RE: [registrars] ICANN Meeting in LA
Hi Cristin I will be attending the meeting representing Ascio. Thank you Best Regards Francesco Cetraro Ascio Technologies inc -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org]On Behalf Of Cristin Donahue Sent: 4. oktober 2007 19:50 To: 'Registrars Constituency' Subject: [registrars] ICANN Meeting in LA Registrar: Could you please send me an email confirming who from your registrar will be attending the ICANN meeting in LA. If the voting representative of your registrar is also attending could you please provide me with his/her name. If possible, please respond no later than Monday, October 22, 2007. Thank you, Cristin Donahue Assistant to the Registrar Constituency
Thank you for the seconds for the nomination committee seat. Below is my statement: I am a fulltime employee of eNom where I'm the founder/CEO. I am also the COO, and board member, of eNom's parent company, Demand Media, Inc. eNom is an accredited registrar that is registering names in all major gTLDs and ccTLDs. eNom also owns a number of other registrars which are primarily used to catch names in the drop for our customers. eNom also provides back-end registrar services for other ICANN accredited registrars. eNom is a minor shareholder of Afilias. I am/was a member of the ICANN whois taskforce. I was the registrar's elected rep to the nomcom for 2007. I am not and never have been in possession of any registry sensitive or proprietary information. Thanks again, Paul
Paul, While I support your candidacy to the Non-Com, I do think you disclosure statement needs to be a little more forthcoming along the lines of what Tim Ruiz did in disclosing GoDaddy's joint venture with Afilias. In addition to eNom's involvement in the marketing of .TV names, it is my understanding that you were also recently pursuing the .ME registry contract as well. While I admire the vertically integrated distribution chain building (registry, registrar, and after market) that DemandMedia is building, the process by which many elected registrar representatives claim that they have no access to registry sensitive or proprietary information is a little suspect and a personal sore point for the reasons set forth below. Rob Hall asked a couple of months ago where this language originally came from, let me now take the time to set the record straight on the origins of this exact language. This language originated in connection with the backlash within the registrar constituency when GNR sought accreditation as an ICANN accredited registrar. Now I defended at that time the right of a registry to own a registrar, however at that time most of the registrar constituency was not exactly supportive of my position. Times have changed and we now have registrars advocating for registries to be permitted to own registrars. No doubt because next year with the new TLD process, many of the new applicants will be registrars or their sister companies :-) Now in response to this newly proposed language that was adopted by the constituency, it was deemed that my work as a consultant to Afilias barred me from continuing to stand as chair of the registrar constituency. Now the nature of the "registry sensitive and/or proprietary information" that it was deemed that I had access to was the registrar application form that stated what the minimum account balance a registrar would maintain prior to a registry contacting them to replenish their account. Now looking back I kind of laugh because today large registrars that receive the volume discounts made possible through the new registry agreements, are the only ones that have access to some of the most tightly guarded information in the industry, specifically, the nature of these volume discounts and marketing arrangements. When you look at the recent actions of GoDaddy and eNom to enter directly/indirectly the registry market, and Pool.com's exclusive deal to provide auction services to DotAsia it should be clear that these deals have to involve at least SOME form of registry sensitive or proprietary information. Another reason why I raise the issue of registrars entering into the registry marketplace is because I have been advocating publicly on behalf of .MUSEUM and .POST that registries need some additional flexibilities regarding their distribution models. Obviously I have heard loud and clear the registrar constituency opposition to this approach. However, the continued blurring of the lines between registrar and registry is an issues that needs to addressed if ICANN is going to artificially enforce through contracts a registry registrar distinction. Bruce Tonkin, hopefully you are reading this email, and it is possible for you to ask ICANN staff to provide the community with a public update on the economic study that the ICANN Board approved last year on 18-Oct-2006, see http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-18oct06.htm. While I commend staff on the open and transparent process by which they are going about selecting a provider to draft the new TLD RFP, things have been a lot less clear in connection with this economic study. Best regards, Michael -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Stahura Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 1:40 PM To: Registrars Constituency Subject: [registrars] stahura conflicts statement Thank you for the seconds for the nomination committee seat. Below is my statement: I am a fulltime employee of eNom where I'm the founder/CEO. I am also the COO, and board member, of eNom's parent company, Demand Media, Inc. eNom is an accredited registrar that is registering names in all major gTLDs and ccTLDs. eNom also owns a number of other registrars which are primarily used to catch names in the drop for our customers. eNom also provides back-end registrar services for other ICANN accredited registrars. eNom is a minor shareholder of Afilias. I am/was a member of the ICANN whois taskforce. I was the registrar's elected rep to the nomcom for 2007. I am not and never have been in possession of any registry sensitive or proprietary information. Thanks again, Paul
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
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
Michael, I suppose I agree with you about "registry sensitive / proprietary information" but please stop characterizing my company. Pretty much all your observations and conclusions (besides "brilliant" :>) about my company are incorrect. Also, I don't think it will play out as you described. But who knows... maybe "vertical integration" makes a comeback from the late 1800's. Regarding consolidating registrar and registry constituencies: I disagree with you on that. I do not think we should consolidate those. Yes, for some issues the two constituencies agree (and oftentimes for different reasons), but we are not in lockstep on many issues, such as the introduction of new TLDs. I would guess some registries do not want that (unless they "got" one) while most registrars do (even if they do not "get" one). I too was in Berlin in 1999 and remember the excitement about introducing competition. You make an interesting point about Baby Bells. That lesson tells me the registrar-registry setup is working to bring the benefits of competition to the consumer. I look forward to discussing that and your other points in LA. see you then Paul -----Original Message----- From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:Michael@Palage.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 6:50 AM To: Paul Stahura; 'Registrars Constituency' Subject: RE: [registrars] RE: Registry Sensitive or Proprietary Information 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
John: I think the repeated use of "I" (8X) in my original email should be rather self evident that I was expressing my personal views. Although it is true that I do occasional consulting work with a number of ICANN accredited registrars, these were just my personal comments about a provision in the registrar charter that is beyond ambiguous. In fact one might even submit its definition is subject to unilateral change/interpretation much along the same lines that some registrars change their registrant agreements to fit their particular business models. Although I had previously thought about responding to Rob Hall's post from a couple of months ago regarding the origins of the "Registry Sensitive or Proprietary Information", I was just too busy as of late. However, it seemed that I had some free time last evening while I was waiting for some legal correspondence in connection with another client matter. Hopefully these emails to you and Paul have resolved any miscommunication/misperceptions. Best regards, Michael -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of John Berryhill Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 4:06 AM To: 'Michael D. Palage'; 'Paul Stahura'; 'Registrars Constituency' Subject: RE: [registrars] Registry Sensitive or Proprietary Information
From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:Michael@palage.com] While I support your candidacy to the Non-Com,
Mike, could you clarify the registrar on behalf of which your "support" is posted to the RC list?
participants (4)
-
John Berryhill -
Michael D. Palage -
Nicrelations -
Paul Stahura