Paul, If I thought that you were a "liar" I would not have personally endorsed your recommendation. The reason I sent my initial response is the whole "registry sensitive / proprietary information" is absolutely meaningless, because it is clearly up to the subjective interpretation of the candidates, not unlike the recent transfers discussions that Elliot and Berryhill have had. Paul, I respect what you and Demand Media are doing. In fact it is quite brilliant. Demand Media already has a strong aftermarket presence based upon your family of 100+ ICANN accredited registrars. eNom is a top-five registrar with a strong reseller network. eNom's arrangement with VeriSign DMBS now gives it a potential foothold into the corporate market as well. I knew something was up when I saw eNom senior people in Chicago at the annual INTA meeting earlier this year. That is why the registry component is the only missing link in your vertical domain name vision. Clearly, you will have that piece at the conclusion of next year's new gTLD process. Then you can give away domain names for free and aggregate all the traffic to sell to advertisers, and maximize registration numbers through your longtail proposal. Now the likely logical conclusion to Demand Media's strategy based upon the substantial capital that has been invested into the company to date is for Demand Media to have an IPO in the near future or to sell out to an Industry BIG BOY (i.e. Google, Yahoo, Microsoft). In fact I just read in Advertising Age, a recent article about how more than $33 billion had been spent in an ad-industry-focused merger and acquisition spree during the first half of 2007. That is when things get REAL INTERESTING because GoDaddy, 1and1, and the other registrar big boys will be forced to make a play, as well as the registries that will have to counter/defend against the Demand Media vertical market juggernaut. Now the irony of this likely scenario, is what I have been advocating in connection with the whole LSE report, that the registrar and registry constituency should be combined into a registration authority constituency. My advocacy of this position has met with strong opposition from both within the registrar and registry constituency, however, it is clear to at least me that the cross fertilization of these two constituencies by the established Registration Authority Big Boys is all but inevitable. As I was typing this email I thought back to Berlin 1999 and the first registrar constituency meeting (not many of us old timers still around), and how the newly formed registrars were setting out to bring competition into the gTLD space and end the NSI monopoly. This is not totally unlike the divestiture of the US telecommunications landscape when AT&T was broken up into a bunch of regional Baby Bell operating companies. The funny thing is that because the Baby Bells controlled the last mile to the customer they eventually ended up growing and consolidating to the point were one of the Baby Bells recently brought AT&T :-). I think this is an interesting analogy and hopefully one that the economic study will investigate. Anyway I need to get back to billable work. Hopefully this email has resolved any misunderstanding/miscommunication, if not perhaps we can do so in person in LA in a couple of weeks. Best regards, Michael -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Stahura Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 8:33 PM To: Michael D. Palage; Registrars Constituency Subject: [registrars] RE: Registry Sensitive or Proprietary Information Mike, Wow... "less than forthcoming". I interpret that as "lie", which I take seriously. The bottom line is that neither I nor eNom have access to any registry sensitive data. Be it .TV, .COM, .INFO or any other gTLD, ccTLD, sTLD or xyzTLD. I just pretty much copied the language I sent to the list the last time I ran for this position. I didn't disclose what eNom was working on back then and I don't have to disclose what eNom may or may not be working on now. My statement is 100% forthcoming when it comes to registry sensitive data which is what the statement is all about. The rest is basically a resume. If the statement would require people running for some office to give out its own company's secret/proprietary data/information/plans, no one would run for anything. I understand what Tim disclosed, and I think I have an idea for what he didn't disclose. The information he disclosed was pretty much already public info, the new stuff being at the dnalliance.us website. Plus, in my mind, he didn't have to disclose all that he did, even though it was public anyway. you said
...it should be clear that these deals have to involve at least SOME form of registry sensitive or proprietary information...
I agree, it should be clear, but obviously it isn't (at least, I think, to you). I can not speak for pool.com or Godaddy, but the fact is that neither I nor eNom has any registry sensitive data. We do not have ANY form of registry sensitive or proprietary information and never have had it. You implying/insinuating that we do, or even that we may at some point in the future, does not make it so, now or in the future. Also, everyone knows we are marketing .TV names: which registrar isn't? That has nothing to do with our knowledge of registry data. Marketing names.... Registry for names. Now... the Future. Two very distinct, different things. If I didn't know you as well as I do, I'd guess you were trying to blur the lines yourself, but speaking of blurring the lines and being "forthcoming"... refresh my memory of which registrar do you represent on this email list, or are you a registry consultant or what? Anyway, thanks for your support of my candidacy even if you are not eligible to vote for me. I'll leave registries owning registrars for a separate thread. Paul