. A US citizen or entity will receive very limited protection by moving its domains to an “offshore” registrar. Doing so may just cause enough difficulty that the sharks will move on to easier meals, but maybe not. Sure, the current orders are only to registrars. However, when offshore registrars refuse to comply, it isn’t going to be that hard for the Court to move upstream or downstream to the registrant or the registry and write some new orders.
On the other hand, for all of you without a US presence except your registrar, you move up in the security ladder a little more by moving to an “offshore” registrar. However, if you are trying to protect .com domain names, you still have to worry about what happens when VeriSign gets a court order to transfer your names to a “friendly” US registrar.
The only sure way to be secure from the effects of this ruling is for it to be overturned on appeal. ICA will continue to work to oppose the ruling. There is greater strength in numbers. Please join ICA and help us in this fight and others to come in.
http://InternetCommerce.org
David Castello,
I agree with you that geo-domains are probably not in the same risk category as adult content domains, especially in the US. However, there have been court rulings in Germany and other countries that increase the risk for owners of geo-domains in other jurisdictions.
However, as you well know, geo-domains are some of the most valuable domain names in the world. Their value provides great motivation for greedy governments or contingency-fee attorneys even in the US. An attack on geo-domains might well be made because of “illegal” usage or content. Keep in mind that the content doesn’t have to be illegal in the jurisdiction targeted by the geo-domain or in the jurisdiction in which the website is operated. Based upon the logic of this ruling, the content would only have to be illegal in any city, county, parish, state, providence territory in the world for a domain name to be seized.
Not only are geo-domains at risk, any domain with great value is at some risk. What contingency-fee attorney wants to pursue cheap domains? How could Amazon.com know whether every item sold on its website is not prohibited or regulated in some jurisdiction, even just in the US?
moving Verisign outside of the US and away from US regulations would help. Fighting laws in a country that continues to re-write them on the fly to the detriment of its citizens is not good.
It’s crazy that gambling is OK in one part of the US (Vegas) and illegal in the another part. Crazy, crazy.
Michael
I agree that all domain holders need to support the ICA.
It certainly is the best way of protecting all interests of domainers.
Regarding this issue I think your making a big jump and assuming many things not yet in play.
I still think that all things being equal I still see no disadvantage of having an offshore registry as opposed to a US based one and in this particular situation as it sits today would have protected you.
It can only help
The “what if” game can paralyze decision making.
You have to decide how you can protect yourself as best as you can under the circumstance that exist.
Michael
Let’s not forget that China already blocks sites and would not be much of a leap to order the seizure of domains, now that the US has blessed it.
Steve,
Gambling is not illegal in Kentucky. It has a rich gambing history, think Kentucky Derby. The state government does not like out of state competition for its in state regulated and TAXED gambling operations.
Steve
That would awesome but not going to happen.
You can make Verisign move, they would have no reason to do so and the contract runs though 2012 with a presumptive renewal clause already in place.
Placing ICANN under non-US jurisdiction much more lightly
Michael
Look at twinspires.com a online gambling site located in Kentucky and owned by a Kentucky business and takes online bets.
Oh but that is owned by the beloved Louisville Downs so in that case gambling is ok
MHB,
I did not mean to state that there is no benefit to an offshore registrar. It is worth noting that offshore registrars have not complied with Kentucky’s order and some US registras have. I tried to say only that it is not absolutely secure, especially for US citizens and residents. It is clear that the lawyers for the state know how to do a whois lookup.
Michael
We don’t know if anything is absolutely secure at this point but all domains must recognize where the greatest risks are and where the greatest safety lies.
So enom is the worst choice in this regard because the give up the domains immediately.
So any registrar other than enom is better choice.
Godaddy handed over the certificate so they are the second worse choice in this regard so any other US based registrar is then safer then enom or godaddy.
Then you have non-US based registrars based in US friendly countries such as Canada and Australia and the UK, they would be safer than US based registrars.
Finally you have non-US based registrars that are independent of the US, which would be even safer.
That is how I see it
Mike is NameVault your registrar or is it Adam’s ?
Jason, JP & Michael, I’ve been mentioning the same issue for quite a while, there is nothing to keep the court from going directly to the registry, which is located in the US again. This hasn’t happened YET to my knowledge, but I am sure it will happen in the future.
@MHB: Congratulations on the offshore registrar launch. Looks like you’re using the Logicboxes system and they are hosting it in the Bahamas?
This is the closest that’s happened by far:
http://www.domainnamenews.com/legal-issues/registrar-belgium-domains-locked-out/1351
It remains to be seen if any of the parties involved will force the issue all the way.
There can be no question as to how similar Domain names are to real estate. We all have read numerous articles about the future real estate is really a cyber-asset called domain names. Its called association.
Our opinion is that Geo domains are the most susceptible to states and communities in being subject to invoking an eminent domain argument for seizure.
The world is often not fair, but the stark reality is that if you own Geo Domains you are going to be more susceptible to seizure. We doubt very seriously that domiciling outside the U.S. will supply any real safety.
Mike, I generally agree with you that a true offshore registrar is the safest solution; however, what happens in the event that a company with deep pockets buys a judge in the Bahamas? Is it not possible that other jurisdictions posess the capability to make worse rulings, not to mention, with less options for appeal?
There is a clear distinction being drawn here between this case and geographic domain names. The answer is simple.
Develop your geographic name and then file a trademark for it with the USPTO under the Supplemental Registry. Filing cost, around $350. Use a lawyer if you are unsure how to file or how to word your application. The best way is to research the USPTO database and see how others have done this. It takes 8-12 months for the full approval process.
