Enjoy unlimited access to all forum features for FREE! Optional upgrade available for extra perks.

RDAP result discrepancy

Its in with Nominet now, think they have realised the issue too, will wait and see what / how they answer

Thanks
Bill
 
The code that generates the drop list file. The domain should not have been included in the file.

I disagree, the file was generated at 03:01 on the 9th, at that point in time, the domain was in a state where it would have dropped.

The domain had not been renewed until later that day.
 
Ah, I stand corrected. I thought the drop list file only includes domains that will drop (ie Pending Delete Grace Period)
I don't use the droplist file personally, hence my confusion; I rely on domain:check myself.
 
In simple terms (I dont use the droplist either)

The '9th March 2023 EPP domaincheck' reported DROP (not may drop) as

<domain:reason>drop 2023-03-14T20:07:22Z</domain:reason> ie. tomorrow, no renew permitted

but never the less, has been renewed, before the drop date/time

and currenly still shows 'Lifecycle status renew period'
 
Thanks, yep, had to modify the code a little bit to counter for these issues, all fine now.
 
So nominet decided the domain should be awarded to Casheuronet UK (as they had/have trademarks) in 2012 but then decided 11 years later that they should give it to someone else (who doesn't have trademarks)? :eek: Am I missing something here?
Is this telling us all to take out DRS against anyone holding a domain we'd like and we can have it if they don't respond?

*EDIT Actually seems I can't read - it was quidquid in 2012 so this is a different domain. However it still doesn't make much sense.
 
Last edited:
Is this something the UKRAC can raise and look into?
Definitely not individual cases, maybe the policy regrading the DRS
To be honest I'm not entirely sure this would be within the UKRAC remit, it is not something we've ever discussed.

As a registrant of a few thousand domains I am concerned by the ease with which someone can win a claim.
I'm not just talking about this particular case, there have been a few recently that have raised eyebrows (OVS or Flora come to mind).
 
Last edited:
Clever move and not the first time it has been used I would guess.

Guess there is a high chance the liquidators will not respond to a DRS complaint.
 
Would be interesting to see what happens when two simultaneous and opportunistic DRS's are received. Probably not happened before but at £250 a pop it's worth a punt.
 

Attachments

  • D00025766_full_decision.pdf
    288.6 KB · Views: 31
  • D00025766_appeal.pdf
    179.3 KB · Views: 30

The Rule #1

Do not insult any other member. Be polite and do business. Thank you!

Featured Services

Sedo - it.com Premiums

IT.com

Premium Members

AucDom
UKBackorder
Be a Squirrel
Acorn Domains Merch
MariaBuy Marketplace

New Threads

Domain Forum Friends

Other domain-related communities we can recommend.

Our Mods' Businesses

Perfect
Service
Laskos
*the exceptional businesses of our esteemed moderators
Top Bottom