September .uk drop discussion

[Gill]

Press disagree all you like, you're like children!

Cowards and bullies!

 

[LCHappy]

Press disagree all you like, you're like children!

Cowards and bullies!

Delusional, I blame Covid

 

[Gill]

Delusional, I blame Covid

Really, is that the best you've got?

 

[LCHappy]

Really, is that the best you've got?

When words have zero meaning to you, yes

 

[Gill]

The crazy thing is, I think it would have all died down now for Suzanna if @Gill hadn't have kept it going.

Are you really this shallow?

 

[Gill]

Looks like charlie.uk is still registered to Susannah Clark. The fact that it has moved back to Fasthosts suggests that something wasn't legitimate. As a result of this, I have decided to change my original vote in the NED election, it is not cast yet, so there is still time for setting things straight, but as things stand my first preference is no longer for Susannah.

This was posted at 17.45pm last night

 

[TheWizard]

It reflects on Fasthosts and nobody else. You're just trying to justify sticking your nose into something that's got nothing to do with you.

My first comment on this thread, so hardly sticking my nose in. I'm just amazed how someone can't associate the acts of fellow registars as impacting upon the reputation of the .uk namespace (this isn't limited to here, this has made it far wider than this little forum) and in turn the members that are, in theory, supposed to be the custodians of the .uk namespace with Nominet acting on their behalf.

If you think someone asking genuine questions about earlier statements made is the dogs being let loose then just wait and see what happens if some .co.uk owner decides to take offence at their .uk "disappearing".

 

[armistice]

So based on nothing but hearsay and conjecture you chose to assume deceit rather than take her at her word? It doesn't matter that Leon was the registrant and didn't sell the name, what matters is how Susannah came to be the registrant and if that was by asking Fasthosts if she could buy it and them agreeing, then they're at fault.



She said she'd done nothing wrong, why should she elaborate on how when it's nobody's business.

Because she is standing for election on the key issue of 'INTEGRITY in THE UK NAMESPACE'

 

[Murray]

Gill you label others bullies and childish whilst you have been the most abusive and disruptive

I've personally given up replying to you because what's the point if reality doesn't matter

 

[dee]

Just my two pence worth.

I'd like to think on that her previous record must count for something, and given the fact that she clearly stated it was all above board then i'd give the benifit of the doubt until proven otherwise. Aren't we supposed to think innocent until proven guilty as opposed to guilty by association ? I suspect we'll find out.

As for the silence... I think she works in Nursing so more than likely that she could be busier than an ant in a sugar factory right now given the current situation.

 

[anthony]

Correct me if i am wrong, but have I already read here that Fasthosts have admitted it was their human error? If so, there is little to gain from finger pointing at each other here. It doesn't matter whether a catcher gets a domain name through knowing of weaknesses of server configurations, or smarter coding, or even getting wind that a registrar is allowing domain transfers on request, etc. What will always matter is the system itself. Exploiting weaknesses is what most of you rely on anyway.

 

[WalkinDude]

" The name has now been given back to the original registrant who would have lost it if not for the actions of £$%&%*&^"

Domain Scene Investigators.

This is an interesting point. Were it not for the concern of the DSI Investigators the domains probably would have dropped and be in the hands of new owners. Instead, there are domains going back to their 'original' owners. The 'original' owners who did nothing to take ownership of the domains over a 5 year period will certainly want the domains now they know the entire industry is up in arms over them. Some interesting reflexive outcomes there.

There's been no gain, for the recovered domains, for any party other than the original "owners". This means the motives of the DSI Investigators is about the reputation, stability, of domaining itself. What's the point in arguing any further when they are so clearly in the right?

You can't physically own a domain name. You only have Right of use of it. So protecting Rights is fundamental. You can't meddle with it, or whole house comes crashing down. This aspect of the arguement/dispute/debate is a done deal and folks who spotted the problem so early on and it's potential implications got it right.