YourGeographicDomain.com ®
This is the best protection you will ever have. Don’t sit by and wait for someone else or some trade group to do this years down the road while your assets are at risk.
Merlin
No all court systems are created equal.
For example in the Kentucky case the governor filed his case, held a hearing in secret, got a judges order to seize, what he has now defined as property, without any notice or hearing to the property owners.
Now there’s not much worse you can get than that.
Is their a difference between buying a judge with cash or with political promises or threats?
I don’t think so.
Also to note the whole process including the first hearing took less than 2 weeks.
Now in the Bahamas it takes on average 5 years for a person accused of murder makes it to trial.
So you can file what you want down there but its going to be a looooong time until your matter is heard
Mike,
5 years to go to trial might actually be worse.
I’d assume that the person accused of murder is typically unable to leave the Bahamas, being considered as a flight risk – would it not be the same situation for a domain name which is pending judgment?
Sure, 5 years may be better than losing a domain to a flawed US judicial system; however, I bet (no pun intended) one could manipulate the legal system in the Bahamas to issue a registrar-hold on a domain name held at a local registrar, on the basis of a frivolous charge.
“Is their a difference between buying a judge with cash or with political promises or threats?
I don’t think so.” MHB
– What!!?? That is an unbelievably bold inference coming from a lawyer and an ICA member.
“Now in the Bahamas it takes on average 5 years for a person accused of murder makes it to trial.
So you can file what you want down there but its going to be a looooong time until your matter is heard.” MHB
– Yes, this makes me want to jump ship right now and transfer all my domains to the Bahamas. Are you kidding?
David
The case your citing on domainnamenews.com is one of trademarks infringement.
We have yet to see if such an order will make it to the registry in a non-trademark case, such the one in Kentucky.
Merlin
“””I bet (no pun intended) one could manipulate the legal system in the Bahamas to issue a registrar-hold on a domain name held at a local registrar, on the basis of a frivolous charge”””
Well this happened in the US, but it took only 2 weeks.
Down there is going to take years to get the first order to get the domains on hold, if at all.
Ken
First of all Registrars are governed by ICANN and have to follow their rules or risk losing their accreditation and since registerfly no one has lost a domain after accreditation problems.
Icann simply locks all the domains at the registry and then takes bids from other registrars to acquire the management of the domains.
Icann can take these actions without court action.
So its not like a registrar can just “take” your domains.
And yes I see no more protection dealing with a court motivate by and making ruling based on politics in the state the court resides and a judge taking cash for his ruling.
In both situations the case gets decided not by the facts and the law, but on improper outside factors
With this inherent flaw of the .com registry being located in the US, perhaps this will increase the value of all these potential new extensions coming out next year under new ICANN policy. It may make alot of sense for someone to start a new extension off-shore in a country that could use the money and sell the extension under the premise that it is safe from US law. Perhaps there will be extensions created regarded as “Safe Extensions”.
JP
Very interesting point.
There is no need for a registry to be located in the US.
I’m sure many of the applicants will be non-US based companies but actually promoting a site to be outside of US governance, well that may have broad appeal.
Can you say .bet
Heh, that’s why I added it remains to be seen. Strange things have happened, after all, but keep this up so folks can stay updated on this issue.
What JP said…sounds like someone can use that as a good marketing pitch. Could work. 😀
@Merlin
As someone who knows how things work in the Bahamas …
I can tell you that the chance of any internet related case coming to court in the Bahamas is virtually NIL – unless you are involved in trademark or copyright infringement, drug dealing or money laundering.
@Too Many Secrets:
I hear you, however, the Kentucky case is basically an instance of a state claiming infringement on their exclusive traderights to the gambling industry within their state.
The Bahamas are big on gambling, and I’m sure a number of online gambling operators are based/hosting out of there. However, one of those operators could see a domain being held at an offshore registrar as an opportunity to exploit a local legal system which they are familiar with.
Before I’d moved any of my domains I’d like to know who is behind the wheel of NameVault – who is the management?
Are they reputable?
Can I trust them?
Mike, are you the owner? You’re certainly a biased promoter.
Guys
It should also be noted about internet.bs, that they have less than 8,500 domains under management and Namevault.com has almost 50K.
http://www.webhosting.info/registrars/search/Country/BS
Michael,
“Gambling is not illegal in Kentucky. It has a rich gambing history, think Kentucky Derby. The state government does not like out of state competition for its in state regulated and TAXED gambling operations.”
If that’s the case then the governor and his lackies ARE extreme parasites. lowlife scum!
All relevant registries and domain management systems need to be removed from the US asap. people need to vote and fix this nightmare called the Bush Administration. and throw them in jail! they just bankrupted the country. domains are important investments, but they will just be a casualty of your current governments anti rights agenda. if they want it they will take it. if it has value, they will take it.
please fix America, Vote. hopefully the dem’s would be a bit better.
cheers.
looking from the outside in. 🙂 and worried.
crazy link?
Does it matter legally that PPC for these domains no matter where hosted are paid from US Funds at US Banks including Fabulous who issues funds from LA?
Owen
In this case the registrars were ordered to act, so their presence in the US is the important factor.
If they have presence in the US, an office, employees, maintain a bank account in the US, make payments from the US, it will be hard for them to claim no US contact, which is why if your going to go in the direction of a offshore registrar, you should make sure they are truly offshore.
UPDATE
The Kentucky Court of Appeals Overturned the Domain Seizure Order today
You can read more about it at:
http://www.thedomains.com/2009/01/20/kentucky-appeals-court-overturns-the-domain-seizure-order/
Haven’t heard from you in a while – glad your posting