response 9 of 203:

Jul 29 01:11 UTC 1999

Anyone could have entered an item to discuss what Grex should do if the
law were allowed to go into effect.  The item didn't show up because I
don't think anyone out there feels the law will go into effect on
August 1st.

But, when the remote possibility was brought up, the Board was prudent to
at least authorize a "first step if" plan in the event the law goes into
effect.  I expect even under a partial shutdown discussion on this topic
will be facilitated and the members will be part of policy decisions. 
Mail would continue. Users would be given up to date information on the
status of things.  Other services would be opened as soon as we get
a better understanding of our liability.

I really don't think there is reason for panic.  I think the
Board did just right.  I look forward to the discussion on how
folks think Grex should be managed if this law stands.

response 11 of 203:

Jul 29 02:39 UTC 1999

Also, Re #6, I could be wrong, but I think Grex 'membership fees' are
actually donations.  In the event of the system going down, noone's entitled
to any prorated fees.  Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

I worry, too, about the fact that the Michigan government is very
conservative.  I wonder if this law might have a good chance of being
upheld.

response 13 of 203:

Jul 29 13:18 UTC 1999

The judge has today and tomorrow to decide whether to grant an 
injunction.  I am worried.

re #9: Anyone could enter a discussion item to decide what to do if an 
asteroid hits Ann Arbor.  I don't think the lack of such an item from 
the general population means that policy makers shouldn't probably 
discuss it a little before deciding to shut down Grex in preparation for 
it.  Same with the Internet obscenity law.  

I think it is the responsibility of the policy makers to bring such 
things up before deciding on them, allowing sufficient time to allow 
discussion.  I don't think this situation was a sufficient emergency to 
cancel that obligation.  No one thought of it 3 weeks ago.  It isn't 
very likely to occur.  But as soon as someone mentions it at a Board 
meeting, it has to be leapt at?  I don't buy it.

I was in similar situations on the Arbornet board a few times.  We made 
decisions on the spur of the moment that -- like this one -- didn't need 
to be made so hastily.  I don't think we ever made such a decision 
without regretting it.  We got herded (or herded ourselves) into making 
bad snap decisions.  The Cyberspace board has done that now.

There are alternatives, and it is very clear that they haven't been 
considered.  There are consequences, and they haven't been considered, 
either.  Does the Grex board really envision themselves, and the staff, 
being carted off to jail, or heavily fined, or anything, on August 2 
(the first working day after it is scheduled to take effect) due to this 
law?  I don't buy *that*.  Does shutting down Grex really seem like a 
reasonable thing to do, taking away conferencing, and violating 
people's dependence on their e-mail, and all that, in response to the 
actual likely risks of continuing to run it?

A reasonable situation would be like this: Grex: "I am sorry, sir.  We 
are working to comply with the law, but it's a big system, and it's all 
run by volunteers.  We are providing a valuable public service 
meanwhile, as a non-profit."  Some judge, police officer, or anyone but 
a comic-strip zealot: "Yes, I can see that."

An unreasonable scenario if the law is upheld, but the one apparently 
reacted to by the Grex Board: "You mangy riff-raff have violated THE 
LAW!  We're throwing you all in jail, taking your computers, fining you 
to the hilt, and going after your families!"

It seems to me the Board has reacted more like adolescent zealots on a 
mission than like reasonable decision makers.  That's because it didn't 
take enough time to consider what it was doing.  The Board is normally 
very reasonable, from what I've seen.  What's done is done.  I hope the 
Board is a little more thoughtful the next time someone tries to panic 
it into a hasty decision.

response 15 of 203:

Jul 29 16:21 UTC 1999

And to toking: I think you're are way out of line to suggest that Grex has
"tucked its tail between its legs and run away".  remmers, mary, janc and I
have worked our asses off to fight this law.  We're not running away from
anything.

response 17 of 203:

Jul 29 17:08 UTC 1999

BTW, the Arbornet board members who have spoken up in the M-Net policy 
conference are vociferously saying they *aren't* going to shut M-Net 
down, even if this law takes effect.  I think they're blustering and
grandstanding, and failing to face the issue.  It seems better to 
underreact, as they are, rather than overreact like Grex, but I think 
there's a middle ground somewhere.  I wonder if polygon is interested in 
becoming Lord and Conqueror of both systems for the purpose of an 
infusion of some sense.

response 19 of 203:

