The new Real Time DAC

[rob]

How would a Registrar like Daily manage with that type of Quota.

it was an extreme example but it does raise the point if a P200 couldnt serve the clientbase nom ought to spend more on hardware

It was as a high-speed high-quota replacement for the whois2 with a condensed data return that showed only the data required to ascertain the domain registration status, not the whois details, and so be used by registrars for multiple public facing first phase data search - the type you see on most registrars which just tells you the registration state.

This is what is so perplexing, confusing and irrational. The new terms are set to 'protect the intellectual property of the db - i.e the whois registrant data and to counter data-mining', yet this a primary function of the DAC in the first place. The return has no REGISTRANT data, only REGISTRAR data.

There's still a massive and unexplained contradiction between stipulations in 5.3.7 and operational use in 5.2.1. The whole of the new terms either looks like it was written by a lawyer with no technical nouse or with an alterior motive - which unfortunately doesn't breed trust.

In the long-term the changes may not mean much unless you have the full intention of data-mining the whois to sell data to marketing companies or such other used affecting nominet's IP rights. In which case I'd want the book thrown at you.

I totally agree with all that.

The PAB is there to look at policy and advise on it (erm PAB) and the May meeting was supposed to address these concerns.

S

Yes - the issue of getting it to be policy is a tough one rather than operational.

PAB papers out on 2009 , draft report on http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/36006_PAB_may_meetingreport_draft.pdf .

 

[invincible]

Suspended flag is a binary 0/1 -- who is programming/speciyfing this DAC? It's a single bit flag.

It's stored in a different database table to the other fields that they aren't removing.

 

[invincible]

Agreed. This is the mindset that HAS to be changed. For those involved from the start and with the dac beta working group we understand the reasons what and why the DAC was brought in.

First and foremost it was NOT so that 'domainers' could catch expiring domains. Though in saying that it was always an expected and accepted operational use.

It was as a high-speed high-quota replacement for the whois2 with a condensed data return that showed only the data required to ascertain the domain registration status, not the whois details, and so be used by registrars for multiple public facing first phase data search - the type you see on most registrars which just tells you the registration state.

This is what is so perplexing, confusing and irrational. The new terms are set to 'protect the intellectual property of the db - i.e the whois registrant data and to counter data-mining', yet this a primary function of the DAC in the first place. The return has no REGISTRANT data, only REGISTRAR data.

There's still a massive and unexplained contradiction between stipulations in 5.3.7 and operational use in 5.2.1. The whole of the new terms either looks like it was written by a lawyer with no technical nouse or with an alterior motive - which unfortunately doesn't breed trust.

In the long-term the changes may not mean much unless you have the full intention of data-mining the whois to sell data to marketing companies or such other used affecting nominet's IP rights. In which case I'd want the book thrown at you.

The PAB is there to look at policy and advise on it (erm PAB) and the May meeting was supposed to address these concerns.

S

FWIW, when ever I am confronted with the notion that the DAC was never intended for dropcatching I quote the following URL: Current DAC and scroll to the bottom:

"The main scenarios where we would expect users to use the DAC are:

* Where a potential registrant has enquired whether a specific domain name is available for registration;
* If a domain name is not available for registration, querying a number of similar domains to determine if they are available so that they could be offered as alternatives to the potential registrant;
* For those seeking to determine whether domain names which have been in a suspended state have become available for registration.

However, any activity not prohibited by the contract terms is permitted."

If the third scenario isn't a veiled description of drop catching then I don't know what is. Just thought I'd drop this in as it may be useful for anyone needing to refer to DAC usage scenarios that were published by Nominet at the time of the inception of the DAC.