> But the wording in that caluse pertains to the DOMAIN and just the domain, not the content of the site

Yes, that's true but that assumes a westerners mindset where you can go and argue and if you are right 'you will get your way'. To me the fact that that clause is present is a warning that they do care about the content of the URLs themselves, which is one step removed from the content of the site. In that case I would have either decided to let it go or I would have decided to contact them to get an advance ruling if what I'm doing is ok with them.

> So we're good so far, would you not agree?

Technically, yes. But if they decide otherwise you will have to go to court after pointing it out to them and then all they have to do is insert paragraph 4.4 which states that they now also reserve the right to yank .ly domains.

See, the whole idea that this is somehow 'right' is wrong to begin with. They reserve the right to literally do what pleases them and you might be right in a lawyerly sense but that won't get you anywhere until you're willing to take it to a judge. And then you'd have to find a way to convince that judge that:

(1) having abided by the original terms of service you should be given your domain back

(2) that even after you're given your domain back the only terms of service that apply to you are the ones in effect at the first registration date, any amendments do not apply to you

(3) that free sexuality is not in conflict with Libyan law

Add to that that every bit of publicity around this will likely work against you in a society like that where 'setting examples' and a general dislike of a public lack of perceived morality are the norm. Even if that's just lip service that's an uphill battle.

> We didn't host any Pornography or adult material.

But you were actively promoting things that might be construed offensive or pornographic according to them.

I've had a number of Turkish friends in the Netherlands, all very nice and well adjusted people. Except on one front, the way dutch women dress. To a man they considered dutch women 'harlots', and they used a much less friendly term for them because of their dress.

What's pornography to you and a Libyan devout believer might be two very different things.

> What I didn't expect is that NIC.ly would interpret their regulations quite liberally (no pun intended) in an effort to close the domain.

I think that you are probably at odds with a single individual very high up the tree in the Libyan TLD administrator, who finds the content offensive and wants to make sure that a signal is sent out to sites that associate themselves with western morality when it comes to sexuality to leave the .ly domains alone. I admit freely that that's pure speculation on my part.

> The site was a single page, as you can see from the screen grab on the TechYum url above.

To some people that image would be offensive. I understand if that is something that you can not even fathom, please contrast it with the amazement of US visitors to the Netherlands when they go to the beach here and see plenty of naked people. They too find it offensive, here nobody bats an eye (though some might peek).

> So in conclusion I feel we performed the due diligence as per the regulations and stayed within the regs.

ok.

You underestimate how loose the interpretation of rules can be when you are no longer in a 'Western' society, the safe bet for stuff like this is 'when in Rome do as the Romans do', and to use a country specific domain for something that people in that country are unlikely to engage in and that might offend sensibilities there is not the best course of action, even if by our standards you are both in the right and should be perfectly free to do as you like.

By my standards nudism is fine, homosexuals should be able to marry and people should be allowed to smoke pot and even use hard drugs if they desire to do so, and that people should have the right to end their own lives (and with dignity) if they so desire, but by the standards of the US that is not the case.

So I probably wouldn't make a site with lots of instructions on how to grow pot or other stuff like that under a .us domain and expect to be allowed to operate it. Maybe they'll let it go, maybe they won't but I am not in an urgent need to find out.

I note that the US government has seized a bunch of .com domains (see http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-and-megaupload-escape-dom... ),

See for instance:

http://zml.com/index.html

I find that just as bad, and possibly worse because to me the US can and should be held to higher standards than Libya, given their usual attitude of having the moral high ground in matters like this.