PAB dropcatching

[Whois-Search]

Interesting question raised at the last PAB meeting:

http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/8331_PAB45.pdf

"dropcatching - is it illegal and should Nominet be doing something about it? Lesley Cowley pointed out that dropcatching was in the PAB work programme therefore Eric Ramage moved to the next item on the agenda."

 

[Jac]

Interesting question raised at the last PAB meeting:

http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/8331_PAB45.pdf

"dropcatching - is it illegal and should Nominet be doing something about it? Lesley Cowley pointed out that dropcatching was in the PAB work programme therefore Eric Ramage moved to the next item on the agenda."

For the record; It was brought up by Nominet members and Tag Holders at a Nominet lunch and Nominet lunches and other events are reported on at PAB meetings because of the feedback element.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Whois-Search]

Then what does it say in the "PAB work programme" about dropcatching?

Also what does the "left wing" of the PAB think about dropcatching?

Time for Richard Martin to speak up.

 

[Jac]

Then what does it say in the "PAB work programme" about dropcatching?

The PAB Work Programme is not being dicussed until the next meeting in September. Dropcatching and domaining is part of the dicussion because it affects 100% of the wider stakeholder communities and both PAB members (like myself) and Nominet hear consistent complaints from ordinary registrants about these particular business models. These issues have to be discussed because they are of interest to everyone.

Also what does the "left wing" of the PAB think about dropcatching?

Individual opinions don't matter in the scheme of things. The PAB is a melting pot of ideas and the ideas don't just spring from individual elected or appointed members. I like to think the PAB is an example of democracy at work and indeed, since the introduction of a 'register of interests' it is becoming more open and transparent. Any PAB member who may have a conflict of interests has to declare it before he/she is allowed to take part in the discussion. What is the "left wing" of Acorn Domains prepared to do to reciprocate?

Time for Richard Martin to speak up.

That's up to him though it might be nice if just once an invitation to speak didn't sound like a demand.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Whois-Search]

I've just done a query of my "who got what" database and found 321 unique TAGs.

Allowing for people with more than one TAG - thats around 300 Nominet members using the DAC for dropcatching.

Since there are around 3000 Nominet members that 10% involved in drop catching directly.

Then there are thousands of people who use their services e.g. www.dropcatcher.co.uk

As you will affect them all and they elect the PAB I would think about that before the PAB gets on its "wider stakeholder community" high horse.

You will never impose "first come first serve" for everyone so its a waste of time talking about it.

As for how many "domainers" there are I suggest you ask Nominet how many people have more than 100 domains.

How you going to stop "domaining"? Not let them have more than 100? What would happen to Lesley's 5 million domain names then?

I shall be keeping an eye on the proceedings detailing them openly and transparently

 

[rob]

I've just done a query of my "who got what" database and found 321 unique TAGs.

Are you able to publish this list? likewise is it parsed for obvious none catching tags... ie. 123-reg will be manual reg's rather than some uber daccer

 

[Whois-Search]

One List:

http://www.deleting.co.uk/unique.csv

Yes 123-REG, ENOM, FASTHOSTS, SCHLUND, UK2NET etc. will be used for manual catches - but users still "drop catch" using them.

 

[Edwin]

My tag "EDWIN" is not and has never been used for drop catching, only for ease of domain management. Please remove it from your list.

 

[Whois-Search]

Ok taken it off - must have been a quick retag

 

[Edwin]

Yeah, I see what you mean. It's the dedicated tag I asked them to set up for my names since they manage so many of them. As such, I've come to think of it as "my" tag, but you're right...

 

[Jac]

I've just done a query of my "who got what" database and found 321 unique TAGs.

Allowing for people with more than one TAG - thats around 300 Nominet members using the DAC for dropcatching.

Since there are around 3000 Nominet members that 10% involved in drop catching directly.

Then there are thousands of people who use their services e.g. www.dropcatcher.co.uk

As you will affect them all and they elect the PAB I would think about that before the PAB gets on its "wider stakeholder community" high horse.

I doubt if the PAB is elected by the 10% of Nominet members you say are dropcatchers though I'm sure some of them do vote in elections. That said, the PAB is not just made up of 8 elected members, there are 8 appointed members too and 2 nominated PAB members from Nominet's board. There has to be this balance to allow for government, public body, business, academic, and consumer interests. That's the way the PAB is currently constituted so that it takes account of all stakeholder groups. As I stated in another thread, 4 PAB members stand down every year and can stand for re-election or not.

The PAB is there (as I said) to represent the wider stakeholder communities and there is plenty of opportunity for Nominet members to vote for or against their chosen elected candidates every 12 months. So when you make references to high horses you are misguided in your rationale.

You will never impose "first come first serve" for everyone so its a waste of time talking about it.

I think you've got your terminologies crossed; 'first come first served' (FCFS) already exists.

As for how many "domainers" there are I suggest you ask Nominet how many people have more than 100 domains.

Having loads of domains does not make you a domainer.

How you going to stop "domaining"? Not let them have more than 100? What would happen to Lesley's 5 million domain names then?

They would probably be registered on a FCFS basis by the tens of thousands of ordinary registrants who want them now.

