Andrew Wright
Top Contributor
Saw an article earlier today on Domainer which has now been deleted. What gives?
The comments are still viewable...
The comments are still viewable...
Domainer.com.au and Drop.com.au
- Thread starter Andrew Wright
- Start date
Bacon Farmer
Top Contributor
Moron domainer.... ah I mean more on domainer now.
Apparently they are taking money from customers to get domains that drop.... how dare they!!!!
Apparently they are taking money from customers to get domains that drop.... how dare they!!!!
Last edited:
trellian
Top Contributor
Hi All,
As I prefer not to post on domainer, here are the details that relate to this.
There is/was a registry bug that was able to be exploited to stop a domain from dropping. By manipulating DNS on a dropping domain you could make it not drop until that DNS was removed.
We reported this bug to both auda and afilias many times going back at least 6 months ago and even prior. We have tested this with other domains in the past. After the recent patch released the night before, we had hoped it was, so we tested it with another domain that was dropping. We wanted this bug fixed as it should not be able to do that.
So yes the domain company.com.au as a results of this bug did not drop.
We reported the bug again right after the domain failed to drop, to both auDA and Afilias, so they are fully aware of our testing and what was done and how.
For those not aware how this works, all it does is delays the domain from dropping. It does not give drop catchers a better chance to catch the domain when it actually drops as it still has to drop at the same time the following day.
Unfortunately shortly after, we received a number of demanding messaged from Robert Kaay of domainer. After Anthony took a call, Robert had threatened Anthony verbally to a point where Anthony felt he had to tell me, at which point I messaged Robert that that type of action is not going to be tolerated.
I think that message is as clear as it gets.
After this I spoke with Robert and told him that we had no problems with him posting the details how it was done, as that is what we wanted, we wanted this bug fixed once and for all, but he did a post with no details, and was purely designed to inflict harm to Drops reputation. Which it did as we had a number of clients reach out to me with some serious concerns that they had no reason to ever have.
At which point Robert was told to take that post down.
Ironically Robert was the highest bidder at Drop.com.au and would have ended up winning the domain if Drop.com.au was able to catch it.
Since we do not disclose of the bid values and existing bids on a domain that failed to drop one day are carried over to the next day, we did not confirm that he was highest bidder as bidding was going to re-open again for the next day.
The good news is that this resulted inAuDA and Afilias making a fix so that the domain would drop which we even notified Robert of this fact:
In a final twist, the prior owner of this domain, also happened to be the owner of Terrific, a registrar that Drop.com.au "had" been using for drop catching all this time that was fully set up for drop catching. But instead of being used for Drop.com.au to catch this domain, the owner used it to catch the domain directly. As a result, neither Netfleet nor Drop were able to secure the domain for our highest bidder.
There was no collusion with Terrific to catch this name for them that was at a lower value. It was always going to go to the highest bidder.
So I hope that this clarifies the chain of events.
Cheers
David
As I prefer not to post on domainer, here are the details that relate to this.
There is/was a registry bug that was able to be exploited to stop a domain from dropping. By manipulating DNS on a dropping domain you could make it not drop until that DNS was removed.
We reported this bug to both auda and afilias many times going back at least 6 months ago and even prior. We have tested this with other domains in the past. After the recent patch released the night before, we had hoped it was, so we tested it with another domain that was dropping. We wanted this bug fixed as it should not be able to do that.
So yes the domain company.com.au as a results of this bug did not drop.
We reported the bug again right after the domain failed to drop, to both auDA and Afilias, so they are fully aware of our testing and what was done and how.
For those not aware how this works, all it does is delays the domain from dropping. It does not give drop catchers a better chance to catch the domain when it actually drops as it still has to drop at the same time the following day.
Unfortunately shortly after, we received a number of demanding messaged from Robert Kaay of domainer. After Anthony took a call, Robert had threatened Anthony verbally to a point where Anthony felt he had to tell me, at which point I messaged Robert that that type of action is not going to be tolerated.
I think that message is as clear as it gets.
After this I spoke with Robert and told him that we had no problems with him posting the details how it was done, as that is what we wanted, we wanted this bug fixed once and for all, but he did a post with no details, and was purely designed to inflict harm to Drops reputation. Which it did as we had a number of clients reach out to me with some serious concerns that they had no reason to ever have.
At which point Robert was told to take that post down.
Ironically Robert was the highest bidder at Drop.com.au and would have ended up winning the domain if Drop.com.au was able to catch it.
Since we do not disclose of the bid values and existing bids on a domain that failed to drop one day are carried over to the next day, we did not confirm that he was highest bidder as bidding was going to re-open again for the next day.
