27 Days to save Drop Catching - Model A

[super-whois]

Super-whois, if Nominet followed through with this suggestion, do you think this would reduce the scope for unchallenged abuse, and if so, in what way? I'm trying to ask the obvious, maybe stupid, devil's advocate question: what would be to stop friends and family of a master-cheater individually each migrating from Self-Managed? I've a feeling you must have thought this through with a rationale I'm missing, so I'm trying to understand and check this out.

I'm inclined not to respond here, as some people's sole purpose it to push their agenda by dismissing all suggestions without providing any input on how it could be improved. However I will give one further reply, but I'm mindful not to provide any further input if said person continues to dismiss all suggestions.

Channel Partners (along with Accredited) have to publish contact details amongst other requirements, we've seen new tags appearing over the last year that no one knows, yet there are suggestions they could be anonymously linked to other members. We of course could take this further with a restriction on UK owned entities which would also exclude the likes of GoDaddy.

By being published, and not permitting the likes of PO box and Truro based addresses, we could easily identify potential links between cheaters. We could take this a step further and insist on opting in to revealing contact details on all domains that are caught, but I don't think that is necessary as Nominet should be checking those. The Anti Abuse clause needs to be strengthened, and made workable, it can be done, as the Nominet voting policy is stronger in this regards, prohibiting relatives for example. Barriers make things more difficult for cheaters, why may well continue to abuse the system, but it makes it a lot easier to identify cheaters and address them. How about an additional clause, brake the rules, and all domains caught would be revoked, even if they've been sold, and put back into the pool for a later drop?

 

[Derek]

This is j

I'm inclined not to respond here, as some people's sole purpose it to push their agenda by dismissing all suggestions without providing any input on how it could be improved. However I will give one further reply, but I'm mindful not to provide any further input if said person continues to dismiss all suggestions.

Channel Partners (along with Accredited) have to publish contact details amongst other requirements, we've seen new tags appearing over the last year that no one knows, yet there are suggestions they could be anonymously linked to other members. We of course could take this further with a restriction on UK owned entities which would also exclude the likes of GoDaddy.

By being published, and not permitting the likes of PO box and Truro based addresses, we could easily identify potential links between cheaters. We could take this a step further and insist on opting in to revealing contact details on all domains that are caught, but I don't think that is necessary as Nominet should be checking those. The Anti Abuse clause needs to be strengthened, and made workable, it can be done, as the Nominet voting policy is stronger in this regards, prohibiting relatives for example. Barriers make things more difficult for cheaters, why may well continue to abuse the system, but it makes it a lot easier to identify cheaters and address them. How about an additional clause, brake the rules, and all domains caught would be revoked, even if they've been sold, and put back into the pool for a later drop?

GDPR won't allow you to force people to reveal whois info on caught domains.

Not allowing people to use a PO Box is a minor inconvenience when you're trying to catch a £7,200 or a £42,000 domain.

If they launch a system where Accredited Channel Partners each have an equal chance of catching a domain, cheating will hugely increase. I'll start cheating because now I just need warm bodies to set up ACPs for me. I don't need to be a smarter coder than BHAYDOM.

 

[super-whois]

QED

 

[mcrick]

Nominet isn’t going to get into revoking domain name registrations because the original registrar was suggested to have cheated when they can’t be absolutely sure. You want name and home address data to be public so you can go off to do your own research to suggest that A and B maybe linked?

There are people who are related by family that are both registrars or are employees of the same business. If they state they both talked about drop catching at work and both decided to get involved, yet have the same full time employer (e.g. some I.T. bod at a university got chatting to some other I.T. bod in a different department at the same university), should they be considered to be colluding?

 

[ian]

...should they be considered to be colluding?

Isn't the wording "connected", not "colluding".

3. they have social, family, ownership or business links (directly or indirectly) which mean that they either:

1. do not appear to operate truly independently of one another, or
2. it could reasonably be assumed that they will not operate truly independently of one another; or

 

[mcrick]

Isn't the wording "connected", not "colluding".

