Closed thread?

[Hay]

End of conversation...

 

[PoshTiger]

How many domains did you get over the past few days?

 

[PoshTiger]

For context, I have one of the top 10 programs here and I fucked up the order on Friday and didn't catch anything... zero..

 

[Hay]

@PoshTiger see updated image where it cost me the domain, believe me now?!!

 

[PoshTiger]

@PoshTiger see updated image where it cost me the domain, believe me now?!!

Dude - that's meaningless.. That doesn't show anything..

how many domains?

 

[Hay]

Edit: End of conversation...

 

[Siusaidh]

Guys, this is turning into the other thread. The rules seem clear about what constitutes non-acceptable groups of tags (business associates, family etc) so in order to get Nominet to act, you first have to get clear evidence that people in the same businesses are pooling their tags for a single group entity. I don't think it's enough to say they use the same platform for shared catching (I could be wrong, but I think Nominet would palm that off). So far on both these threads I have only been able to identify TWO tags that are indisputably run for close business associates.

What you claim about Norway, Kostova etc is interesting, 'Marshall', but I think clearcut association of people would be needed, to pressurise Nominet into action. Otherwise it will likely be 'laissez faire' and 'prove it'.

I also think, out of respect for admin, it might be better to deal with this by PM, so as not to churn up hassle for what is a great forum for many other reasons. Or by private email.

I would be happy to speak to Nominet and press this issue if anyone wants to PM me with evidence of links, but it really needs to be evidence not speculation. It would be reasonable for a group of us to pool info and draft a complaint or set of complaints. Marshall, I'd be really interested to be sent a fuller list of the names in the group that you associate, or from anyone else, but it's hard evidence/screenshots of 'same business' connections via other websites etc that will pressure Nominet to act (if at all). I say 'if at all' but experience has shown me that if you build a clear enough argument online, and it is picked up (the BBC picked up on a previous campaign I ran against Afilias) then that's when people start to take action.

 

[Hay]

@Siusaidh - I agree, i didn't intend for this to go south but im going to defend myself against something that is outrageous, Furthermore, I will look into those with the multiple accounts connecting back to Tool.Domains, i know they have beat me to a hell of a lot yesterday and it was either there main tag or one from the pool they appear to operate, I know what you say about the speculation and it could be business association but i think its deeper, i think its operated by one main person and all the accounts appear to be created just before the initial ROR release in july last year, i will do what i can and PM you, i have nothing against them but what they are doing is taking the piss and appear to be creating tons of accounts to boost their chances, After this whole Rob scandal the last thing i expected to see was a new bunch appear!

 

[dropsnatcher]

Out of interest Ben, and not accusing you like others, what delayed dac quota do you have cos according to the official Nominet voting rights and whois2, you have very little by way of domains. Even with the live dac on maximum attack you'd only see what, 6 out of every 60 seconds, combined with a small delay dac, maybe 9 seconds. That isn't enough to be picking up that many domains in theory.

The "new bunch" is what inspired Rob to do the same, manage loads of tags, spread the times, how they query the dac, use up available dac and send epp creats to his id.

 

[Siusaidh]

Thanks, and I'd be interested (by PM or email) for any further info on the staffing, background, and any associated websites of Copamex Designs Ltd / Data Supply Services / Web Consultancy Group Limited / Web Consultancy Ltd / Visibility Group Ltd / AdWordsCompany(.uk). Google cache is your friend as is the Wayback Machine. I'm not making any accusation about any of these here, I'm just interested.

 

[Hay]

Thanks, and I'd be interested (by PM or email) .

I dont want to get involved in Robs case as im not sure what's going on, he has a public hosted chasing platform so whilst its easy to point fingers its not possible to say whos doing what, all i do know is that hes not accepted public registrations for a considerable amount of time yet there has been several new tags created and then operated form the platform which i was unsure how thats possible unless manual onboarding was done.. However, tool.domains accounts appear to be larger than robs cluster and also catch and publish to the same selling profile on the parking page therefore its highly likely that they are all operated by one entity, most names ive seen on the tags are staff members or relatives to Tool.Domains


Edit: End of conversation...

