Some contributors may well use pseudonyms to avoid the threat of litigation
- Josh, for example, may have benefited had he done so.  Disreputable
companies often silence valid criticism (and suppress truth) by
intimidation, and the threat of litigation is but one form of it.

Most subscribers do not have the legal skills to evaluate their
vulnerability to such threats.

Ron Stark

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter [mailto:peter§instra.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 22 March 2002 12:56 PM
To: dns§lists.auda.org.au
Subject: Re: [DNS] DNS List


Hi Chris

"Sense in our time" - (with acknowledgements to Disraeli)

I would be happy with item 2 but would like to query if auDA can avoid 
direct responsibility by creating a declaration on each application (as 
shown below - viz The form would also need to
include an indemnity to auDA against any liability arising from comments
made on the list) and causing a statement to appear on each notice to the 
effect that the writer accepts full responsibility for his/her remarks and 
absolves auDA from any possible claims.

I would also like to see all participants identified and any (financial) 
interests declared


Best regards


Peter Dean
Chairman - The Instra Group
Director - auda
My views are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of any 
organisation mentioned above.




At 11:00 AM 3/22/02 +1100, you wrote:
>Yesterday afternoon several 'contributors' to this list were removed
>from the list. You'll all guess who they were and why they were removed.
>It now transpires that at least one of them by his own admission, 'has
>no interest in the DNS, doesn't know what anyone is talking about, and
>was only on the list because he was asked to join to stir up trouble and
>"have some fun"'.
>
>
>
>I have received legal advice that auDA could be liable for comments made
>by participants on the list as it is technically auDA that publishes the
>list. This is of some concern given the sort of contributions we have
>all experienced over the last few weeks. I am not prepared to put auDA
>at risk in this way.
>
>
>
>As I see it, these are the alternatives:-
>
>
>
>1.      Have the list moderated either by checking contributions before
>they are posted or in some other way such as limiting the number of
>posts per day for those who appear to be abusing the list.
>2.      Introduce some new rules for the list, the breach of which would
>lead to removal. These might include things such as no pseudonyms, no
>fake email addresses, no personal attacks etc. These rules would be
>included on the application form and the submission of the form would
>oblige the member to abide by the rules. The form would also need to
>include an indemnity to auDA against any liability arising from comments
>made on the list. All current participants would need to complete a form
>as well as new ones.
>
>3.       Cut the DNS List loose by providing a couple of weeks warning
>that we will cease to host and thus allowing someone else to pick up the
>responsibility if they want. Meanwhile, we would set up a new auDA
>discussion list open to auDA members, registry, registrar and
>re-sellers.
>
>
>
>Ultimately, whilst auDA facilitates this list and is legally responsible
>for it, it is provided for the benefit of subscribers and so I would
>welcome your considered input on the above and any constructive
>alternative solutions you can come up with.
>
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Chris Disspain
>
>CEO - auDA
>
>  <mailto:ceo&#167;auda.org.au> ceo§auda.org.au
>
>  <http://www.auda.org.au> www.auda.org.au
>
>
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/
Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the 
author, further information at the above URL.  (318 subscribers.)