RE: [registrars] RE: Registry Sensitive or Proprietary Information

["Paul Stahura" <stahura@xxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxxx] 
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 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