 

[Admin]

You can't please all the people all the time. Don't have a pop at me or think I should know everything about domaining and read every word posted here.

Two facts:

1. I'm not "mates with Rob"

2. Page 12 of the thread descended into blatantly false speculation as highlighted by members here who said they owned tags.

Clearly there can be legal concerns. Carry on talking about it if you want, just stick to facts.

Have a lovely Sunday
Steve

 

[dropsnatcher]

@dropsnatcher - im not going to publicly broadcast what domains i have but at the end of the day i have the exact same amount of quota as anyone else, the only difference in mine to others is how much DAC Delay gives you as this is calculated on how many domains you have under your tag but some will have a lot more quota than me and some will have less, it totally depends on how many domains you have.

I can see what you have, it isn't enough to suggest that delayed dac is playing a significant part in your catching. With the method you've explained you are what, seeing 10% of every minute, that won't catch what you have

 

[Siusaidh]

most names ive seen on the tags are staff members or relatives to Tool.Domains

Well I'd be grateful to be PM'd the evidence of that, but I'll also look into it myself.

 

[Hay]

Edit: End of conversation...

 

[Fred Steven]

Well I'd be grateful to be PM'd the evidence of that, but I'll also look into it myself.

I did post some of the evidence the other post but I will PM it to you later./

 

[Siusaidh]

Thanks Fredric

 

[Siusaidh]

Question: am I right in saying that an individual or individual company can use multiple tags? (as opposed to groups of different people all clubbing their tags together)

 

[Fred Steven]

Question: am I right in saying that an individual or individual company can use multiple tags? (as opposed to groups of different people all clubbing their tags together)

My understanding is you can have as many tags as you want, but you cannot have multiple tags each with there own DAC and EPP allowances.

The nominet Anti-avoidance and Connected Persons section says:

Introduction

One way in which the Acceptable Use Policy Principles can be compromised is if we believe users are separate, when in fact they are acting together (and, for example, pooling their limits).

Each of the acceptable use policies for individual services includes the terms below which deal with ‘connected persons’ or ‘related persons’, so that action can be taken in these cases. This will usually be to record the tags, subscriptions etc. as being linked, and therefore subject to a lower overall limit than would have been applied to a similar number of non-connected persons. This linking will usually apply to all services, not just the service that brought the links to our attention, and may be published in the future.

For links to our Acceptable Use Policies, see the contracts index page, which lists the relevant documents.

Connected Persons

A person is ‘connected’ to another person if:

1. they are the same person, have the same Nominet account, or have connected memberships under the voting rights policy;
2. they make any declaration that they are connected or when challenged by us they fail to make a declaration in the reasonably required legal form that they are not connected;
3. they have social, family, ownership or business links (directly or indirectly) which mean that they either:
   1. do not appear to operate truly independently of one another, or
   2. it could reasonably be assumed that they will not operate truly independently of one another; or
4. the object or effect of their activities is such that we reasonably think that not linking them would compromise one or more of the AUP Principles.

For the purposes of (2) we may decide that two parties are not connected even if one declares that they are, if the other disputes this and our investigations support the denial (so, for example, you cannot just declare that you are linked to another person and then use all their limit up to disrupt their business).

For the purposes of (3) there is a strong presumption that:

• group companies (or other businesses) are connected to other businesses in the group;
• a company and its employees/officers/partners are connected to one another;
• members of the same family group are connect to each other (including in-laws, co-habitees, civil partners, adopted children and others who may not have a relationship by blood but who are part of the family group); and
• a business owned, run or ultimately controlled by one member of a family is connected to a business owned, run or ultimately controlled by another member of the same family.

 

[Trauiner]

That's the biggie:

a company and its employees/officers/partners are connected to one another;

It's important to also consider that the point you pull out has sub-points required for it to be valid. Those points being quite hard to prove and are open to opinion rather than facts. (I believe, from the way I read it anyway.)