Wearing my delete key out, can someone send some DNS stuff to delete for a
change?

bw

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Norrish" <brad&#167;brad.com.au>
To: <dns&#167;dotau.org>
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: [DNS] Brad Norrish's auDA


> hot chicks, fast boats, sports cars, living it up any partying
>
> Brad
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Discount Domain Name Services" <rod&#167;ddns.com.au>
> To: <dns&#167;dotau.org>
> Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 1:32 PM
> Subject: RE: [DNS] Brad Norrish's auDA
>
>
> > Marty,
> > All Brad thinks about is MONEY
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Marty Drill - Domain Candy [mailto:marty&#167;domaincandy.com.au]
> > Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 4:26 PM
> > To: dns&#167;dotau.org
> > Subject: RE: [DNS] Brad Norrish's auDA
> >
> >
> > I am going to break the ban already and respond to this
> >
> > You question money spent on quote "the high amounts spent by Auda on
> > expenses such as CEO wages and staff training". What about all the money
> > spent on legal bills.
> >
> > Maybe you should get elected, sack the staff and spend all the money on
> > legal bills for scoundrels ruining our industry.
> >
> > Sorry to the rest of the list.
> >
> > Marty
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brad Norrish [mailto:brad&#167;brad.com.au]
> > Sent: Friday, 19 March 2004 4:14 PM
> > To: dns&#167;dotau.org
> > Subject: Re: [DNS] Brad Norrish's auDA
> >
> > Even though your arguments are slightly flawed Mark it's good to see
> > somebody stick up for Auda with some intelligence. A far cry from the
> Duuh's
> > and Eh's very valid points have been responded to in the past or even
> worse
> > offenders just putting their head in the sand.
> >
> > The result of having a cartel type setup from an economic theory
viewpoint
> > would be higher than necessary pricing for the consumer and registration
> > conditions favouring the members of Auda rather than the registrant. .au
> > pricing is higher than those of common trading partners and it is highly
> > arguable that reg conditions do favour Auda over non auda members when
> > compared to policies of other countries
> >
> > There would also be an economic distortion towards money being spent by
> Auda
> > being greater than expected. This is also highly arguable with the high
> > amounts spent by Auda on expenses such as CEO wages and staff training.
> >
> > There is very little political motive for the govt to want to handle the
> > regulation - even if it is the correct model. The distortions created
from
> > an economic theory viewpoint would disadvantage the average registrant
> prob
> > equivalent of only few dollars per year - hardly enough for them to sway
> > their political preferences - even if they did understand, and
definitely
> > not enough to crack a mention at election time.
> >
> >
> > Brad
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Mark Hughes" <effectivebusiness&#167;applications.com.au>
> > To: <dns&#167;dotau.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 4:41 PM
> > Subject: RE: [DNS] Brad Norrish's auDA
> >
> >
> > > > In reality regulation should be handled by a govt department.
> > >
> > > > The only reason Auda's function is not controlled by the govt is
> legacy
> > >
> > > As those of us who have been involved in the "who should regulate the
> .au
> > > namespace" issue for many years know (but those with more recent
> > involvement
> > > may not be aware)....
> > >
> > > The number one reason auDA's function is not controlled by the
> government
> > is
> > > that the government considered the issues, and decided that auDA's
> > function
> > > should NOT be controlled by the government.  This was a conscious
> decision
> > > on behalf of the Australian Federal Government.
> > >
> > > You don't have to take my word for this - or auDA's, or anyone else's
> > word.
> > > Ask the government about this, and they'll tell you.
> > >
> > > As the Australian government for the last 8 years has philosophically
> been
> > a
> > > strong believer in "less government is good government", they pushed
the
> > > Australian community to take on the task of setting up a Regulatory
> > > Authority for the .au namespace.
> > >
> > > Some people may feel the government did the right thing to not take on
> the
> > > job itself; others may feel the government made the wrong decision.
> > >
> > > But its unlikely the existing government will reverse its decision.
> > >
> > > My personal opinion is that even if at a subsequent election a party
> with
> > > more faith in "government having a larger role" were to come to power,
> > they
> > > would be reluctant to alter the .au namespace status quo unless there
> was
> > a
> > > helluva clear case that there is a major problem with the existing
> system.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards, Mark
> > >
> > > Mark Hughes
> > > Effective Business Applications Pty Ltd
> > > +61 4 1374 3959
> > > www.pplications.com.au
> > > effectivebusiness&#167;applications.com.au
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Brad Norrish [mailto:brad&#167;brad.com.au]
> > > Sent: Thursday, 18 March 2004 1:01 PM
> > > To: dns&#167;dotau.org
> > > Subject: Re: [DNS] Brad Norrish's auDA
> > >
> > >
> > > As promised my overview of how the regulation system is in need of
> change,
> > a
> > > bit shorter than expected but a suitable length for the list I feel.
> > >
> > > The recent type of responces to the list serve as evidence to support
my
> > > theories on the current domain regulation system.
> > >
> > > I agree with leading economic experts and current economic theory that
> > there
> > > is a fundamental problem in any economic model where supply of a good
or
> > > service is regulated or controlled by a group of suppliers.
> > >
> > > A cartel by definition is : A combination of independent business
> > > organizations formed to regulate production, pricing, and marketing of
> > goods
> > > by the members.
> > >
> > > The difference between a cartel and the current Auda system is that
