Domainer.com.au and Drop.com.au

[trellian]

Hi, I did answer that "We believed it was beneficial for our clients"... it was definitely beneficial for Drop and all of our clients as the intended end result was great for drop catching. It highlighted a serious bug that was not being fixed and needed to be fixed and is now going to be fixed. If that is causing a mess, sorry but that is a mess worth causing.

It was also supposed to be good for winning bidder client, but that did not work our as we did not catch the domain.

As for the other mess at domainer, the Registrar that catches the domain decides who gets it. At Drop and Netfleet the top bidder gets it. Since it was Terrific that caught the domain, with which Drop currently has no contractual obligations with, what they do with the domain is up to them.


Thanks for your support and as for opening up the bids, half of you want that, the other half do not, so currently I am not aware of a format that is going to be liked by everyone. Drop has tested many over the years and they all had the benefits and weaknesses. So the format we use currently is the one that works for us, but we are open to suggestions if it means more clients bidding on names.

 

[Scott.L]

Just to clear this up a little bit more, Terrific are not offering services to the public so they must be acting in their own capacity as a drop catcher unto themselves?

So, is Terrific a subsidiary of Trellian, because as you say, you don't currently have any agreement with them for their connection, when did that agreement end, Yesterday?

As for the blind bids, the au namespace belongs to the Australian people, it's not about who wants what, it's about what is the most fair and transparent process for delivering a service to the public on behalf of a public asset.

 

[Fitness]

With 100's of domains dropping that day, I can't understand why they would test a "bug" on the most sort after, high value, domain dropping that day... instead of testing on a low value, random domain. It just doesn't make sense.

 

[Scott.L]

so, is Terrific a subsidiary of Trellian, because as you say, you don't currently have any agreement with them for their connection, when did that agreement end, Yesterday?

I get the impression each related entity involved was motivated by self interest in different ways. But, the real question that keeps bugging me is this, How did Jono take back his connection from you (Drop)? How can a 'contractual instrument' accepted by auDA (as a binding agreement) be contravened so easily by a person who is not a Director of Drop, Terrific, or Trellian?

 

[trellian]

hi Scott, he never took the connection from Drop. We never owned it or had a formal contractual agreement in place. We had an understanding, but that was all. The owner of Terrific that can drop catch, simply used the connection to catch a domain that they wanted. It really is as simple as that.

As for Drop providing a "public service", that is incorrect we are not a charity, we are providing a "commercial service" for our clients. And I am not even sure that you could classify the .com.au as a public asset either. The .com.au space is a "Commercial" license that can be issued only for paying Companies, as you need a Company to be able to register a .com.au domain.

 

[michaelg]

3A.6 Third party access to the Registry

The Registrar must not permit any other person to have any access to any part of the Registry, whether through the utilisation of the Registrar's electronic connection to the Registry, or otherwise, except:

3A.6.1 where specifically permitted under a Published Policy, in accordance with the requirements set out in the Published Policy; or

3A.6.2 with the prior written permission of auDA, and in compliance with any conditions imposed by auDA relating to such access.

 

[michaelg]

I think there needs to be an investigation by auda. Obviously they will be able to find what ip addresses did what and when (register company.com.au nameservers, register the domain, etc) and make sure there ARE certain agreements in place for when registrars are sharing connections.

 

[Lucky]

but you did manipulate the result of an auction, so surely some of the bad press is deserved, is it not?

I think there needs to be an investigation by auda. Obviously they will be able to find what ip addresses did what and when (register company.com.au nameservers, register the domain, etc)

Agreed in spades.

 

[trellian]

With 100's of domains dropping that day, I can't understand why they would test a "bug" on the most sort after, high value, domain dropping that day... instead of testing on a low value, random domain. It just doesn't make sense.

Yes there are thousands of names dropping every day, but it is not as if we could pick any one domain from the list. We can only pick names that are expiring from one of our registrars that we own or had access to at the time prior to the drop, simply we do not have many domains that expire and drop every day, and especially the day after the afilias registry update that was supposed to fix this.
company.com.au was the only domain that we had bids on that was dropping from on one of our registrars that we controlled at the time (Terrific) for running tests that we could test this on. So our options to test names like that was rather restricted and limited.

In the case of land.com.au that was not us, that was dropping on a registrar that we could not do this with, so that was a totally different bug.

Anthony reports his testing to both auDA and afilias frequently, the test results of this was reported to them well before domainer started to post.
I actually asked Domainer to post what we did in a call we had, as we wanted to highlight this bug and get it fixed, but unfortunately he posted the "breaking news" post that did not state anything factual and at least he realized that he crossed the line and promptly took it down.

