Kim Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Quoting Vic Cinc on Sunday November 26, 2006: > | > | thats a novel idea isnt it? that a business should be entitled to run on > | a commercial basis rather then on the whims of some entrenched counter > interests > | in what is supposed to be "self regulation". > > Is auDA forcing registrars to implement IDN registrations?
we will see wont we. at this stage without a business case proposition from auda I certainly have no intention of supporting it. > | thats not appropriate and unless auda makes a business case for future > | changes then it will be paying for them. > > The notion that any alterations to .au policy must result in further > profits for registrars, or must be subsidised, is nonsense. what I said was auda has no right to inflict non commercial investment on registrars. thats not quite what your disengenious rewording is trying to imply is it. its your pathetic obsession with registrar bottom line that is the only nonsense. nevertheless, auda has set a very clear precedent that it is willing to subsidise policy with a bottomless purse. you cant have it have both ways, either auda withdraws funding from non commercially viable projects or it funds all non commercially viable activity. this issue is certainly resulting in a real loss of confidence with auda. Vic --------------------------------------------------------------------------- List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/
