September .uk drop discussion

[MurrayMurray is verified member.]

I wonder on the legal side about the steps taken to acquire the domains

I don't know the full process, did you have to impersonate? did you illicitly gain data about the former registrant? are those things criminal

 

[Hay]

@gregfindley - i just noticed you got NX.uk from CReg haha well played You have had some good domains in auction this last couple of weeks.

 

[Hay]

2nd wave of COVID certainly on its way so best got stocking up on those loo roll's again

 

[WalkinDude]

@WalkinDude Your inbox is full. Drop an email to support @dropped.uk

ASD.uk

For the uninitiated ASD can stand for Autism Spectrum Disorder and must say if you'd asked me what of all the domains in this drop I've seen so far I'd be after it's this one. Can barely believe it. It's for development and been working on ideas [mentally] a few years back now.

I'd like to thank Dropped.uk for making this happen and everyone else who offered to help, thanking you all together. Delighted almost beyond words. Wasn't expecting this outcome!!!

 

[signature]

https://www.acorndomains.co.uk/threads/expired-uk-dropping-14-09-2020.169180/#post-637167

While we are at .UK discussion, I might as well ask we take a look at the above post.

Any interest in my .UK dropping tomorrow. About 550 left to be renewed/dropped tomorrow.

£10 for 1, correspondence .co.uk for £40 and loads of discount for bulk buy.

Thanks

 

[ian]

Switching up Ben's analogy slightly, lets say that a supplier (original registrant) puts goods on the shelves of Tesco (registrar) on the agreement it is their (original registrant) stock but when the expiry date is reached, Tesco (registrar) have permission to take the goods off the shelf (expiry), through the warehouse (suspension) and into the bins out the back (cancellation). If a homeless man (new registrant) is hovering outside the warehouse door asks a member of Tescos (registrar employee) for the goods about to go in the bin (cancellation) and they agree; who broke the "law" and who is to blame.

(riddle me this, riddle me that....)

 

[domainseller200]

Switching up Ben's analogy slightly, lets say that a supplier (original registrant) puts goods on the shelves of Tesco (registrar) on the agreement it is their (original registrant) stock but when the expiry date is reached, Tesco (registrar) have permission to take the goods off the shelf (expiry), through the warehouse (suspension) and into the bins out the back (cancellation). If a homeless man (new registrant) is hovering outside the warehouse door asks a member of Tescos (registrar employee) for the goods about to go in the bin (cancellation) and they agree; who broke the "law" and who is to blame.

(riddle me this, riddle me that....)

It was Fasthosts in the drawing room with the dagger...

 

[3gmedia]

Ok, here are some nice names regged in the last 10 mins

eLaw.uk


Marts.uk


MiniMart.uk

I see micromart.co.uk sold for $1441 last month on domainlore

 

[LCHappy]

Switching up Ben's analogy slightly, lets say that a supplier (original registrant) puts goods on the shelves of Tesco (registrar) on the agreement it is their (original registrant) stock but when the expiry date is reached, Tesco (registrar) have permission to take the goods off the shelf (expiry), through the warehouse (suspension) and into the bins out the back (cancellation). If a homeless man (new registrant) is hovering outside the warehouse door asks a member of Tescos (registrar employee) for the goods about to go in the bin (cancellation) and they agree; who broke the "law" and who is to blame.

(riddle me this, riddle me that....)

That's easy, all the homeless man has to do is show explicit consent and it isn't theft.

 

[ian]

That's easy, all the homeless man has to do is show explicit consent and it isn't theft.

Would asking be enough (with an electronic trail)? Bearing in mind the homeless dude didn't take when no one was looking.

 

[MurrayMurray is verified member.]

If a homeless man (new registrant) is hovering outside the warehouse door asks a member of Tescos (registrar employee) for the goods about to go in the bin (cancellation) and they agree; who broke the "law" and who is to blame.

(riddle me this, riddle me that....)

Would there be a health and safety law requiring it be disposed of and not be given out? if it's expiration and not best by date

So the employee would be committing the crime as they can't give consent

 

[WalkinDude]

Switching up Ben's analogy slightly, lets say that a supplier (original registrant) puts goods on the shelves of Tesco (registrar) on the agreement it is their (original registrant) stock but when the expiry date is reached, Tesco (registrar) have permission to take the goods off the shelf (expiry), through the warehouse (suspension) and into the bins out the back (cancellation). If a homeless man (new registrant) is hovering outside the warehouse door asks a member of Tescos (registrar employee) for the goods about to go in the bin (cancellation) and they agree; who broke the "law" and who is to blame.

(riddle me this, riddle me that....)

Goods this is most likely to happen with is food. Low value, lots of social clamour for it not be binned, and you'll struggle to find examples of the supplier turning up in the 11th hour saying I'd like my soon to expire Fresh Creme Eclairs back.

Read through what's been said here on Sat morning. Riveting stuff. So dunno if I've got this right but basically the domains in question are lost in some ownership abyss between the host, original .co.uk owner, new .co.uk owner and that can be thought of as a Bound Group. Outside this Group are the lurking Dropcatchers and any party who let's say has found another method to deal with the situation.