I shall be keeping an eye on the proceedings detailing them openly and transparently

Your idea of openly and transparently leaves me cold. What your recent posts suggest to me is that you mean openly and prejudicially. Openly and transparently entails using factual evidence, not conjecture or subjective rationale.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Whois-Search]

'First come first served' does exist yes however when Nominet also has DAC and WHOIS2 used by the same members every day to catch the names first:

http://www.deleting.co.uk/caught/

How can it be "first come first serve" for every stakeholder?

And if you say ok the PAB will review the DAC......... look what happens still when you restrict access to the whois:

http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=292&blogid=4

You will never stop "dropcatching" or "warehousing".

How dare YOU call ME "prejudice" and suggest I have "subjective rationale".

<self mod>
on second thoughts i'm not going to lower myself to name calling.
</self mod>

 

[retired_member16]

One List:

http://www.deleting.co.uk/unique.csv

Yes 123-REG, ENOM, FASTHOSTS, SCHLUND, UK2NET etc. will be used for manual catches - but users still "drop catch" using them.

UUNETPIPEX dont drop catch, I couldnt be bothered to check the rest of the list but I would say about 75% would be manual.

 

[richard]

Then what does it say in the "PAB work programme" about dropcatching?

Also what does the "left wing" of the PAB think about dropcatching?

Time for Richard Martin to speak up.

Sorry for the delay, without an invite to this conversation I simply missed it until today.

I have no issue with dropcatching. It is simply a domain registration like any other registration and as a practice I do not see how it can be stopped or be said to be illegal.

I feel the illegal comment raised by the member lunches would relate more to the subsequent "use" of the domains caught and is already pretty much looked after through the DRS system

The only illegal use of dropcatching is those who abuse the systems in place allowing unfair advantages, however Nominet say this does not happen/is under control as per their AUP

Forgive me if I don't reply very quickly, I have many other things to do at the moment

 

[retired_member9]

Hi Richard,

I thought you were interested in drop catching yourself?

There is a thread on forum2 where you look for the best ping/traceroute to Nom servers..

 

[richard]

Hi Richard,

I thought you were interested in drop catching yourself?

There is a thread on forum2 where you look for the best ping/traceroute to Nom servers..

Yes you are correct, as I say I have no problems with drop catching

 

[Jac]

'First come first served' does exist yes however when Nominet also has DAC and WHOIS2 used by the same members every day to catch the names first:

http://www.deleting.co.uk/caught/

How can it be "first come first serve" for every stakeholder?

Nominet regards the system as FCFS. First Come First Served apparently means what it says. Who am I to argue (though I agree with you, it does not in reality exist). I was simply giving you the official viewpoint, not mine.

And if you say ok the PAB will review the DAC......... look what happens still when you restrict access to the whois:

http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=292&blogid=4

You will never stop "dropcatching" or "warehousing".

Probably not, just like you'll never stop the truth coming out.

How dare YOU call ME "prejudice" and suggest I have "subjective rationale".

"Prejudicial" in the context in which I wrote it is not a personal slur (as you have taken it) it is an observation based on your tendency to display your comments in a preconceived judgmental fashion. One can either be objective or subjective in their opinions and there's no secret in the fact that subjectivity per se is a prejudicial standpoint. It cannot be otherwise; and the way you phrase your comments leaves very little to suggest you are being objective.

The truth is not an opinion, it is the bit that is arrived at after careful examination of two sets of evidence, so to suggest something is true (or fact) when it is not yet proven to be so, is prejudicial.

The truth is out there.
I don't care if you dislike me or my viewpoints; I don't even care if you hate me or my viewpoints; but I do care about the truth; and if it doesn't sit well, look to yourself first. I have always been happy to do the same.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[richard]

Nominet regards the system as FCFS. First Come First Served apparently means what it says. Who am I to argue (though I agree with you, it does not in reality exist). I was simply giving you the official viewpoint, not mine.

It does exist; its just a very fast FCFS

Even if you removed the DAC and whois2, there would be always be someone who registered faster than another; just like the old days.

The only way Nominet could affect drop catching in any big way would be to make their system randomly choose from the variety of domain registrations within the initial time period of the domain dropping, thus turning domain registration into a more fairer system but not a FCFS

 

[Jac]

It does exist; its just a very fast FCFS

The problem is this Richard. What do you say to the thousands of stakeholders and would-be registrants who call Nominet every day to complain about what they regard as the unfair and unlevel playing field that is the "very fast FCFS" you cite?

I can totally understand that a dropcatcher may think they are just being entrepreneurial in their use of stuff like DAC, but for every dropcatcher there are thousands of would-be registrants who think the practice is unfair. Even some Nominet members do, which is what was brought up (and not by me I hasten to add) at the last PAB meeting.

And for the sake of clarity; contrary to some of the insinuations on this board, I am not anti-dropcatchers or domainers, I just happen to believe in the collective rights of the wider stakeholder communities and I also happen to believe the PAB as a body should be representative of stakeholders' views (and that means all stakeholders).

If there is a way of reconciling minority interests with majority wishes, I'd like to find it, because I am not trying to deprive anyone of anything; just trying to ensure the majority get a level playing field.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Whois-Search]

Interesting post that one Richard:

http://www.forum2.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=6627&highlight=traceroute