Deleting domains

[winnie]

92.3% of .coms are "domain kited" each month (32 million domains). Where the person registers the domain, keeps it for 4 days 23 hours (the limit on .com is 5 days that you can delete). The domain is then dropped and re-registered immediately, kept for another 4 days 23 hours, repeat repeat etc.

The domains are NEVER paid for ...

(http://www.bobparsons.com/MayKiting.html)

"Domain tasting" is very different . . .

 

[Jay Daley]

No. I'm saying that you are setting a limit of 5 (or 5%) which seems fair enough. After which you will be charged for every registration, even if you delete it.
Which is what the original message said.

Why does it need the additional threats? (For the third time of asking.)

After the limit is reached you will not be able to delete any more uninvoiced domains.

But let me reiterate, the limit on tasting is zero. The limit is there to help us identify potential abuse.

 

[Jay Daley]

92.3% of .coms are "domain kited" each month (32 million domains). Where the person registers the domain, keeps it for 4 days 23 hours (the limit on .com is 5 days that you can delete). The domain is then dropped and re-registered immediately, kept for another 4 days 23 hours, repeat repeat etc.

The domains are NEVER paid for ...

(http://www.bobparsons.com/MayKiting.html)

"Domain tasting" is very different . . .

To be fair, that is the percentage that are not paid for. The proportion kited or tasted is a moot point. As far as we are concerned they are both unacceptable.

 

[FC Domains]

After the limit is reached you will not be able to delete any more uninvoiced domains.

But let me reiterate, the limit on tasting is zero. The limit is there to help us identify potential abuse.

Now I'm bashing my head against the keyboard. Let's see how simple I can make the question.

If I have registered a domain name that I will have to pay for anyway, why can't I delete it?

 

[ELIFE-MZ]

Might be talking rubbish, so correct me if I am wrong. I was told by registrant services quite a while back that once invoiced you can still delete it but you will have to pay for it. Once the payment has been made and the status changes to regged until renewal date then it has to be surrendered.

 

[aquanuke]

Colin just wait to after the 8th.

 

[FC Domains]

Colin just wait to after the 8th.

Good point, but the rules imply that those will count as well.

 

[Jay Daley]

Now I'm bashing my head against the keyboard. Let's see how simple I can make the question.

I know the feeling.

If I have registered a domain name that I will have to pay for anyway, why can't I delete it?

If the domain has been invoiced then you can delete it, you will still have to pay for it and there are no limits on the number you can delete.

If the domain has been paid for then only the legal registrant can have it cancelled through our surrender service. The tag holder cannot delete it through the Automaton. In the corner case where the TH and registrant are the same the problem is that the Automaton has no way of knowing if the tag holder is the registrant.

 

[FC Domains]

If the domain has been invoiced then you can delete it, you will still have to pay for it and there are no limits on the number you can delete.

That's all I wanted to know and the email from Nominet didn't say this.

Automaton has no way of knowing if the tag holder is the registrant.

Here's an idea then. How about you allow the a TAG name as the registrant.
That way automation would know.
Then maybe the TAG holder would be allowed to change the registrant field using 'edit'. All perfectly secure.

 

[Jay Daley]

Here's an idea then. How about you allow the a TAG name as the registrant. That way automation would know. Then maybe the TAG holder would be allowed to change the registrant field using 'edit'. All perfectly secure.

First, our new account structure, when completed, will let us know when the TH == Reg. You will have seen the first phase of this if you have logged in to the new online service.

Second, we do not allow tag holders to change the registrant field. Registrants have to come to us and follow the transfer process.

 

[FC Domains]

Second, we do not allow tag holders to change the registrant field. Registrants have to come to us and follow the transfer process.

YES I KNOW THAT, but if the resistrant and the tag hold are the same person, why shouldn't the tag holder change the registrant through automation.
To make this simple, the tag holder could just put his tag in the registrant filled when registering the domain. Automation would then know and it would be secure.

Do I need to be expessing ideas more simply?

