EPP create limits / Army tagger's - Nominets answer

[Transcom ISP]

Had a few good catches, but stats so far show the higher writes get the names.

Spoke with Nominet (David Richards) today, the daily 1000 limit is stricly in force.

So it seems that those with multiple TAG's not on the same account have the same distinct advantage, just as they did with the DAC.. !

Heres the nominet response :

"although we do our own research into these applications and if there are any links to other accounts these will be made and applied to limit the ability to gain any advantage

I am sorry about that situation but we do implement as many checks and research as many links as possible to minimise any advantage others may try and gain"

So what was the change for, just to get rid of the DAC ??

 

[webber]

So what was the change for, just to get rid of the DAC ??

See:

2019 Consultation
https://nominet.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2019-.UK-Policy-Consultation.pdf#page=8
https://nominet.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/UK-Policy-Roundtable-slides.pdf#page=30
https://www.nominet.uk/wp-content/u...onse-2019-.UK-Policy-Consultation.pdf#page=13

2020 Consultation
https://nominet.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/2020-.UK-Expiring-Domains-Consultation.pdf
https://www.nominet.uk/expired-domains-consultation/

2021 Consulation
https://members.nominet.uk/video-post/ukrac-drop-lists-implementation-working-group-roundtable/

 

[Transcom ISP]

Thanks, read all those before..

question remains :

new system : more than one tag = TAGs * 1000 EPP creates per day
old system : more than one tag = TAGs * 432000 DAC hits per day

 

[super-whois]

new system : more than one tag = TAGs * 1000 EPP creates per day
old system : more than one tag = TAGs * 432000 DAC hits per day

Can you please stop mixing up memberships and tags.

 

[webber]

How many failed <domain:create> AUP would you say you need?
The UKRAC has planned a review of the drop list implementation about 3-6 months after it goes live, so it will be a good opportunity to submit your feedback.
If the load on the DAC will decrease significantly, then the limits for <domain:check> and maybe failed <domain:create> might increase.

 

[Transcom ISP]

Can you please stop mixing up memberships and tags.

sure, revised.... (there was only 1 tag per mem when I joined, sorry.. !

new system : more than one membership * 1000 EPP creates per day
old system : more than one membership * 432000 DAC hits per day

 

[Transcom ISP]

How many failed <domain:create> AUP would you say you need?

very good question indeed..
once I gather stats on catches maybe that will give some indication, but I only have 1K a day to play with.
I think the resolve should be a way to elliminate the tag armys, oops, sorry, membership armys

rgds

bill

 

[Ben Thomas]

Either way some people have discovered a way around the limits without needing to create false or separate memberships. And that's pooling resources and colluding to chase the same names with financial benefits.

On the old system it worked ok, on the new system it works much better for them.

IMO the system needs to be fair, registrar agreements need to be enforced and that is that. Else, what is the point in meetings or UK RAC or anything else?

 

[Transcom ISP]

Either way some people have discovered a way around the limits without needing to create false or separate memberships. And that's pooling resources and colluding to chase the same names with financial benefits.

Thats for sure... look at it logically... the arrival time for the create is more or less random becuase of the varying latency times, every machine and network is different, therefore the odds of the same people catching continuously defies all logic.

As you say, looks like theres a way round this, either by serious resource flooding or an already discovered exploit..

Like you and many others, Ive taken this up with them, what do I get ? a policy link...

 

[DJ]

This has encouraged even more tags in all honesty, and as long as they are sharing resources they aren't in breach of anything. So you could chose decide to chase 2 names a day, have 3 tags, each firing of 150 creates at or around the drop time and still be within the quota of 1000 creates.

I think we all hoped this would level the playing field, however, it has in fact made things worse.

No sour grapes and well done to those who are doing well.

Regardless of how well people are doing, I would say the new system seems to have taken the fun element away from dropcatching and it seems a bit soleless now. I miss hearing my phone ping and wondering if a name had dropped.

 

[Transcom ISP]

does seem to be so, a lot of people are firing off to NM, I have Gary Manzi on the case now.

