problem with nominet epp?

[ian]

Hypothetically, if a registrar (I don't believe they do) knew the exact time a particular domain name was going to drop why would they choose to draw attention to this (twice) by renewing late? Why not renew it earlier? What's the advantage other than to create debate here?

Being hypothetical too, we could speculate that Nominet have been requested by the registrar to renew specific domains at the time of drop, rather than cancel them. No idea of the benefit of this, but just another possibility we'll never get an answer to. Could all be innocent of course, but wouldn't put anything past the big players (or Nominet).

 

[invincible]

Being hypothetical too, we could speculate that Nominet have been requested by the registrar to renew specific domains at the time of drop, rather than cancel them.

Some hypothetical person at a registrar might decide to take a risk by asking Nominet to tailor their drop code, which may not actually ever produce a schedule of the domain names potentially dropping per day mapped to time stamps, assuming the code randomly selects a name as it runs, so certain domain names are instead renewed right before they were due to drop for no known benefit?

No idea of the benefit of this,

I can't think of any. The registrar could save itself the trouble of getting the registry involved by simply renewing the domain names themselves much earlier, rather than late on drop day, if they wanted to try to keep them.

but just another possibility we'll never get an answer to. Could all be innocent of course, but wouldn't put anything past the big players (or Nominet).

Why wouldn't you? Is it because if you were such a big player you would in fact be engaging in this very kind of stuff?

Why would a registry such as Nominet wish to involve itself in a daft scheme such as this?

 

[ian]

Why wouldn't you? Is it because if you were such a big player you would in fact be engaging in this very kind of stuff?

Why would a registry such as Nominet wish to involve itself in a daft scheme such as this?

Because board members at Nominet have association with the big registrars, and are out to line their pockets maybe!

 

[invincible]

Because board members at Nominet have association with the big registrars, and are out to line their pockets maybe!

I know we are talking hypothetical still.

Member Elected NED's don't currently have any association with the big registrars. I don't. Denesh doesn't. Dickie and Volker are in positions 20 and 15 according to the publicly available list of voting rights for 2016 that I have seen. The Chair doesn't. The appointed NED's don't. The Executive Directors don't.

It's incredibly far fetched thinking to actually contemplate this kind of stuff. I realise that some people who are Nominet registrars almost solely to re-register perceivably valuable domain names faster than others, and probably nothing else, might find it incredible difficult to view things with different eyes. After all some are engaged daily in competing to register a handful of domain names using what is supposed to be a limited resource, probably believing that everyone else is abusing the resource limits or knows something they don't if they're beaten to domain names.

It's never-ending because domain names with perceived value will always be deleted and there's no transparency about how many other registrars were chasing any particular domain name on any particular day and how close ones self may have been to acquiring a domain name if one was beaten to it.

I wonder if the whole setup eventually conditions some of those registrars to believing that someone other than them must know something they don't, and is gaining because of it. This view is transposed by them onto the wider industry.

In reality big registrars don't currently care about individual domain names such as pcg.co.uk or golfdirect.co.uk anymore or any less than any other domain name they have under management. When DomainMonster was briefly transferring expired domain names from HEG tags to customers who had placed a backorder with them, 18-24 months ago, I believe it was only doing it for the cost of a backorder fee which was well under £50 (correct me if I am wrong).

The idea that these domain names were anything other than renewed ordinarily, and "saved" by whoever renewed them, which is likely to be the registrant, doesn't make sense. For all the reasons listed above in previous posts.

 

[ian]

Well I certainly don't feel like the world owes me anything, and if I get beat to a domain on the drop, then so be it (though it does grate when you know it was caught by duplicate tags), you simply move onto the next. It doesn't mean that we aren't entitled to question how two domains in as many days were caught many hours into the drop day, but equally there could be many more that the registrant doesn't renew before the drop when they intended to. We don't know how they operate, apart from 'last minute'. Just have to wait and see if it continues happening, and under the same tags.

 

[invincible]

Well I certainly don't feel like the world owes me anything, and if I get beat to a domain on the drop, then so be it (though it does grate when you know it was caught by duplicate tags), you simply move onto the next.

If you feel you know, or suspect, why don't you report it? The rules are there for a reason. If you don't some might wonder is it because you feel you reserve the right to run multiple tags too? Alternatively if multiple tags were permitted (and don't you think that those running DAC/EPP hosting services have much more of an overview by "hosting" many tags for third parties than a true one man/one tag operation) would you then be able to get on and legtimately multi tag yourself without feeling you were breaking any rules?

It doesn't mean that we aren't entitled to question how two domains in as many days were caught many hours into the drop day

Renewed. <-

It's likely the answer is simply because they didn't drop before someone hit "renew"?

If I reverse it and ask you how many domain names do you think someone went to renew on drop day but found they couldn't because the domain names had already been deleted by the time they did? it would be impossible to know because those domain names would have been deleted and possibly registered by someone else. There's no way of measuring that but doesn't it seem likely that there are many domain names that fall into this category?

There will always be some very late renewals succeeding. There will also be others that did not. You won't hear about the second lot, except when a member of this forum makes a post here saying they've received an email from a former registrant asking for a domain name they forgot to renew to be returned and how much should they ask for it.

 

[ian]

If you feel you know, or suspect, why don't you report it? The rules are there for a reason. If you don't some might wonder is it because you feel you reserve the right to run multiple tags too? Alternatively if multiple tags were permitted (and don't you think that those running DAC/EPP hosting services have much more of an overview by "hosting" many tags for third parties than a true one man/one tag operation) would you then be able to get on and legtimately multi tag yourself without feeling you were breaking any rules?

