Look whatever, you have no idea what-so-ever.

In the case of liquor, the licensor is the government, and the laws have
been written.

I won't enlighten you because it would be like pushing shit uphill



> -----Original Message-----
> From: dns-bounces+charlie=mccormack.net.au§dotau.org [mailto:dns-
> bounces+charlie=mccormack.net.au§dotau.org] On Behalf Of David Jones
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 September 2006 9:05 AM
> To: .au DNS Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [DNS] Monetised
> 
> 
> --- Charlie McCormack <charlie&#167;mccormack.net.au>
> wrote:
> 
> > Bad example, liquor licenses are issued by the
> > government, the government
> > has set the laws.
> 
> The example was just to highlight the issue. The fact
> of the matter is that the licensor has every right  to
> set conditions on the use of the licence. You cannot
> argue that fact. You either agree to their terms or
> don't.
> 
> >
> > Law enforces trade practices, not auDA, government
> > has set these laws too.
> >
> > auDA only sets the rules on the registration process
> > and eligibility of
> > those domain names, they do not and can not restrict
> > trade, period.
> 
> You keep quoting trade practices in relationship to a
> license. I think you will find that you are under a
> misconception here that they are protected by the
> trade practices act. Perhaps you can enlighten me with
> an excerpt that deals with this issue, and not one
> that relates to franchising or buying of goods.
> 
> 
> DJ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___________________________________________________________
> Inbox full of spam? Get leading spam protection and 1GB storage with All
> New Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/