Now that you are alleging something here lets get more detail from you.  When did this occur, what was the full extent of conversation, and what was the business proposal?  

I think you may be confused with a conversation we had where I was investigating the holding of information that was available, whether the information was available only to registries and if so how could a business which specialised in trade mark infringement online get access to the information for a legitimate purpose.  This information was collected for the purpose of my submissions and this line of enquiry and the business was also referred to in my submissions.

From a business point of view I was evaluating opportunities in this area and was met by the anti-competitive position that you have to be a registrar to have access to the information.  This position is untenable according to my submissions.  It was also prompted by the brick wall I hit with MelbourneIT.

Further I argue in my submissions that the cloaking of expiry dates and release following complaints defeats the public's opportunity to compete for expiring or deleted domains.  The problem for the consumer is that following a complaint and deletion there appears to be no protocol for the timing of release. So say the registrant does not exist at law (and never existed at the time of registration) eligibility is a problem.  The domain should be available for public registration at a linear time and not at a time when the registrar feels like it or may have arranged with the past registrant.

As for posting a personal reply I gave my intention to post prior to your reply.