I have no intention of breaching the rules by running multiple tags thanks, just a shame some do.

You won't hear about the second lot, except when a member of this forum makes a post here saying they've received an email from a former registrant asking for a domain name they forgot to renew to be returned and how much should they ask for it.

Ah, that one turned out ok.

 

[RobM]

Heh still arguing with David. This is how it goes:
David: that doesn't happen
Others: yes it does
David: then do it yourself
Others: that doesn't fix it happening
David: that doesn't happen
**time goes by and it is discover that does happen**
Others: See it does happen
David: OK but this other thing doesn't happen
Others: yes it does
David: then do it yourself
*rinse repeat*

Really it's like banging your head against a brick wall.

 

[invincible]

I have no intention of breaching the rules by running multiple tags thanks, just a shame some do.

Why don't you report those that you believe do?

Ah, that one turned out ok.

Don't follow.

 

[ian]

Don't follow.

Good!

 

[invincible]

Good!

I presume you found yourself in the situation. Otherwise you're not answering the points I am putting to you.

Why don't you report those who you believe are breaching the anti avoidance rules?

If multiple tags were permitted (and don't you think that those running DAC/EPP hosting services have much more of an overview by "hosting" many tags for third parties than a true one man/one tag operation) would you then be able to get on and legitimately multi tag yourself without feeling you were breaking any rules?

 

[invincible]

Heh still arguing with David. This is how it goes:
David: that doesn't happen
Others: yes it does
David: then do it yourself
Others: that doesn't fix it happening
David: that doesn't happen
**time goes by and it is discover that does happen**
Others: See it does happen
David: OK but this other thing doesn't happen
Others: yes it does
David: then do it yourself
*rinse repeat*

Really it's like banging your head against a brick wall.

I am actually debating these issues with members here rationally and providing plausible explanations to points raised. In the past there's been complaints when Board members didn't engage. Now you appear to be complaining when I spend time engaging.

Your attempt to simplify "how it goes" simply isn't actually how it does. Given the opportunity to properly debate these subjects you can't actually do it. I am surprised at the amount of data that you, as proprietor of DomainView, don't have. Some of it might have assisted with concluding our discussions.

I've asked you:

(a) On that basis should we check with every registrant to ensure that they permitted the renewal of every domain name just in case a registrar allowed domain names to be renewed regardless? Is the focus only on golfdirect.co.uk simply because it appears to have secondary market value and because its late renewal wound secondary market opportunists up?

Stated that (in my opinion):

I'm afraid that sometimes you just have to presume things are being done correctly despite not actually knowing for certain that they are. If someone with a right to complain does so, deal with that then.

and also stated (in my opinion):

What do you realistically expect Nominet to do managing millions of domain names through multiple registrars and registrants? I don't think we can realistically expect registrations and renewals to be conducted face to face. There has to be some presumption that things are being done correctly subject to no evidence to suggest otherwise.

and asked you:

(b) Do you actually know what the name servers of golfdirect.co.uk were prior to its suspension, to know that it wasn't parked back then? It may simply have reverted back to the name servers it had prior to suspension.

Not seen any materially relevant responses to any of that.

 

[ian]

Why don't you report those who you believe are breaching the anti avoidance rules?

Well, I haven't based it on nothing, but of course Nominet can do no wrong, naturally!

If multiple tags were permitted...would you then be able to get on and legitimately multi tag yourself without feeling you were breaking any rules?

If multiple tags were permitted, it wouldn't be breaking the rules would it! Would I do it, if it was within the rules/agreement, and would benefit me financially, sure! But it doesn't, so I won't.

 

[invincible]

Well, I haven't based it on nothing, but of course Nominet can do no wrong, naturally!

This "Nominet can do no wrong, naturally!" view. How is that related to the issue? Are you stating that you've reported and they haven't taken it on board or you haven't reported it because you've decided that they won't take it seriously?

If multiple tags were permitted, it wouldn't be breaking the rules would it! Would I do it, if it was within the rules/agreement, and would benefit me financially, sure! But it doesn't, so I won't.

I was asking to see whether you'd prefer multiple tags to be within the rules or whether you prefer the status quo to remain perhaps through fear of not being able to compete if the rule against multi tagging was officially removed and a virtual arms race to gain the most EPP/DAC occured.

 

[invincible]

Both domain names that have been referenced in this thread had been put into the schedule for cancellation early in the mornings of their respective cancellation dates. Neither domain name had any special status such as do not cancel. Both were renewed last minute, saving them from cancellation by the registry.

Have there been any other examples since?

 

[timter51]

StrategicRisk renewed yesterday afternoon after 16 hours in the drop schedule, on the NEWSCOMM tag. No affiliation with HEG I believe?

 

[invincible]

StrategicRisk renewed yesterday afternoon after 16 hours in the drop schedule, on the NEWSCOMM tag. No affiliation with HEG I believe?

http://www.nominet.uk/registrar-list/ - I don't believe so. Thanks for the example.

My "renewed last minute" comment previously should not be taken absolutely literally. I meant "renewed close to the wire". Nominet do not actually know when "the wire" is during the day of potential deletion for any domain name scheduled for cancellation. It's random. Probably best not to wait until that day to renew!

 

[timter51]

I have a feeling the shit is going to hit the fan with the LLL tomorrow.

 

[invincible]

I have a feeling the shit is going to hit the fan with the LLL tomorrow.

Why?

 

[ian]

I have a feeling the shit is going to hit the fan with the LLL tomorrow.

haha, maybe, bets on renewal or Denys catches it