Am I just missing the sarcasm in this article? How on earth is "We can now honestly say that Godaddy is not involved with domain name 'front running'" a reasonable conclusion from that one sentenced email? The sender is someone we'd expect to deny this.
Edit: The author has since edited the post. The part I quote was a direct copy-paste of the last sentence from the original version. He's since made a half-hearted attempt to qualify this.
But if GoDaddy is front-running, and they outright lie and deny front-running, then it adds to their liability. Fraud is far less defensible than front-running itself (which could be defended as a good capitalistic use of asymmetrical information, after all).
Given the increase in liability the denial presents for GoDaddy, my sense is that it lends credibility to the assertion that they are not, after all, front-running.
This, plus the rather weak evidence that they're doing so (the lone assertion of a single blogger) makes me believe that there is reasonable doubt about whether they are doing it. Hey, if there are more people stepping forward, then lets see a class-action and get the proof in the light.
Edit: The author has since edited the post. The part I quote was a direct copy-paste of the last sentence from the original version. He's since made a half-hearted attempt to qualify this.