3. they have social, family, ownership or business links (directly or indirectly) which mean that they either:

1. do not appear to operate truly independently of one another, or
2. it could reasonably be assumed that they will not operate truly independently of one another; or

Yes, in that sense. If they had a common employee but weren’t related by family and stated they weren’t connected or colluding (on the basis they went after a lot of the same domain names, were customers of the same hosted catching service, swapped domain names with each other although stating this was done at arms length and regularly met up with each other socially and at lunchtimes at work) I think Nominet would treat them as separate.

There is a UK registrar that has had multiple employees, one with a relative that didn’t work for the registrar, all as members with their own tags in the past.

 

[Siusaidh]

I've reflected on what people have said. I'm backing off on the controls. It's not for me to control the community dialogues except in real examples of abuse. The community here has to work out its own ideas on these issues and largely argue for itself. I hope there's not too much f*ckery. I really hope some good stuff gets worked out.

 

[Siusaidh]

... deleted one of my ideas as non-viable

 

[Derek]

When the Bulgarians are catching 100's of domains a year do you think they will pay £100 each for them, or do you think they'll use some of the dozens of aliases they've already set up and spread the catches around those?

 

[Siusaidh]

Derek, can we stop just singling out one nationality as if they are the singular problem? Please?

 

[Derek]

The Bulgarian gang are the single biggest problem to fairness here though. http://blog.domainlore.uk/Bulgarian_TAGs_and_Nominet_policies/

 

[Siusaidh]

Good grief. Wow. Never seen Denys's blog before. Look...

You're new here. It's not reassuring when you bombard threads with repeated statements, and you are hidden under a username that tells us nothing about who you are, what company you work for, who you've done business with here, where you live, what domains you have. We have no idea who you are. Your choice.

But you've come into a house and we don't know you - you choose not to disclose your mystery identity - and in moderator land we have already received complaint about you singling out Bulgarians, as if there aren't people in the UK who aren't also an issue. And the term 'B******* gang' just seems a bit OTT to me.

This thread is trying to explore ways to develop a model of drop catching, and for you to point out *once* that you think any model will be unworkable is a point made. To keep repeating the point, as if you've got some kind of tourettes about foreigners, is like an unknown drunk guy coming into the house, helping themselves from the drinks cabinet, and singing maudlin ballads over and over again.

Have you not made your point now?

 

[Derek]

You're new here. It's not reassuring when you bombard threads with repeated statements, and you are hidden under a username that tells us nothing about who you are, what company you work for, who you've done business with here, where you live, what domains you have. We have no idea who you are. Your choice.

Thats correct, it's my choice. If I listed all the Acorn members I've bought or sold domains to in 2020 would that somehow make my point more or less relevant?

 

[Siusaidh]

Derek - on my avatar there is a UK flag, because that is where I live. On yours there is a Bulgarian flag, and yet your profile says you are from the UK. What's the sensible explanation for that?

 

[LCHappy]

Derek - on my avatar there is a UK flag, because that is where I live. On yours there is a Bulgarian flag, and yet your profile says you are from the UK. What's the sensible explanation for that?

But does it matter? Has anyone answered their question? I don't get the need to constantly find out who he or she is unless, what difference does it make unless people want to try and discredit them personally instead of try to discredit the valid points they are making.

 

[Siusaidh]

Yeah, you're probably right on that one LCHappy - and to be plain, many of the points Derek Brown makes do indeed make sense. They're coherent. I'm not wanting to discredit points he's making. I was asking because I was curious. Likewise, I'd really like to know if Derek runs Visualeze.net because I'd be impressed. It would be a plus for me, in addition to anything he says. I like to understand people. But I accept your criticism on that last point.

 

[LCHappy]

Yeah, you're probably right on that one LCHappy - and to be plain, many of the points Derek Brown makes do indeed make sense. They're coherent. I'm not wanting to discredit points he's making. I was asking because I was curious. Likewise, I'd really like to know if Derek runs Visualeze.net because I'd be impressed. It would be a plus for me, in addition to anything he says. I like to understand people. But I accept your criticism on that last point.

No problem, it's maybe less of an issue for me because I think I know who it is. If it is, I can guarantee that they are genuine and have a lot of experience.