oyster

[AdminAdmin is verified member.]

Can I remind all members to please not post people's personal names, company names or make accusations against the validity or use of TAGs in posts.

We have been here a hundred times before so I wont put a long explanation other than to say Acorn supports domainers rights to privacy.

Many thanks

Admin

 

[philipp]

some people don't have a clue if the domain they are targeting was previously caught and wasn't going to drop anymore ;-)

At the time I happened to be testing my DAC client in a debugging mode that ignores the suspension flag. I was rather surprised and pleased at the outcome.

Cheers,

P.

 

[retired_member26]

<So I told him that his 750 reserve is fine if he doesn't care, but I'd prefer for the domain to wait 3 days before I can evaluate it's traffic and define my reserve price>

Why he is obliged to wait "you" to evaluate the traffic of the domain?

 

[foz]

Why he is obliged to wait "you" to evaluate the traffic of the domain?

So he can establish a value in relation to traffic and PPC income. Whether this information is disclosed to Domaincatch participants or that this process is made crystal clear in the operating terms appears to be void or vague at best.

 

[foz]

At the time I happened to be testing my DAC client in a debugging mode that ignores the suspension flag. I was rather surprised and pleased at the outcome.

Cheers,

P.

Will you be replying to offers?

 

[retired_member26]

So he can establish a value in relation to traffic and PPC income. Whether this information is disclosed to Domaincatch participants or that this process is made crystal clear in the operating terms appears to be void or vague at best.

Foz, I know that. I especially wrote that part since that explains a TAG member uses other member TAGs to benefit himself, which is against Nominet's rules.

Anyway I call this,

"Clone Wars"

 

[dragon]

I hope this makes people using his "domaindelete" system aware of the dangers and how unethical this weasel is - YOUR DOMAINS CAN BE DELETED AT ANY TIME, and there's nothing you would be able to do about it, as you have given him permission to "manage" your domains.

 

[retired_member12]

Foz, I know that. I especially wrote that part since that explains a TAG member uses other member TAGs to benefit himself, which is against Nominet's rules.

Anyway I call this,

"Clone Wars"

'Penny-drop' moment, are you saying that vizzys' system uses another Nominet members' DAC allocation or something, for his own benefit?

 

[essexboy]

I believe what he is saying is it breaks nominets collaboration rule. He is benefitting from his users catching a name as he gets half the money from sales.

 

[dragon]

Denys, why post on your blog that I edited my comments to make them seem rhetorical and not directed at you, when I have done no such thing?

I'm no coward boyo and I'm only too happy to have a chat in person with you over a nice cup of English tea and biscuits. You know my number and home address please drop by.

 

[aZooZaaZooZa is verified member.]

I believe what he is saying is it breaks nominets collaboration rule. He is benefitting from his users catching a name as he gets half the money from sales.

That's not the issue. The problem is where a provider invites participants to try and catch the same name(s).

 

[tifosi]

An important point is 'asserting rights to a domain'. If Denys insists that he has a right to any domain caught by his clients then that is not allowed.

Why should he be allowed to 'set' the price at a point where - to paraphrase - 'he could afford it'?

It might be semantic, but it's an important point. If the agreement is to profit from 50% of the sale proceeds then fine - I still think it's sailing v. close to the wind as far as breaking both the spirit of the law and the actual law. But if he asserts that he both has rights to 50% of the proceeds AND a right to how that domain is disposed of then that is membership collaboration & breaking the DAC/EPP T&C.

The term 'lease' in this agreement is not the definition of lease I've ever seen. More a 'borrowing with full control'. If I lease a house, the owner has NO right of entry without my permission. Same with just about anything else that is leased. If the lease agreement is broke then the lease equipment is returned, not what I've been doing with it during the lease term.

I for one am finding the thread 'enlightening'.

 

[retired_member12]

That's not the issue. The problem is where a provider invites participants to try and catch the same name(s).

So, if you took an example like autopilot .co.uk, which vizzy caught for himself this morning, then if his system was trying to catch that too for another member(s), then that may breach the rules?

 

[aZooZaaZooZa is verified member.]

So, if you took an example like autopilot .co.uk, which vizzy caught for himself this morning, then if his system was trying to catch that too for another member(s), then that may breach the rules?

Not unless participants are *invited* to participate in catching the *same* names to the financial advantage of the provider.