20i Reseller Hosting

4th December - Drop List Roundtable

Discussion in 'Nominet General Information' started by Whois-Search, Dec 1, 2019.

  1. Whois-Search United Kingdom

    Whois-Search Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2004
    Posts:
    1,849
    Likes Received:
    90
    I have obtained the slides from yesterday.

    Send me an email if you want them (3MB PDF).

    However you might be interested in these three:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Domain Forum

    Acorn Domains Elite Member

    Joined:
    1999
    Messages:
    Many
    Likes Received:
    Lots
    articles.co.uk
     
  3. lazarus

    lazarus Well-Known Member Exclusive Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2013
    Posts:
    1,013
    Likes Received:
    126
    Well then..... Shall we show a force to be reckoned with at the next meeting? Organised and focused... and a beer afterwards!
     
  4. RobM

    RobM Well-Known Member Exclusive Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2012
    Posts:
    3,289
    Likes Received:
    469
    Point 5 is the one they're going to go with. It's the only one idea they ended with a question mark as if asking for opinions almost in a manner that it never really occurred to them. This sets them up to say it was the most requested etc. It's also the one that will make them loads of money whereas the other options don't increase their bank (bribe) balance at all and don't favour the top 5 registrars. So obvious and predictable. So.. no need to go to any meetings now :)
    They really need to get someone who knows a little bit about their systems to advise them though.
    They want to reduce the strain on the DAC? Then why mention the EPP? The EPP is not being polled at thousands of times per second... the DAC is. However the EPP *will* be hammered loads at certain times if they tell everyone what time domains will drop.
    So do they pretend they want to remove the dac? Or pretend they want to ease up the EPP? Do they even know what the difference is between the DAC (which *they* introduced to be hammered all day long and keep people off the EPP - we didn't want it - the automaton was fine) and the EPP? No - they say they want to remove the strain on the EPP (which doesn't exist) by making sure that the EPP is the one getting hammered and then, to stop the hammering, they introduce a paid quota to cut down on it.... I think you see where this is going.
    You can see why people don't bother engaging with them.
    Have to love the paragraph 'There is a clear perception that the benefits of Nominet membership are being abused by a small minority.' Note they only said 'perception' as opposed to saying that it *is* happening. That's because even when presented with evidence they have consistently done nothing - this paragraph insinuates that the perception is with us and it's not really happening.

    Lol I said to myself that I wouldn't get roped in by the BS they're bound to spout. I'm now cursing myself. They just make my blood boil - maybe them closing the industry down for their own personal gain would do me and some others a favour :)
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2019
  5. Siusaidh United Kingdom

    Siusaidh Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2019
    Posts:
    434
    Likes Received:
    120
    Personally my view:

    1. The ROR system of 'big registrars' getting advantage is unacceptable, because it's not a level playing field, and therefore access to dropping domains is unfair.
    2. The idea of registrars auctioning names before they drop also seems to me to be a form of profiteering by people who are not even the registrant of the domains, and I'd prefer a centralised Nominet auction to that kind of money-tree for especially the large, high-volume registrars.
    3. The present drop catching 'status quo' is pretty insane. There just doesn't need to be this race for names. Even this model, which I prefer to the ones above, is fundamentally sub-optimal for the wider public. It's a model for cybersquatting until an indeterminate time when a speculator chooses to sell.
    4. I therefore prefer, and advocate, a process along the lines of the Estonian model. It's perfectly possible, and it opens access to the wider general public at the point when the name drops. I'd rather the profit went to Nominet than to the large Registrars. And setting profit aside, I think it's fairer to the widest range of people.
     
  6. Ben Thomas

    Ben Thomas Well-Known Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2018
    Posts:
    1,116
    Likes Received:
    121
    I think they should leave everything how it is. But one change would be welcomed, and that is that I think they should add the exact time of registration (and thus the exact drop time) to the WHOIS. I think this would encourage people to be careful about their quota and would also put less strain on "system availability" as people would no longer be using the DAC all day long and only at specific periods of time because there's only a certain number of domains dropping each day that anyone is actually interested in catching. It's all good though. We're actually the ones "held to ransom" as without Nominet we really don't have anywhere else to turn for UK domains. Who governs the ungoverned?
     
  7. stitchbob

    stitchbob Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2019
    Posts:
    280
    Likes Received:
    32
    Unfortunately, we can prefer and advocate whatever model we like. It won't make a blind bit of difference. We're Nominet members purely in the sense that we pay them money to be called so - our opinions aren't actually in the least bit relevant to the way they'll actually go.
     
  8. Siusaidh United Kingdom

    Siusaidh Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2019
    Posts:
    434
    Likes Received:
    120
    Russell Haworth (Christmas Newsletter to Members): "I’m pleased to also say that our roundtable event for the current consultation that took place earlier this month was very well attended"

    Okay. Now I'm confused.