Profit Sharing

[RobM]

I have been trying for a week to get clarification on profit sharing from nominet. Finally today nominet confirmed that if more than one tag agrees to catch a domain for someone and split the sale price between them, even with NO pooled usage, totally independent catching, no physical connection, and no knowledge or control of how the other uses their quota, it is still considered a breach of the AUP by nominet. I bring this up because it is something that has been mentioned in the past with the idea that it doesn't break any of their rules but, even though there is no mention of it anywhere in their policy, apparently it does.

 

[PoshTiger]

I know this was common a while ago - do people still do this?

 

[RobM]

It would seem so. I actually asked thinking they'd say it was ok and then we could have one place to order instead of 30 different logins. Now though they have to enforce punishments where it has happened. They don't even need cast iron proof according to that - they only have to suspect a link.

 

[Sean]

what If someone rents out a system and then brokers names caught on that system for a commission?

Also, you can’t prove a negative so I don’t understand how you could suspend a TAG without proof.

You will never stop cheats.

 

[Sean]

What if someone rents a system but only catches for the person that they rent the system off?

 

[RobM]

I don't know - you'd have to ask them. After the first 2 cookie cutter responses just sending me links to their AUP they actually read my question and came up with that answer. It doesn't make any sense considering it doesn't breach any of their rules but they basically said 'we can decide what we want' and if they suspect tags catching for someone else and splitting the profit between them they'll consider it a breach. Also bear in mind they don't need proof. Nor do they need to prove anything themselves. They can make it all up as they go along.

 

[Sean]

What if someone rents a system but only takes booking from a members of a private network?

 

[Sean]

You can’t prove a negative so If someone tells them that they work within the rules how could Nominet suspend their TAG without risking being sued for breach of contract?

 

[RobM]

I can't see anyone ever suing them - they do include the line 'The final decision rests with us' in their AUP. Anyway just passing on what they said. I can't answer those questions. I think though that if they don't understand the question and haven't managed to fob you off with cookie cutter emails they are likely to say 'oh no you can't do that'.

 

[Sean]

It depends who you speak with. I got someone on Tuesday who was very helpful but I’m not convinced there’s the will to stamp out cheating. Even banning hosted/rented scripts wouldn’t stop people who are happy to cheat.

 

[wonder_lander]

Scratching my head on this one but is this the operating model that Denys uses for DomainCatch?

I thought it was something like a 50/50 split or does he operate it in a way that's acceptable to the AUP?

 

[RobM]

Yep. Seems that this breaches their AUP according to the latest email. 'registrars that have agreed to share their profits (while maintaining their individual AUP quota) would mean that they do not appear to operate truly independently of one another... and therefore have direct or indirect business links.'
Maybe time for nominet to revisit the whole thing?

 

[keys]

Scratching my head on this one but is this the operating model that Denys uses for DomainCatch?

I thought it was something like a 50/50 split or does he operate it in a way that's acceptable to the AUP?

More likely the goal posts moved and nobody noticed, or maybe it is of no real concern.

 

[RobM]

Apparently it is of concern though because nominet in their infinite wisdom seem to be wanting to apply AUP rules outside of the actual AUP. This means what is acceptable to them one day may not be the next.

 

[martin-s]

I can see why this feels like a grey area tbh. If you made it winner takes all, almost like mining a crypto block, I guess that would work - even if the pool of domains to target was shared?

 

[RobM]

No I wasn't even asking about that because I understand pooling of quotas or chasing times is a big no no and I'm sure nobody has more than one tag and rotates catching to utlise full quota on each *cough* - anyway I digress - this wasn't about that. I originally was asking so I could incorporate one login so people could backorder at all the public catchers. I therefore had to find out if that information could be given to other tags. Then I thought about running a profit share for the tons of existing orders I have. So I asked about that. I really thought that it'd be ok but best to get the official response. Then these emails come saying that it's not allowed even though it appears people have been, and are, doing it. At this stage I find it really hard to trust anything nominet say because they seem to contradict themselves, change their minds, and misinterepret their *own* rules.

 

[keys]

It reminds me of this,

1. The female always makes the rules.
2. The rules are subject to change at any time without prior notification.
3. No male can possibly know all the rules.

http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Setzer/Rules_for_Women_and_Rules_for_Men.shtml

 

[RobM]

1. Nominet is always right
2. If Nominet is wrong see 1.

 

[Skinner]

I spoke to Nominet some years ago, when I was planning on using Denys service (when he first launched it) and they confirmed it was acceptable as long as Denys had no control over how the quota was used etc. Sadly before I had chance, he closed it to people who got a tag from a date before I got mine.

 

[RobM]

Yes that's what I thought. As you can see they are now saying even having no control over the quota is still considered a breach of AUP. They've painted themselves into a corner though now - they either have to deal with what already exists or allow other people to share information (not quotas obviously).