At 12:10 PM 23/03/2002 +1100, Peter Dean wrote:
>A direct question to Dassa
>
>If auDA ignore there legal advisors and accept yours... How would you view 
>the actions of the auDA board if auDA is successfully sued - would you ask 
>the board members to pay from their own pocket because of their 
>irresponsible behavior?

Until such time as an Australian court rules on this question, a legal
opinion is just that - a legal opinion.  Ask another lawyer and you may get
a different opinion, because there are no clear precedents.  

I think Dassa was right to question the legal advice, and so should auDA.
If content liability applies to an organisation that merely provides a list
server, the future of the Internet is in doubt.  Defamation law is complex,
particular in Australia where the law differs from state to state.  The
jurisdictional issues arising from the nature of the Internet further
clouds the question.  Nevertheless, the common law defence of innocent
dissemination is clearly available in the current context.  

Furthermore, the Broadcasting Services Act provides a statutory defence to
an ISP or ICH who carries/hosts Internet content in Australia and who
unknowingly carryies defamatory material (Schedule 5, Clause 91(1)).
Although the BSA doesn't cover "ordinary E-mail" the intent is clear - a
content host cannot be held liable for innocent dissemination.

Is auDA prepared to publish the "legal advice"?  That would go a long way
towards clearing the air on this matter.

BTW, I vote for option 2.

Greg Taylor