[smnrchrds]

Domain names can be taken away too, especially ccTLDs. It is harder to seize a domain, but as we have seen time and time again with TPB, Sci-Hub, Wikileaks, etc. you can lose your domain if entities with enough power and influence want it seized.

[oarsinsync]

I'm not sure that 'especially' applies to ccTLDs any more than gTLDs. Especially since most (all?) gTLDs are covered by the same jurisdiction as the .us ccTLD.

[tankenmate]

Actually gTLDs are restricted by their contract with ICANN (registry agreement (RA), search google for "ICANN RA"). ccTLDs however merely give lip service to domain registration norms, but as there is no contract beyond "this registry is yours to run" ccTLDs have far more leeway (public pressure sometimes withstanding) to do as they please. It is for reasons similar to this that a fair number of ccTLDs don't run EPP for example (running an EPP service is a requirement in the gTLD contract).

EDIT: further explanation of the gTLD registry agreement

[oarsinsync]

In the context of accidental domain loss / attempted hijacking, absolutely agree on all of your points.

In the case of "entities with enough power and influence", I don't think any of the ICANN RA requirements make gTLDs any less likely to being seized than any ccTLDs.

[ValentineC]

I'm sceptical of ccTLDs mostly because of how the Libyan government killed a domain shortener for linking to porn sites in 2010: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/oct/08/bitly-lib...

Heck, I own a .sg domain, and I don't trust the Singapore government to not overreact if I published anything politically sensitive on it.

[eeeeeeeeeeeee]

There is still a legal apparatus around that domain name. It’s an asset.

Good luck trying to argue in a court that your Instagram path is your legal asset and not Instagrams.