 

[Paullas]

YES I KNOW THAT, but if the resistrant and the tag hold are the same person, why shouldn't the tag holder change the registrant through automation.
To make this simple, the tag holder could just put his tag in the registrant filled when registering the domain. Automation would then know and it would be secure.

Do I need to be expessing ideas more simply?

Good idea will save time............

 

[Jay Daley]

YES I KNOW THAT, but if the resistrant and the tag hold are the same person, why shouldn't the tag holder change the registrant through automation.

Because we want registrants to use our transfer process, which has more to it than just changing one field. We don't want the registrant field being changed through the Automaton.

Do I need to be expessing ideas more simply?

Tell me about it!

 

[FC Domains]

Because we want registrants to use our transfer process, which has more to it than just changing one field. We don't want the registrant field being changed through the Automaton.

So it's the £30+VAT then.

 

[diablo]

Seeing an increasing number of obviously speculative registrations that are dumped before pay day I think it is a very good idea - or else we will end up with a situation like the .coms.

I have deleted a few names that I registered by mistake - typos due to late nights! - but don't see any problem with the new rule.

 

[retired_member11]

Because we want registrants to use our transfer process, which has more to it than just changing one field. We don't want the registrant field being changed through the Automaton.



Tell me about it!

I think FC has a good idea and just saying "...because we want registrants to use our transfer process..." isn't addressing the idea. If you're wanting to protect your transfer fee income say so.

 

[Jac]

I think FC has a good idea and just saying "...because we want registrants to use our transfer process..." isn't addressing the idea.

Actually it is, and here I go running the risk of being flamed again, but I'll explain anyway.

The answer Jay gave is Nominet's official position; Nominet wants registrants to use its transfer process. This has very little to do with "wanting to protect transfer fee income" because the fee is set at cost recovery, not at a profit margin. Maybe the fee is wrong, but that is an operational (costing) issue for Nominet to consider. Perhaps in the future, tag holders may be allowed to electronically change the registrant field, but whether people like it or not, Nominet has a right under company law to protect its systems and a right to apply its Tag Holding rules equally to all tag holders.

As an aside; there were 2,902 active members and 3,922 active tags at 31st May 2006. It seems, from what I've seen so far, that the majority don't see too much wrong with this rule change. The way I see it is this. Nominet cannot set its rules to cater for a handful of members or tag holders, it has to set its rules to protect the integrity of its systems and the majority of its members and tag holders. If it doesn't pre-empt the 'kiting' phenomenon in the .com domain, pretty soon we'll see the same levels of misuse of the system as in the States. If that happens, it will be a small minority compromising the integrity of the system to the detriment of the majority.

Acceptable Use Policy here.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[retired_member11]

Actually it is, and here I go running the risk of being flamed again, but I'll explain anyway.

The answer Jay gave is Nominet's official position; Nominet wants registrants to use its transfer process. This has very little to do with "wanting to protect transfer fee income" because the fee is set at cost recovery, not at a profit margin. Maybe the fee is wrong, but that is an operational (costing) issue for Nominet to consider. Perhaps in the future, tag holders may be allowed to electronically change the registrant field, but whether people like it or not, Nominet has a right under company law to protect its systems and a right to apply its Tag Holding rules equally to all tag holders.

As an aside; there were 2,902 active members and 3,922 active tags at 31st May 2006. It seems, from what I've seen so far, that the majority don't see too much wrong with this rule change. The way I see it is this. Nominet cannot set its rules to cater for a handful of members or tag holders, it has to set its rules to protect the integrity of its systems and the majority of its members and tag holders. If it doesn't pre-empt the 'kiting' phenomenon in the .com domain, pretty soon we'll see the same levels of misuse of the system as in the States. If that happens, it will be a small minority compromising the integrity of the system to the detriment of the majority.

Acceptable Use Policy here.

Regards
James Conaghan

Poppycock.

 

[Sue]

Poppycock.

Good to see the standard of discussion on this board going from strength to strength.

 

[rob]

Good to see the standard of discussion on this board going from strength to strength.

Welcome to the forum Sue, I hope you can raise the bar

Feel free to nip over to http://www.acorndomains.co.uk/welcome-acorndomains-co-uk.html the welcome forums