A third party [actually 4th party], on basis of hosts terms and conditions which directly contradict Nominet's terms and conditions nips in last 24hrs and 'grabs' the domain/s where a decent argument can be made the only party likely to suffer loss is the party that would have dropcatched the domain or by some miracle, regged it. Odds are with 5 years to sort it out the bound group have declared no further effective interest.

However, the problem is one of Rights. If you are about to be evicted from your home another party can't simply move in on the day of eviction just cos it 'looks' like your definitely moving out. You could at the last hour raise the dosh you need and decide your not moving out and that's your Right. Or you bought an Icecream, don't want it, about to chuck it in the bin. Doesn't mean another party can take it off you cos 'well you were throwing it away'. They can ask, but if your answer is no it's going in the bin that's the end of it!

The bound group, has until the final second to at any time change their mind and decide one party within them is keeping the domain and within that they still may have their own further rows about it. So if new .co.uk kicks off against the hosts saying what's happened to my .uk rights, the old .co.uk Owner still has control that's a matter between them, outside and separated forever from any issues Dropcatchers may have about the potential domain.

However lets say some party said sod it I'm going in and having this domain. Is this illegal, theft, does it make them Lucifer? Appears to me they do so at their own risk.

What I find interesting is what if that Party who went in and grabbed the domain before the drop wasn't a member of Acorn. Just some part-time, making it up as they go along domainer, not privy to the discussion I've read here and through their own sheer enthusiasm and naivety simply saw an opportunity and took it. Psychologically it's normal to think if a renown website lets you do something; that which it lets you do must be kosher? It's a guided path after all. There was that thing with Hoover accidentally offering everyone free Vacuum Cleaners and within minutes everyone's grabbing one and ringing 50 relatives. They all know it's a glitch but don't perceive it as their problem. It's Hoover's screwup.

The difference here is that Registrars can see the activities of other Registrars to some extent and domainers well talk to domainers. Domainers always seem to know what other domainers are doing to an eery extent sometimes.

I actually find this be a complex issue. Just trying to understand it. The main thing is folks are talking. As long as that continues things will evolve.

 

[davedevelopment]

Am I right in thinking there's nothing special about the .uk drops with regards to the Fasthosts issue? As in, that's just the way their panel works and if you're lucky enough to prod the right customer service person, people could have been doing this for some time?

 

[deedee is verified member.]

Am I right in thinking there's nothing special about the .uk drops with regards to the Fasthosts issue? As in, that's just the way their panel works and if you're lucky enough to prod the right customer service person, people could have been doing this for some time?

seems that way from what i've read here.

 

[3gmedia]

Latest

NewMexico.uk

 

[WalkinDude]

Certain things like what's happened here are very clearly not supposed to happen. It's an obvious loophole, mistake, error or whatever you want to call it.

You would only take a domain like this if you have malicious reasoning behind it. That being to take 'ownership' of something you very clearly shouldn't be able to get. It's not an innocent mistake or testing the system; it's flat-out stealing access to the domain.

No-one taking these domains this way can honestly say "I should be able to take these domains" - They know exactly what they're doing, just trying to justify their behaviour by putting the blame on someone else.

If they found domains of their own missing from their account because someone had found you can transfer domains for non-dropping domains in a similar fashion, they would be angry. They wouldn't be standing there saying it's fine because the other person didn't break any T&C.

I don't have a horse in the race so just making this clear. Just enjoying the debate.

Host has some backend way to enable parties completely disassociated with the domains to 'acquire' deleting domains prior to their drop. Same Host who regged thousands of .uk domains the .co.uk owners didn't ask them to and held onto them for a year. Some might call this a pattern of behaviour by that Host.

In order to access this 'other way' of acquiring the domains, you have to open an account with the Host.

Perhaps the Host presumes you are going to keep the domains they've opened up a path for you to acquire with the same Host.

Throughout it all, it could be said the Host has but one interest. Keep as many of these .uk domains Hosted on their services as possible hence this latest crisis.

Could also be said, that said Host knows exactly what's being discussed in here right now possibly even in Real-Time. Have they closed down this loophole, locked it off? Shown any sign at all they give a toss?? Genuine question.

So that's one aspect. Another is Domainers are gonna glitch. I mean as night follows day, as the sky is blue and grass is green, Domainers are going to find the flaws and exploit them and this is a process that cannot be thwarted under the current system.

If you say to the party exploiting the Glitch you are this and that, they can respond sorry liability rests with the Host. They are clearly encouraging by any means these domains to remain Hosted on their services. In a Riot they tend to nick those who incited it, not everyone who participated. The morals and ethics of it don't always align with who's actually liable.

Then Legally. Domainers [just my laymans opinion] have virtually no faith in legal action regarding domains. Odds of getting a Judge to understand [care about] the issues here, well good luck, and that's probably a reason no one bothers and maybe the Host in question knows this.

 

[3gmedia]

Anyone know why 3dweb & signs aren't dropping?

 

[starbird]

Anyone know why 3dweb & signs aren't dropping?

Good question.

 

[Hay]

I believe its because both Mark and Allan have so many domains its likely to have exceeded their credit limit during the renewal process therefore they would have been placed on hold/renewal but won't update until the credits are added to the account.

 

[BGBG is verified member.]

The guys at ‘The Register’ would love to get their teeth stuck into this, surely!! #MoreEyeballs #MorePressureOnNominetOrPoliceToTakeAction