The new Real Time DAC

[aZooZa]

I don't think the PAB can give definitive answers on this one anyway.

 

[tifosi]

that we know, but I'd still like to know what was discused especially after the march meeting.

 

[Paullas]

I don't think the PAB can give definitive answers on this one anyway.

ah well i apologise on that but still i would like to know where and when i can read all about this change.

 

[aZooZa]

The 'change' is in effect paul, but the question is how is it being policed? There are huge harvesters already and have been for years. When are these people going to be taken to task?

 

[rob]

i can see that as nominets site just links you to page after page back and forth. And come on lets be honest isnt the PAB supposed to keep us upto date on these things? or am i wrong.

Nope thats not the PABs job, let me know where you get that impression and will follow it up.

The May PAB meeting minutes aren't on the site yet. Not sure if Rob knows what date they'll be made available.

Again nope, also minor point its a 'report' not minutes.

The 'change' is in effect paul, but the question is how is it being policed? There are huge harvesters already and have been for years. When are these people going to be taken to task?

This hits the nail on the head. The PAB is just that, 'Policy Advisory'. Its part of the flow in policy formation, nowt more, nowt less.

For the record I have for the past 3-4ish years been banging on about domaintools et al, however there has to be a balance as on the one hand you cannot chase people with a big stick while with the other giving out systems to make it easy to mine the info.

I do realise there are suggestions on non-subscriber methods of gaining this info , so the above is based around nominet policing what they can police

 

[DaveH]

If Nominet released the domains dropping for a particular date it would be a win-win situation.

The policy can then be used to police miners and harvesters such as domaintools, whilst not penalising those legitimately gathering domains of interest for their own use?

It would also put less strain on their systems.

 

[aZooZa]

If Nominet released the domains dropping for a particular date it would be a win-win situation.

The policy can then be used to police miners and harvesters such as domaintools, whilst not penalising those legitimately gathering domains of interest for their own use?

It would also put less strain on their systems.

Agree completely.

 

[rob]

It would also put less strain on their systems.

Strain should not be an issue, as at the end of the day its nominet that set the quotas. If it was an issue they should reduce the quotas I do chuckle when the terms 'hammer' the dac are mentioned, as its dead easy to give all the DAC users 100 queries a day and problem solved.

 

[aZooZa]

Dohhh....................

 

[DaveH]

Not saying it's an issue as such, just saying it's another benefit. Wasn't the "so call reason" Nominet are removing the suspended flag and status is to reduce "load"?

EDIT: From the realtime DAC

 

[aZooZa]

Suspended flag is a binary 0/1 -- who is programming/speciyfing this DAC? It's a single bit flag.

 

[DaveH]

Someone with either alteria-motives or someone with little appreciation of how beneficial the flag is. Sure'll you will agree it's daft!

 

[rob]

Someone with either alteria-motives or someone with little appreciation of how beneficial the flag is. Sure'll you will agree it's daft!

not sure if thats asking me, but to be clear it do think its a daft/pointless removal, and as above, if load is the real reason that is equally ludicrous

 

[foz]

I do chuckle when the terms 'hammer' the dac are mentioned, as its dead easy to give all the DAC users 100 queries a day and problem solved.

How would a Registrar like Daily manage with that type of Quota.

 

[tifosi]

Agreed. This is the mindset that HAS to be changed. For those involved from the start and with the dac beta working group we understand the reasons what and why the DAC was brought in.

First and foremost it was NOT so that 'domainers' could catch expiring domains. Though in saying that it was always an expected and accepted operational use.

It was as a high-speed high-quota replacement for the whois2 with a condensed data return that showed only the data required to ascertain the domain registration status, not the whois details, and so be used by registrars for multiple public facing first phase data search - the type you see on most registrars which just tells you the registration state.

This is what is so perplexing, confusing and irrational. The new terms are set to 'protect the intellectual property of the db - i.e the whois registrant data and to counter data-mining', yet this a primary function of the DAC in the first place. The return has no REGISTRANT data, only REGISTRAR data.

There's still a massive and unexplained contradiction between stipulations in 5.3.7 and operational use in 5.2.1. The whole of the new terms either looks like it was written by a lawyer with no technical nouse or with an alterior motive - which unfortunately doesn't breed trust.

In the long-term the changes may not mean much unless you have the full intention of data-mining the whois to sell data to marketing companies or such other used affecting nominet's IP rights. In which case I'd want the book thrown at you.

The PAB is there to look at policy and advise on it (erm PAB) and the May meeting was supposed to address these concerns.

S

 

[rob]

How would a Registrar like Daily manage with that type of Quota.

it was an extreme example but it does raise the point if a P200 couldnt serve the clientbase nom ought to spend more on hardware

It was as a high-speed high-quota replacement for the whois2 with a condensed data return that showed only the data required to ascertain the domain registration status, not the whois details, and so be used by registrars for multiple public facing first phase data search - the type you see on most registrars which just tells you the registration state.

This is what is so perplexing, confusing and irrational. The new terms are set to 'protect the intellectual property of the db - i.e the whois registrant data and to counter data-mining', yet this a primary function of the DAC in the first place. The return has no REGISTRANT data, only REGISTRAR data.

There's still a massive and unexplained contradiction between stipulations in 5.3.7 and operational use in 5.2.1. The whole of the new terms either looks like it was written by a lawyer with no technical nouse or with an alterior motive - which unfortunately doesn't breed trust.

In the long-term the changes may not mean much unless you have the full intention of data-mining the whois to sell data to marketing companies or such other used affecting nominet's IP rights. In which case I'd want the book thrown at you.

I totally agree with all that.

The PAB is there to look at policy and advise on it (erm PAB) and the May meeting was supposed to address these concerns.

S

Yes - the issue of getting it to be policy is a tough one rather than operational.

PAB papers out on 2009 , draft report on http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/36006_PAB_may_meetingreport_draft.pdf .