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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:dns- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Jones > Sent: Tuesday, 12 September 2006 9:05 AM > To: .au DNS Discussion List > Subject: Re: [DNS] Monetised > > > --- Charlie McCormack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/
