Yes, I mean auDA.  And I don't intend to get into an argument on what
constitutes a Federal Regulatory Authority, because that's what auDA is,
even it it's not a Statutory Authority, which is a different matter.

Contrary to your refutation I cited *exactly* from the 2nd paragraph in the
Age article http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/19/1082357111573.html
- I have no need to "try reading" as you suggest.

Irrespective of the semantics of the paragraph I cited or the one to which
you refer, the anomaly I noted still stands.

You either comply with the rules or you don't - you appear to have chosen
the latter.

Ron Stark

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chesley Rafferty [mailto:chesleyau§yahoo.com.au] 
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2004 10:48 AM
> To: dns§dotau.org
> Subject: RE: [DNS] Scammer says court defeat temporary 
> setback (Chesley Rafferty)
> 
> Ron
> 
> Can you please detail what the second "federal regulatory 
> authorities". Could you possibly mean auda....???
> 
> Also try reading, it says "...vigorously defend its right to 
> conduct business without interference from its competitors..."
> 
> It doesnt say that we as you seem to think "...vigorously 
> defend its right to conduct business without (APPARENTLY 
> REMOVE**interference from its**) competitors..."
> 
> Ches
> 
>  --- Ron Stark <ronstark&#167;snapsite.com.au> wrote: > There's an 
> interesting anomaly in the article in the
> > Age
> >
> (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/19/1082357111573.html)
> > According
> > to that report, Rafferty says  " ... had a right to conduct 
> business 
> > without interference from competitors and would seek to 
> have Federal 
> > Court injunctions lifted."
> > 
> > I thought that it was complaints from consumers and two federal 
> > regulatory authorities that had precipitated the "intereference" of 
> > which he complains.
> > That's analogous to a criminal complaining that the police 
> interfere 
> > with his right to sell drugs.
> > 
> > In my experience, being in business is a contimual process of 
> > responding to "interference from competitors".  Since when 
> has it been 
> > a right to have no competitors, as inferred by Rafferty's statement?
> > 
> > Ron Stark
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Josh Rowe [mailto:josh&#167;email.nu]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2004 7:33 AM
> > > To: dns&#167;dotau.org
> > > Subject: [DNS] Scammer says court defeat temporary
> > setback
> > > (Chesley Rafferty)
> > > 
> > > Scammer says court defeat temporary setback
> > >
> >
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3561426
> > > 
> > > June date for Nominet legal fight
> > > http://www.vnunet.com/News/1154488
> > > 
> > > DNA to test federal court judgement
> > >
> >
> http://www.arnnet.com.au/index.php?id=1924930834&fp=16&fpid=0
> > > 
> > > Domain name seller appeals injunction
> > >
> >
> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/19/1082357111573.html
> > > 
> > > Chesley Rafferty + Bradley Norrish, etc 
> > > http://whatsinaname.com.au/slammers/
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Josh
> > > --
> > > http://josh.id.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.
> >  
> 
> Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
> http://au.movies.yahoo.com
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
> 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.
>