Jul 29 17:53 UTC 1999

I have always felt that while Grex and M-Net are *theoretically* in
jeopardy from this stupid law, in *practice* the cops will probably
go after what the interest groups are interested in--teaser pages--
if they prosecute anyone at all.  It could be that once the law
takes effect *nothing will happen*.  There are plenty of stupid laws
that are rarely if ever invoked.
        Plus, the Grex Board overlooks the real possibility that
if we are prosecuted, we will convince a jury that we're not liable.
Nothing will happen swiftly, in any event.  A contested prosecution
under this act will take months to complete, which gives us plenty
of time to figure out what, if anything, to do.
        E-mail is exempt from monitoring by us under the 1986 Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, and thus we would not be prosecuted under
this law for whatever is in an e-mail.
        No, bylaws may be never be suspended.
        Remember what the Board said, that if the law goes into effect,
public access *shall* be suspended, pending the formulation of new
policies.  That's backward.  The Board *should* have said that if
the new law goes into effect, the Board will study the situation
and take appropriate actions, without specifying what they might be.
        Why should we panic ourselves into shutting down because of
a small risk?
        The Board got itself into this situation.  The best solution
would for the Board to call a special meeting and get itself out
of this situation.
        However, if that's not possible, I expect a vote to occur
on my motion.  It will be up to the Board to insure that a vote
happens.

response 21 of 203:

Jul 29 18:14 UTC 1999

Pretty much from the first moment we get into a position where we have to
secure legal counsel, Grex is in deep trouble.  We don't have the money to
defend Grex from even an absurd law, that doesn't apply to us, which is
intended as more a nuisance than to set any legal precedent. Our
vulnerability lies in our not even having the funds to pay the attorney's
retaining fee.

We need to be very careful we don't arrogantly stride into such a place. 

response 23 of 203:

Jul 29 18:47 UTC 1999

NEWS FLASH!!!  WE WON!!!

Just got a call from Mike Steinberg of the ACLU. The judge has issued a
ruling and the injunction has been granted. The law will not go into
effect August 1.

Mike is emailing me the judge's 30-page opinion; I'll post it online as
soon as possible.

response 25 of 203:

Jul 29 19:47 UTC 1999

ERm, we didn't win.  We merely got the judge to suspend the enforcement of
the law until a decision on the merits of the case are made.  Not the same
thing at all.  

response 27 of 203:

Jul 29 21:18 UTC 1999

If there was no chance the judge wouldn't rule quickly enough, and in 
Grex's favor, then why was there a Board decision to shut down the 
system in case it occurred?  Was it just childish grandstanding, in your 
opinion, STeve? 

response 29 of 203:

Jul 29 21:23 UTC 1999

   John, when dealing with the court system or any other unpredictable
system, its always a good odea to have a fallback policy.  Grex has always
had a fallback policy on hardware--should a piece die, we usually have
had a spare waiting.  So with legal stuff--I really really did expect this
to happen, from hearing judge Tarnow talk; he clearly understood a lot of
the issues, I daresay better than the laywer that the State had.  But we
couldn't know the outcome, not with 100% accuracy, hence the desision
for a fallback.  I was one of the vocal proponents of doing this at the
last board meeting.

response 31 of 203:

Jul 30 03:03 UTC 1999

I should point out that the preliminary injunction does not make Dave's
motion moot.  At some point in the future, probably six to nine months
from now, there will be another hearing (probably in Cincinatti).  The
outcome of that is extremely likely to be favorable to us, but it is
possible for it to go against us.

If this law had gone into effect, it is possible that the corporation,
the individual board members and many of our current and former users
could be at risk of being prosecuted.  Dave says "yeah but it'll never
happen".  He's probably right.  But he isn't definately right.

It is almost a certainty that we will win our fight against this act. 
If we lose though, then we are in a tough position.  Either Grex as we
know it is dead, or we have to run in open defiance of the law. 
Historically we have tried hard to avoid breaking the law, but I'm not
absolutely opposed to doing so - heck, Valerie and I break the laws of
the Great State of Michigan every day by cohabiting.  But nobody can
make that decision for anyone else.  Each board member has to decide
whether or not they want to expose themselves to the risk.  Every user
who has ever posted anything sexually explicit on Grex has to decide if
he or she wants to leave it there or censor it.  We need to decide what
to do about sexually explicit material posted by people no longer here.
Time will be needed to make all these decisions.  During that time, Grex
has to be down.

We may be able to bring some services on line quickly - like Email.  But
even Email has issues.  We give out anonymous Email accounts.  What if
someone takes out an anonymous account on Grex and uses it to Email
something really nasty to thousands of teenagers in every county of the
state.  Could some county prosecuter go after that person, and finding
that we can't identify him, prosecute us instead for deliberately making
it possible for people to do this anonymously?  I'd like a legal opinion
on that.

I'm pretty sure we could safely give people read access to their email
immediately.  Even if a teen reads a pornographic Email message on Grex,
the ISP exemption would unambiguously cover us (but not whomever sent
it).  So people worried about losing access to their Email needn't
worry.

response 33 of 203:

Jul 30 06:17 UTC 1999

<birdy gives the board a standing ovation for all of their hard work on the
case *and* the foresight to plan for a "just in case" situation>