Its a bit of a shame, while we are catching the numbers are down, not sure where we can fine tune any more as we have the latency down to within microseconds and persistent

Oh well, well keep at it !

Cheers
Bill

 

[Ben Thomas]

It's an interesting situation to say the least. Nominet won't do anything. I could mention this at the AGM and they'd start talking about cheese and wine parties.

 

[JamesTuplin]

The problem was and is still is, Nominets inability or unwillingness to enforce their own rules. A new system doesn't change this. If collusion is suspected, they (Nominet) should investigate those that are proven to be in breach of T&C, suspend them for a period of time and publicly name them and the offence to deter others from doing the same.

What the new system does offer is a better ability to detect this collusion, as those colluding will be firing for the same domains repeatedly.

 

[diablo]

The problem was and is still is, Nominets inability or unwillingness to enforce their own rules. A new system doesn't change this. If collusion is suspected, they (Nominet) should investigate those that are proven to be in breach of T&C, suspend them for a period of time and publicly name them and the offence to deter others from doing the same.

What the new system does offer is a better ability to detect this collusion, as those colluding will be firing for the same domains repeatedly.

Key to this is the total lack of transparency: we have no idea if Nominet is catching and penalising any Member abusing the T&Cs. We are told they do look into it and take action when necessary, but we have to take them at their word - and unfortunately too much trust has been lost in recent years for people to do that readily.

 

[JamesTuplin]

Key to this is the total lack of transparency: we have no idea if Nominet is catching and penalising any Member abusing the T&Cs. We are told they do look into it and take action when necessary, but we have to take them at their word - and unfortunately too much trust has been lost in recent years for people to do that readily.

Exactly this, this is the primary reason people continue to do what they do. Those found responsible should be named and shamed and the punishment should deter others.

It would help if everyone, whether or not they get along, have fallen out in the past etc. could come together, all work together and share their suspicions, evidence on any possible cheaters.
Hand the list over to Nominet and they'll have to investigate it surely?

I am sure many would be open to doing so, however 1st we need proof that Nominet is taking this seriously. With tight timings, now more than ever they can see what's going on.

 

[jasman]

What about if a significant group of members all email Nominet or a joint signatory letter or something? Surely then they would have to take it seriously if a large group of members protest that their system is unfair, rather than them just fobbing off single complainants every now and then with boiler plate responses? Now is the time to highlight problems, just after the system has changed.

 

[Ben Thomas]

 

[rob]

Exactly this, this is the primary reason people continue to do what they do. Those found responsible should be named and shamed and the punishment should deter others.



I am sure many would be open to doing so, however 1st we need proof that Nominet is taking this seriously. With tight timings, now more than ever they can see what's going on.

It is an interesting point - what would people take as evidence it is being taken seriously (as 'we are looking at it' is not and has not cut it over the years) , and in terms of 'punishment' there is AUP etc - visibility of that being enforced?

 

[JamesTuplin]

It is an interesting point - what would people take as evidence it is being taken seriously (as 'we are looking at it' is not and has not cut it over the years) , and in terms of 'punishment' there is AUP etc - visibility of that being enforced?

When a complaint is made I believe the person that is making that complaint should be updated on the progress of their complaint. I don't expect Nominet to provide every email or detailed back and forth with the accused for which the complaint is about, but a simple 'based upon your evidence provided we have taken the following action <insert action> or unfortunately insufficient evidence has been provided (listing what evidence that would accept as proof of collusion and a breach of T&Cs) , thankyou for bringing this to our attention, with this action also being published publicly within the online system.

I also think it is important to clarify what defines collusion.

Is it more than one member sharing resources to gain a competitive advantage?
Members with more than 1 membership/quota for their own personal gain? e.g. multi tag owners each with 1k each.
Public catchers whom force their members to sell domains as part of the 'agreement'?

 

[impact]

Like everyone said before changing the system wouldn't change anything nominet wants rid of drop catching and drop catchers this is a fine way to do it.

But it looks like the same cheats are at it again and even the people that wanted it are doing even better how odd..