Fairness

[philipp]

Hi folks,

It seems like a long time since drop-catching felt anything like a level playing field. I've written to Nominet with some ideas about what's happening, and to ask them if they can fix the problem. Perhaps anyone else who feels this is the case could join me in this.

Finally, if we can't get anywhere on this, I'll post some technical detail which might prove helpful. :-D

Thanks!

P.

 

[FC Domains]

The playing field looks level to me, but it is a complex game.

Getting Nominet to change things is likely to annoy the catchers who have put in all the research and work.

 

[grantw]

I'll post some technical detail which might prove helpful.

Some technical details would be nice

Grant

 

[tifosi]

I have my concerns and suspicions but technical data would be good.

It might be a level playing field, but depends on whose field you're playing!

 

[aquanuke]

have to say the forum is getting a bit boring, we need some tag bashing and conspiracy theories to liven things up

 

[Paullas]

oh no, admin no sleeping for us this weekend then

 

[grantw]

I'll settle for a clue as to what this technical data referrs to, I've run out of ways of explaining my catching incabability??

Grant

 

[retired_member3]

Perhaps everyone with a tag gets assigned a number and chooses the domains they want that are dropping the next day. Nominet then have 1 machine with the domains in written on balls and another with the tag holders numbers in. They are then drawn out by Keith Chegwin. :-D

Much more exciting

 

[tifosi]

In a 'level playing field' world it would be one member with one DAC (upto 2 IP's) and using one dac allocation.

The problem is there's no direct correlation between the request/response that get's sent to the dac server and the mail request that gets sent to the mail server. So in theory someone could use another members allocation and then send a registration request with their own TAG & reg details

I don't know whether the EPP will have some kind of link built in to it. But until the present systems have this kind of link then the system will be open to abuse.

The response has a field for tag. Why not have some other mechanism for the request/response?

One example/idea would be for a dac request to have a memberID field (we all have them, or a new dacID - which may be a keyID-TAG hybrid). The request would then require this as a mandatory field to the dac request server. This is then parsed and returned as a sha/md5 key id which would then be a required entity on a registration request.

There's issues & it's more server intensive. But its a way of linking the usage of an allocation with the reg request, and if the tag/ID that does the reg requests does not match the tag/ID that does the dac request then it's denied.

Until we take responsibility no amount of moaning will help.

Stephen

 

[Paullas]

above is a good idea, but alot of members dont think nominet are that bothered who gets what, as at the end of the day they still get the money for the domain being registered.

 

[tifosi]

above is a good idea, but alot of members dont think nominet are that bothered who gets what, as at the end of the day they still get the money for the domain being registered.

Target the techies. Give them a valid challenge and maybe there'll be some progress.

S

 

[FC Domains]

As some people will have noticed, I have a system that sometimes is on even terms with the top catchers, but not always. That's because it takes a lot of work and research to keep refining the system.
You have to endlessly analyse what works and develop your tactics.

At the moment I don't think the returns are worth the effort.

What I don't see is anybody 'cheating', just people who are better at it. (Respect to OSTASHKO & BACKORDER)

 

[Paullas]

........

 

[Slater]

I did notice in a thread back in January that BACKORDER will start using the same catching script as their customers to catch names, should give the rest of us a slightly better chance of catching the premium names.

 

[jalpope]

I have just concluded 21 days of research into domain dropping patterns. I have worked with multiple tags (don’t ask who or which) and have found there is a way of identifying favorable times to send out DAC + REQUESTS .

There was no way this information was able to be gathered without the multiple DAC access. No names were registered however we did see names drop as we predicted.

The question is would I be breaking the Nominet rules if I used this ‘third party’ information to help myself register names?

My understanding is that the AUP is not there to prevent Nominet members from acting together to achieve common goals unless these goals are to obtain greater access levels or use of service that a single member acting alone would have.

This puts me in a quandary. Would Nominet allow me to run systems for other members where I store and can access data for my own use? A definitive ruling could be helpful.

Please don’t reply with the usual nonsense about anonymous postings, as I said above, multiple members have been involved so this is private for their sake as well as mine. Incidentally Nominet have not noticed our research, or if they have, they have not contacted us but that is another story.

 

[jalpope]

Would you not be better asking Nominet if this breaks their rules?

365,

Its in progress. Will post response IF received.

 

[philipp]

I have just concluded 21 days of research into domain dropping patterns. I have worked with multiple tags (don’t ask who or which) and have found there is a way of identifying favorable times to send out DAC + REQUESTS .

This is the technique that I alluded to in my original post, and my question directed towards Nominet is really very simple: when are you going to develop a sensible random dropping program instead of some stupid archaic predictable system that can be easily beaten? Come on Nominet, a GCSE student could write better code.

P.

 

[rob]

The question is would I be breaking the Nominet rules if I used this ‘third party’ information to help myself register names?

My understanding is that the AUP is not there to prevent Nominet members from acting together to achieve common goals unless these goals are to obtain greater access levels or use of service that a single member acting alone would have.

It is an interesting point - however is using 123REG or another registrar breaking the AUP as well?

Obviously if it is catching specific then its more of a fine line and I would favour clarification by Nom on this.

I think tifosi posted a good method or at least had the right idea behind it, however even then you would have girlfriends and wives becoming members and regging in their own name.

Would you not be better asking Nominet if this breaks their rules?

This - with a few bells on It is a shame that things have to be done anon!

Personally I would have just used the knowledge. Now that you know how things are working would you still need the multiple tags?

Agreed - the temptation to reg a few names must have been great - however when the previous flaw in the 'random' code popped up someone (fcdomains?) posted it on acorn , so this is not the first time Nom has been pulled up by a domainer on acorn about something that is bulletproof accordning to nom

*gets popcorn*

 

[philipp]

But if you've found what half the lads on here believe is the holy grail, why not use it to your advantage like others have. Why ask Nominet to change their system?

Because I prefer not to setup dubious 'DAC hosting' efforts in order to bend the rules, and that's my prerogative.

If they say the drops are random, then that's what they should be - and it is evident that their 303 bug 'fix' was some crappy hack to obscure the predictability of their code. I would expect more from a company that prides itself on being the world's fourth largest Internet registry.

P.

 

[rob]

If they say the drops are random, then that's what they should be - and it looks like their 303 bug 'fix' was some crappy hack to obscure the predictability of their code. I would expect more from a company that prides itself on being the world's fourth largest Internet registry.

Thats the bug I was talking about above re: colin finding it and making it public. so in reply to 365 not everyone is out to make cash - and going by his previous threads on domain sale capitalism he should like that