[DNS] well well well Re: Domain dispute heats up

[DNS] well well well Re: Domain dispute heats up

From: Vic Cinc <vicc§cia.com.au>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 10:43:20 +1000
Kim Davies [kim&#167;cynosure.com.au] wrote:
> Quoting Vic Cinc on Friday June 09, 2006:
> | 
> | Kim Davies [kim&#167;cynosure.com.au] wrote:
> | .........................^^^^^^
> | well well well look at this another self appointed pontificator whos
> | action follow what I say but whose own mind doubts his own actions.
> | you dont qualify for a .com.au why do you still have one?
> When I registered cynosure.com.au it was a valid under the rules
> of .com.au, and it was grandfathered under successive policy
> alterations (as were other people's domains).
> So, now we know you don't support grandfathering of domains under new
> policies.

dont put words in my mouth. the existing rules are what need to go.

> | cynosure.com.au is not listed with a magic number, there is no business
> | activity on the web page. you are in breach of the very rules you are
> | arguing for.
> Prove it.

thats exatly right, nobody can, can they?  whats the point of a rule
that says you have to have a magic number, when nobody can prove if you
actually trading on it or not?

there is certainly nothing on your web page to indicate you are trading.

from your defensive reaction, its also clear you are not interested in
loosing the name. nor should you have to just because you stop trading
with it.

> Oh, cia.com.au is not listed with a magic number either, are you going
> to abolish that domain too?

it has an abn and was registered under the same rules. stupid pointless rules.

Received on Fri Jun 09 2006 - 00:43:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:08 UTC