You have stumbled on a very relevant point for the industry there josh.

How could Jason make fair comment when he's design business has worked for
mine?

Which can be extended to a whole line of points.

How could our competitors make just comment when we actively sell to their
clients?

How can auda make fair judgement when it is made up of competitors from
within the industry?

And specifically on yourself, how can you justly represent the "demand
class" on the regulating body when you yourself run a company competing to
supply domain names and related services?

You compete with us, you run the regulating body and represent the DEMAND
CLASS???


Brad







----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Josh Rowe" <josh&#167;email.nu>
To: <dns&#167;lists.auda.org.au>
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 3:50 AM
Subject: RE: [DNS] Employment Protection Australia (Brad Norrish)


> Jason "Magz" Namour by his own admission has worked for Brad Norrish.
>
> His email headers suggest that he still does:
>
> Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 08:44:16 +0800
>
> From: "Jason" <jason&#167;perthbands.com>
>
> - "perthbands.com" is registered to Brad Norrish's company Internet
> Registrations Australia Pty Ltd.
>
> References: <E1AxjwZ-0004lK-Hm&#167;server.imcoserv.com>
>
> - "imcoserv.com" is registered to Brad Norrish.
>
> So don't expect Jason to be critical of the activities of Brad Norrish,
> Chesley Rafferty, Domain Names Australia, etc.
>
>
> Josh
> --
> http://josh.id.au/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Smith
> Sent: Wednesday, 3 March 2004 1:09 AM
> To: Jason
> Cc: dns&#167;lists.auda.org.au
> Subject: Re: [DNS] Employment Protection Australia (Brad Norrish)
>
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Jason wrote apropos Josh Rowe's latest research:
>
>  > Please stop SPAMMING my email box with non-DNS related issues.
>  > Disclaimers don't take away the crap and bandwidth your wasting. Why
>  > don't you start a list called "my obsession with Brad norrish" then all
>  > your little buds can all join it and stay on topic.
>
> You vote nay, I vote yea, looks like we're quits.  Neither of us gets to
> determine topicality, fortunately.  I'd commend you to read Ron Stark's
> recent considered response to veiled threats of legal action, regarding
> which I observe that you have no apparent issue.  S[LC]AMMING ok, then?
>
>  > Thank you.
>
> Not at all.
>
> Ian
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/
> Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the
> author, further information at the above URL.
>
>
>