--- Charlie McCormack <charlie&#167;mccormack.net.au>
wrote:

> 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 agreed that the liquor licence was a bad example.
Actually the licensor is the local council and they
can put restrictions on the licence they issue.
However we are not discussing liquor, we are
discussing a domain licence.

If you are going to keep spouting the Trade Practices
Act and restriction of trade then give me an example
from the act which says putting conditions on the use
of a licence (not franchise or buying practices as
this is not relevant) is anti competitive.

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

You are obviously getting offensive as you are not
able to defend your point.

I will reserve my judgement until I see the result of
several official complaints I have put in regarding
monetised sites. If you are the subject of one of
these complaints then you will be able to take it up
legally with auDA.

At the end of the day auDA's role is to be impartial
and to enforce its licence agreements or policies. If
they receive a reasonable complaint they must act on
it. 

As a member of auDA you are voting who represents you
on the Board and ultimately auDA policy. 


DJ


		
___________________________________________________________ 
The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html