But only up to a point. Surely Fasthost have to do a full transparent Audit. If it's only 38 domains then that can be dealt with. For some reason, I had the impression it was Hundreds, half of which if already sold on which would be very difficult to put right.

In the End the most fundamental thing isn't the determinations about character, speculations about motives. It's one thing. You have the Right of ownership until the clock strikes "midnight" simple as. If that had been adhered to there wouldn't have been a problem.

 

[Admin]

Rather than lock or delete the thread (that may still happen) I have used a feature for the first time and blocked users from replying to this thread @Gill @LCHappy Reason: Personal insults

 

[Fred Steven]

Rather than lock or delete the thread (that may still happen) I have used a feature for the first time and blocked users from replying to this thread @Gill @LCHappy Reason: Personal insults

Good job, I have run out of popcorn

 

[Murray]

Latest I've got from Nominet is

"we are still looking into the current situation with the domain names and there will be more details forthcoming soon. The best recommendation I can make would be to watch this space as I do not have a definitive answer as yet."

 

[Hay]

@Murray - I have gone through some data over the last couple of days and in total there was around 4,100 domains that were renewed at the last minute.. When i say last minute i have pulled domains that were renewed within 7 days of the drop date, the reason i have done this is that i suspect people were testing this prior to the bulk of the domains dropping thus i suspect domains renewed without us noticing.

My plan is to go through the entire list of approx 4,100 and see which of the domains are likely to hold any value, mark those as suspicious and email the list to nominet and @gregfindley because i believe there are domains that people are unaware of.

 

[Murray]

@Murray - I have gone through some data over the last couple of days

I've used Rob and Denys in the past as examples of people who are very on the ball with this type of stuff, need to add you to that list

4100 jesus

Do you have any data for the past few months in regards to late renewals? is there any indication this could have started prior to the mass .uk drops

 

[Firedragon]

@Murray - I have gone through some data over the last couple of days and in total there was around 4,100 domains that were renewed at the last minute.. When i say last minute i have pulled domains that were renewed within 7 days of the drop date, the reason i have done this is that i suspect people were testing this prior to the bulk of the domains dropping thus i suspect domains renewed without us noticing.

My plan is to go through the entire list of approx 4,100 and see which of the domains are likely to hold any value, mark those as suspicious and email the list to nominet and @gregfindley because i believe there are domains that people are unaware of.

I’ve been talking on another thread about a domain I was waiting to drop off fasthosts that had a last minute renewal. I didn’t think it held any value but I wanted as a personal site and is currently just pointing to an ad site

i have contacted the person with RoR to see if they renewed it, as they showed zero interest before

 

[Hay]

Yeah, i have data going back the last 12 months for every single domain that has ever been created, dropped and renewed.. what tag caught it, what tag it was moved too and what tag renewed it ect ect... so i initially thought the same as you, could this have occurred on "single" domains that have dropped anytime over the past 12 months.

For example this is one that sparked my interest: user-guides.co.uk - It was renewed at the last minute (within 24 hours of the drop day and is an SEO domain)

Here is another that was of interest but given this one is now on a nominet memebers TAG i dont want to point any fingers, im just outlining the domain: solvency.uk

And another: motivations.co.uk (Renewed within 24 hours of the drop date which was 2020-01-01)

And another: podcasting.co.uk (Renewed on the drop date which was 2020-01-06)

Like i say though, the above are just "of interest" at the moment so i dont want to single anyone or any domain out at this point.

The 4,100 are specifically .uk domains and does not contain any .co.uk's however once ive gone through the 4,100 .uk domains one by one i will then check the .co.uk's because ive already preserved the data for the .co.uk's

 

[Murray]

Here is another that was of interest but given this one is now on a nominet memebers TAG i dont want to point any fingers, im just outlining the domain:

Well this is the huge problem fasthosts and domain hijackers have created, have to second guess everything

In the particular case of solvency it looks fine they've had the co.uk since at least 2012 https://www.acorndomains.co.uk/thre...tcy-management-advice-etc.100846/#post-386058

Having to look through every potentially suspicious domain seems like a nightmare task