 

[neddy]

David, I don't agree with how the new Domainer sensationalizes a lot of things, but in this instance, I believe they have rightly highlighted a significant problem. That’s why I posted over there; and that’s why I’m posting here (after a long absence).


I also echo the sentiments of a number of your customers when I say that I am extremely disappointed by what has transpired with company.com.au. The perception is simply terrible.


There also doesn't appear to be any contrition on your part either - only spin. That's a real shame. If I was your advisor, I'd be urging full transparency - and a mea culpa if necessary. Win back the hearts and minds.


If that doesn’t happen, then, in my opinion, there should be an auDA investigation to determine exactly what transpired. The integrity of the .au space is paramount.


Ned

 

[Scott.L]

hi Scott, he never took the connection from Drop. We never owned it or had a formal contractual agreement in place. We had an understanding, but that was all. The owner of Terrific that can drop catch, simply used the connection to catch a domain that they wanted. It really is as simple as that.

As for Drop providing a "public service", that is incorrect we are not a charity, we are providing a "commercial service" for our clients. And I am not even sure that you could classify the .com.au as a public asset either. The .com.au space is a "Commercial" license that can be issued only for paying Companies, as you need a Company to be able to register a .com.au domain.

David, judging from your comments are you suggesting Jono is effectively a shadow director of Terrific?

 

[trellian]

Hi Ned,

What actually is the problem?
I am not spinning anything, I have been fully transparent, I have already confirmed what was done to delay the drop of a domain and why, and that a partnership was dissolved as a result of how the domain was caught.

We are the ones that lost out big here, not only did we not catch the domain, which we expected to, but we also lost 1 connection to catch domains with and also a good long standing client. Do you really think all of that is worth a single domain for me and that we would risk doing this when we have invested so much to rebuilding Drop?

Just because it "looks" bad does not make it true. No matter what Domainer wants you to think.
My integrity, even though it has been questioned, is as strong as ever and I have no issues with an investigation if it will make everyone happy.

 

[neddy]

I have no issues with an investigation if it will make everyone happy.

David, I welcome this transparency - thank you. Let's get all events surrounding this domain analysed by the regulator. It may well be that Drop is cleared, and attention will focus on Terrific Pty Ltd (and the Directors and management thereof) to see if any breach of auDA policy / Code of Practice took place. They could possibly be cleared too, and if that happens, then so be it.

What I know from my conversations with Anthony, yourself and then Jono is this:

• When I first spoke to Anthony to query why this domain was dropping (given who was the registrant), he said someone in Jono's office stuffed up the renewal, and it was definitely going to be purged.

• Drop then purposely manipulated the domain not to drop on the day by doing nameserver tricks. Perhaps you did this to prove a point to auDA and Afilias, but you also admitted to me that you did it to take advantage of your competitor Netfleet. You said their systems could not handle it if the domain appeared the next day. You simply wanted the edge on them.

• When Jono phoned me, he admitted point (1) above and said it was a disaster. He also said that he did NOT want to pay a premium to get the domain back, thus he decided to use Terrific to try and catch it.

I am willing to go on the record regarding the above.

Can you imagine if Netfleet did this to you in reverse? Let's say one of Publishing Australia's valuable domains was accidentally not renewed, and they used the might of the ARQ Group drop-catching connections to snap the domain (and effectively not pay anything). The top bidder on their platform would miss out. There would be hell to pay - and rightly so. Registrars (and their related parties) have to be held to an even higher standard.

Many of us on here have at some stage or the other lost domains because we have failed to renew them in time, but we don't have the luxury of being a drop-catcher. We have to follow the rules, and buy them back at market price.

Ned

 

[Scott.L]

David, I welcome this transparency - thank you. Let's get all events surrounding this domain analysed by the regulator. It may well be that Drop is cleared, and attention will focus on Terrific Pty Ltd (and the Directors and management thereof) to see if any breach of auDA policy / Code of Practice took place. They could possibly be cleared too, and if that happens, then so be it.

What I know from my conversations with Anthony, yourself and then Jono is this:

• When I first spoke to Anthony to query why this domain was dropping (given who was the registrant), he said someone in Jono's office stuffed up the renewal, and it was definitely going to be purged.

• Drop then purposely manipulated the domain not to drop on the day by doing nameserver tricks. Perhaps you did this to prove a point to auDA and Afilias, but you also admitted to me that you did it to take advantage of your competitor Netfleet. You said their systems could not handle it if the domain appeared the next day. You simply wanted the edge on them.