The good news is that this resulted inAuDA and Afilias making a fix so that the domain would drop which we even notified Robert of this fact:
In a final twist, the prior owner of this domain, also happened to be the owner of Terrific, a registrar that Drop.com.au "had" been using for drop catching all this time that was fully set up for drop catching. But instead of being used for Drop.com.au to catch this domain, the owner used it to catch the domain directly. As a result, neither Netfleet nor Drop were able to secure the domain for our highest bidder.
There was no collusion with Terrific to catch this name for them that was at a lower value. It was always going to go to the highest bidder.
So I hope that this clarifies the chain of events.
Cheers
David
Scott.L
Top Contributor
Dunno, perhaps you didn't think anyone was watching?
trellian
Top Contributor
Hi Scott, Jono used his own drop catch tech on his own Terrific registrar to catch this domain. This was done without our knowledge.
This was totally unexpected and caught us totally by surprise where we were not ready for that or had the chance to put in other strategies to win the name, had we known about this in advance. We lost the potential to make $25k on this domain and instead we got a tarnished rep.
This was totally unexpected and caught us totally by surprise where we were not ready for that or had the chance to put in other strategies to win the name, had we known about this in advance. We lost the potential to make $25k on this domain and instead we got a tarnished rep.
trellian
Top Contributor
LOL Scott, this part is true: "Afilias corrects the data, Jono took back his connection from you, caught the name for himself"
I already clarified above that Drop used the dns bug to delay the drop and reported that to afilias/auda to correct this. Which we hope that they will as a result of this. So this is a great win to make sure that domains drop when they are supposed to. However the whole thing made us look like we helped Terrific to catch the domain, when we did not. Anthony has resigned as a director, which you will see at ASIC soon enough.
I already clarified above that Drop used the dns bug to delay the drop and reported that to afilias/auda to correct this. Which we hope that they will as a result of this. So this is a great win to make sure that domains drop when they are supposed to. However the whole thing made us look like we helped Terrific to catch the domain, when we did not. Anthony has resigned as a director, which you will see at ASIC soon enough.
Scott.L
Top Contributor
OK, looks like this wash cycle is going into rinse; if I may , can you answer the following questions
1. Are drop catchers allowed to catch or compete for expired domains for themselves? I thought this was prohibited in both the registry and registrar agreements, (albeit there's no limit for a registrar registering names for themselves under registry services)
And,
2. how is it that your third party connections are not secured from those third parties providing you with connections?
I'm just inquisitive, so don't take my questioning to be an interrogation.
Cheers.
1. Are drop catchers allowed to catch or compete for expired domains for themselves? I thought this was prohibited in both the registry and registrar agreements, (albeit there's no limit for a registrar registering names for themselves under registry services)
And,
2. how is it that your third party connections are not secured from those third parties providing you with connections?
I'm just inquisitive, so don't take my questioning to be an interrogation.
Cheers.
Last edited:
ttfan
Top Contributor
While I'm a big fan of Drop, this bit bugs me. If you were testing this, you must have thought there was a chance is was not fixed. By running the test, did you not consider the impact your testing could have on potential bidders (your customers), if the system has not been fixed?
trellian
Top Contributor
We believed it was beneficial for our clients, as trying to catch domains is what we do. If we had caught the domain, there would be no press and no posts on domainer and our client would be extremely happy with Drop and we would be very happy as well once he paid his invoice 
Instead we have misguided bad press and no one to invoice.
Instead we have misguided bad press and no one to invoice.
Scott.L
Top Contributor
We believed it was beneficial for our clients, as trying to catch domains is what we do. If we had caught the domain, there would be no press and no posts on domainer and our client would be extremely happy with Drop and we would be very happy as well once he paid his invoice
Instead we have misguided bad press and no one to invoice.
Look, I applaud your interaction and response; I've always been a fan of Drop but, I believe this "bug" (fix or fake) contains innuendo that sneaks a peak behind the veil.
Anyway, please consider removing this blind bid bullshit, and take the lead on transparency.
ttfan
Top Contributor
That might be so, but it does not answer my question, of whether you considered the potential impact on the bidder.We believed it was beneficial for our clients, as trying to catch domains is what we do. If we had caught the domain, there would be no press and no posts on domainer and our client would be extremely happy with Drop and we would be very happy as well once he paid his invoice
Some of it may the misguided, but you did manipulate the result of an auction, so surely some of the bad press is deserved, is it not?
Kudos for your willingness to talk to us here, but an admission that you are at least partly responsible for this mess, and perhaps apology to the affected parties, would go a long way to ending this bad press.
