My understanding ( and I am open to be corrected here) is that a forum such
as this list falls under the Publications Act or similar, and as such
renders the publisher (auDA) liable for its content - despite the fact that
they have no direct input.

Look at Yahoo (I think) being sued for allowing Nazi memorabilia to be sold
on its auction site.

Ron Stark

-----Original Message-----
From: Dassa [mailto:dassa§dhs.org]
Sent: Saturday, 23 March 2002 10:32 AM
To: dns§lists.auda.org.au
Subject: RE: [DNS] DNS List


|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo§auda.org.au] 
|> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 11:01 AM
|> To: dns§auda.org.au
|> Subject: [DNS] DNS List
|> 
|> 
|> 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 uptrouble
and
|> "have some fun"'.

Fair enough. 

|> 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.

Personally I would consider such legal advice worth squat.  Given that
sort of logic, anyone who provides any sort of facility to the public
would be liable for any comments made by any member of the public whilst
in the facility.  Would be the death of public meetings.  By the same
token, anyone running a mail server would become responsible for any
comments made by those using the service.  After all, a mailing list is
just distributing email.  I really do wish legal people would find out
more before offering opinions.  But then, I suppose I'm using logic and
that doesn't always enter the equation. 

|> 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.

I suggest the posting of an agreement that absolves auDA from any
responsibility for the comments posted, the introduction of specific
rules for civil conduct and aggressive enforcement of any rules adopted.

Personally I dislike posting limits and moderation means a lot of work
for someone.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.  (319 subscribers.)