> Auda's
> > > control is broken down into 3 sections : supply, demand and
association.
> > >
> > > BUT if effectively the demand and association representation is
> controlled
> > > by suppliers or those under the influence of suppliers the model
reverts
> > > back to effectively be a cartel.
> > >
> > > The problem is further worsened by the Auda board being voted in by
> > members
> > > of Auda, not those effectively forming the demand market.
> > >
> > > Really there is little benefit for the average domain purchaser to be
a
> > > member of Auda so fair adequate representation of the demand class is
> not
> > > achieved.
> > >
> > > In reality regulation should be handled by a govt department. With the
> > push
> > > in recent years to privatise everything possible there has been no
> > proposal
> > > whatsoever to privatise business name regulation or company name
> > > regulation - because it's not the best model - doesn't work.
> > >
> > > The only reason Auda's function is not controlled by the govt is
legacy
> to
> > > the formation of the system - it doesnt mean it is currently the right
> > > system going forward into the following decades. There are very few
> > > political votes in changing the system because domain purchasers
> > > individually don't care enough and the majority of suppliers are
content
> > to
> > > make a living with the system as it is - don't rock the boat if you
are
> > > making a buck in the current system.
> > >
> > > In reality if the govt had control the regulation could be stricter -
> they
> > > wouldn't have to regulate within the trade practises act as Auda does.
> > >
> > > To cut down on postings I will only respond to those who show an
> > > intelligent, informed grasp of the economic theory I've based this
post
> > on.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Brad
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "David Sexton" <david&#167;dscomputing.au.com>
> > > To: <dns&#167;dotau.org>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 6:55 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [DNS] Brad Norrish's auDA
> > >
> > >
> > > > I'm in agreement with Sean.
> > > >
> > > > I'm on this list for the sole purpose of relevant discussion about
> DNS -
> > > > something that keeps my business together. Whilst I don't mind
seeing
> > > plenty
> > > > of related posts, I'm seeing a huge amount of rubbish. Add that to
> > similar
> > > > problems on a few other mailing lists, and I seem to be deleting an
> > awful
> > > lot
> > > > of trash. I don't post on mailing lists very often, I don't need to,
> but
> > > damn
> > > > it, this is way, way, way past a joke.
> > > >
> > > > The only useful Brad Norrish related posts on this list are when
we're
> > > told
> > > > about some other *business venture* that is concerning our
customers.
> > > >
> > > > Other than that, I really don't think we need to be discussing him,
or
> > > > receiving any posts not directly relevant to DNS.
> > > >
> > > > So, here's a theory. If everyone stops replying to, and quoting from
> > Brads
> > > > posts, we'll be ignoring him. If we ignore him long enough, he'll
shut
> > up.
> > > > And if that doesn't work, then perhaps we should look at ignoring
> > everyone
> > > > who insists on making things worse by arguing with him as well.....
> > > > At least this way, we wouldn't be banning him...
> > > >
> > > > Brad, and a few other people on this list seem to be Trolls. For
those
> > who
> > > > don't remember the rules we used to use on usenet... Don't feed the
> > > trolls.
> > > >
> > > > Let's get this list back on track people......
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > David
> > > > (climbing back in hole....)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 05:14 pm, sean.finn wrote:
> > > > > This is a public plea to clean up this list. It has turned into a
> cess
> > > > > pool again.
> > > > >
> > > > > chmod 444 ./offending_party_ability_to_participate_in_this_list
> > > > >
> > > > > (I.E. Read only).
> > > > >
> > > > > Please ask yourself before posting if your post is either
> > > > > a) constructive, or
> > > > > b) humourous(?).
> > > > > If it is negative, please do not post.
> > > > > If it is inflamatory, please do not post.
> > > > >
> > > > > Should we rename the list the DNS-SH!T-SLINGING-LIST ? or is it to
> be
> > > > > kept the DNS-DISCUSSION-LIST.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am interested in
> > > > > a) DNS Discussion for positive gain.
> > > > > b) Discussion about Domain Names, Both Australian And Global, as
it
> is
> > > > > my assumption as this list is populated mainly By Australians /
> > > > > Aus-Pacific parties, and .au and other domains (may) impact on
this
> > > > > region differnetly than other parts of the world. (i.e. a
geographic
> > > > > interest group)
> > > > > c) Technical Discussion about policy / regulation.
> > > > > d) Being alerted of breaches of policy, companies involved, and
> > > > > discussion about this.
> > > > > e) All of the above to be conducted in a couteous manner parallel
> with
> > > > > the privilege of your position in the domain industry.
> > > > > F) Regular News articles. (Good value).
> > > > > g) other related happenings in the industry (Yes, in fact, the
> mailed
> > > > > out notices are part of this, and i consider good value, so that
> when
> > > > > our clients ring, we can tell them to read closely)
> > > > >
> > > > > Do I care if someone is going to whoop skeeve's wifes shopping
> budget
> > to
> > > > > caress your ego / "emotional damages" or whatever, heck no, unless
> > that
> > > > > party has registered imgunnawhoopskeeve.com.au and its doesn't fit
> > into
> > > > > .au policy.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers
> > > > > Sean Finn
> > > > > www.ozservers.com.au
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > -
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> > 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.
> >
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> 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.
>