• When Jono phoned me, he admitted point (1) above and said it was a disaster. He also said that he did NOT want to pay a premium to get the domain back, thus he decided to use Terrific to try and catch it.

I am willing to go on the record regarding the above.

Can you imagine if Netfleet did this to you in reverse? Let's say one of Publishing Australia's valuable domains was accidentally not renewed, and they used the might of the ARQ Group drop-catching connections to snap the domain (and effectively not pay anything). The top bidder on their platform would miss out. There would be hell to pay - and rightly so. Registrars (and their related parties) have to be held to an even higher standard.

Many of us on here have at some stage or the other lost domains because we have failed to renew them in time, but we don't have the luxury of being a drop-catcher. We have to follow the rules, and buy them back at market price.

Ned

In my opinion, the matter should be referred to the ACCC for investigation.

.

 

[michaelg]

We can only pick names that are expiring from one of our registrars that we own or had access to at the time prior to the drop, simply we do not have many domains that expire and drop every day, and especially the day after the afilias registry update that was supposed to fix this.

Here's some names that actually dropped that day you could have used.
pdpressurewashing.com.au Terrific.com.au Pty Ltd
uthayancarpetsteamcleaning.com.au Terrific.com.au Pty Ltd
fireniceworld.com.au Terrific.com.au Pty Ltd
brilliantbeginners.com.au Terrific.com.au Pty Ltd
companionchip.com.au Terrific.com.au Pty Ltd
distinctiveshellcreations.com.au Terrific.com.au Pty Ltd
pumpernickleproductions.com.au Terrific.com.au Pty Ltd
milanobar.com.au Terrific.com.au Pty Ltd
westprojections.com.au Terrific.com.au Pty Ltd
southwestpropertymaintenace.com.au Terrific.com.au Pty Ltd
netnews.com.au DROP.com.au Pty Ltd
lovedalephotography.com.au DROP.com.au Pty Ltd
lukesmusic.com.au DROP.com.au Pty Ltd

 

[trellian]

Thanks for helping Michaelg, really appreciate the effort of highlighting that none of the other names that dropped are of any value, they had no bids, all are still available and none are high profile enough that could be used to drive any incentive for auDA to instruct afilias to fix this rather important bug. We have highlighted this on many similar names before to them with no result. The company domain was our best chance to have this serious bug fixed to make the drop catch system fair.

 

[trellian]

And thank you Ned, you are the only one that seem to grasp the severity of the issue at stake here that needs to be fixed by the registry operator as they can not continue to allow this bug to exists in our drop system.

 

[Lucky]

Thanks for helping Michaelg, really appreciate the effort of highlighting that none of the other names that dropped are of any value, they had no bids, all are still available and none are high profile enough that could be used to drive any incentive for auDA to instruct afilias to fix this rather important bug. We have highlighted this on many similar names before to them with no result. The company domain was our best chance to have this serious bug fixed to make the drop catch system fair.

So you played the system, and surprisingly the former registrant ended up with the jackpot. What is the profit share you and Terrific have shared since getting into bed together? That surely is relevant for everyone to know.

 

[neddy]

And thank you Ned, you are the only one that seem to grasp the severity of the issue at stake here that needs to be fixed by the registry operator as they can not continue to allow this bug to exists in our drop system.

David, you're sounding like a politician now - trying to wedge me for things I supposedly agree with.

I do not agree with your statement.

Nor am I your enemy (on the contrary) - I am simply bitterly disappointed by events which I believe have impugned the integrity of the drop system. It's a pity that Jono did not give his version of events (I invited him to) - that may have helped clear things up. I note that he was "lurking" on this forum for most of yesterday, so he obviously is an interested party.

The machinery is in motion for an investigation into "the incident", so let's see where that ends up. It's probably not appropriate to comment further until that has been done.

Ned

 

[Data Glasses]

David, you're sounding like a politician now - trying to wedge me for things I supposedly agree with.

I do not agree with your statement.

Nor am I your enemy (on the contrary) - I am simply bitterly disappointed by events which I believe have impugned the integrity of the drop system. It's a pity that Jono did not give his version of events (I invited him to) - that may have helped clear things up. I note that he was "lurking" on this forum for most of yesterday, so he obviously is an interested party.

The machinery is in motion for an investigation into "the incident", so let's see where that ends up. It's probably not appropriate to comment further until that has been done.

Ned

Hey Freds back!