20i Reseller Hosting

Another interesting conversation with Nominet

Discussion in 'Nominet General Information' started by Katch!, Sep 9, 2019.

  1. Katch!

    Katch! Active Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2018
    Posts:
    827
    Likes Received:
    94
    I'm in the process of applying for at least one additional tag on my registrar account with Nominet, I was particularly interested in how the quota was handled for accounts with two or more tags and whether or not there are ways to circumvent the AUP of Nominet's DAC of 432,000 in every 24 hour period - tl;dr - there isn't. However, I raised the point of RoR seemingly ignoring this rule and this is what I got back.

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Domain Forum

    Acorn Domains Elite Member

    Joined:
    1999
    Messages:
    Many
    Likes Received:
    Lots
    articles.co.uk
     
  3. Trauiner United Kingdom

    Trauiner Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2016
    Posts:
    225
    Likes Received:
    23
    - Removed.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2019
  4. RobM

    RobM Well-Known Member Exclusive Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2012
    Posts:
    3,043
    Likes Received:
    428
    I'm not quite sure what you are saying. There were no create limits for anyone on domains in the ror drop beyond the ridiculous allocation per minute. As long as you were trying to 'create' a domain that was due to become available your quota wasn't affected by a failure. This was how the process worked otherwise everyone would've been locked out very quickly.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Katch!

    Katch! Active Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2018
    Posts:
    827
    Likes Received:
    94
    Hm, didn't notice they said create, that's not what I even asked them.

    EDIT: Still, I find this some pretty shady shit.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2019
  6. RobM

    RobM Well-Known Member Exclusive Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2012
    Posts:
    3,043
    Likes Received:
    428
    I think they allowed people to deposit money for each tag and use them but there were no create limits for anyone. That's the impression I got anyway.
     
  7. dee

    dee Well-Known Member Acorn Supporter

    Joined:
    May 2013
    Posts:
    1,817
    Likes Received:
    210
    Thats my memory aswell. You just got a 'limit reached' until the next rolling minute. The more money you had available the more the limit
     
  8. Katch!

    Katch! Active Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2018
    Posts:
    827
    Likes Received:
    94
    Not sure to be honest, but I thought this was relating to DAC (which is what I asked about) I guess Monday hit me harder than I thought :) although to me it still seems pretty shady that "AUP" was lifted during RoR and nobody was informed?
     
  9. Jiblob United Kingdom

    Jiblob Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2005
    Posts:
    129
    Likes Received:
    26
    It said on this page before the RoR about the AUP and limits. It looks like it's all been made into past tense now, but it said the same as this, but in future tense:

    "Did the usual AUPs apply during the release period?

    For the standard .UK EPP the AUP remained unchanged during the release period.  For the Right of Registration EPP connection, the attempted creates of domain names on the release list which are rejected because they have already been registered will not count towards the AUP limit on the use of create commands on already registered names.  All other EPP AUP limits remained in place during the release period (1st – 5th July) for any domains that appeared on the release list. "

    So technically it was failed creates that weren't monitored. If it was as they claim, all other AUP limits should have been in place. If not then it was a loophole that others knew about and wasn't mentioned on that page from what I can remember. I haven't reread the entire page again though cause I CBA now lol.
     
  10. Whois-Search United Kingdom

    Whois-Search Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2004
    Posts:
    1,812
    Likes Received:
    82
    You didn’t need the DAC during the ROR drop though? As you knew the exact time they all dropped (2pm) so didn’t need to check.

    During the ROR drop the trick was to fire off EPP creates about 80ms before 2pm (as much as you dare to combat network latency).

    Extra tags actually gave you more EPP connections... as you had 6 EPP connections per tag simultaneously. So the name you put first on each EPP connection was likely to get registered at 2pm on the dot.

    I have a feeling Nominet might suggest switching to that during the forthcoming consultation:

    If they published drop lists with exact drop times there would no need for the DAC AUP ?
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2019
  11. RobM

    RobM Well-Known Member Exclusive Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2012
    Posts:
    3,043
    Likes Received:
    428
    Yeah I expect to see this brought in soon. A minimum amount deposit for a set EPP quota. Will destroy the market leaving only the top handful of registrars which is all nominet really want or need to keep printing money for them. They can milk the extension, along with price rises, for the next few years until the uk namespace is a wasteland alongside all the new gtlds.

    'implementing a .UK drop list to help more registrants register their desired domains.'
    Good of nominet to 'help' the registrants. Just like they 'helped' them with a price doubling and introduction of another extension. Would probably be better if they just let registrars allocate them directly though without all that nasty drop cycle rubbish ;)
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2019
  12. Katch!

    Katch! Active Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2018
    Posts:
    827
    Likes Received:
    94
    Damn I really hope they don't do that, that really would ruin the community.

    surely they wouldn't publish "exact" drop times? You're thinking RoR was a test?
     
  13. RobM

    RobM Well-Known Member Exclusive Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2012
    Posts:
    3,043
    Likes Received:
    428
    Well they can't really get it exact - I don't think they have the infrastructure - hence the 80-100ms early drops in ROR. However I do think it was a test to see what they could get away with regarding quota and public outcry.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  14. Katch!

    Katch! Active Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2018
    Posts:
    827
    Likes Received:
    94
    That would seem like a really unfair way to operate after being a reasonably level playing field for some time. I really hope you're wrong on this one, as I'm sure you do! But time will tell I suppose.
     
  15. RobM

    RobM Well-Known Member Exclusive Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2012
    Posts:
    3,043
    Likes Received:
    428
    We'll know soon enough.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2019
  16. Jiblob United Kingdom

    Jiblob Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2005
    Posts:
    129
    Likes Received:
    26
    The DAC was useful because everyone had a fixed number of creates that they could fire per minute on the EPP, whether you got the name or not. So it was imperative for someone like me with 12 possible creates per minute to make sure that every create counted. I used the DAC responses to trigger when they released the names early and also to remove names from my list of possible names at the earliest opportunity so I didn't try to register taken names and use up one of my 12 attempts for no reason. Hope that makes sense.

    But you're right, multiple tags means multiple connections and more chance of getting the name if you fired off at the right time. However they triggered early on more than one occasion so you had to be savvy to get in there early. Also, there were plenty of people connecting and plenty of groups pooling their resources to get the best names. It wasn't "fair" by any means but it seemed ok ish.

    I suspect that there wasn't any sure fire way to guarantee stella names because of the number of people attempting to do the exact same thing, which was to register one or more domains at the exact same time.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2019