Motion to Rescind Board Resolution on Suspending Grex Public Access

Jul 28 16:11 UTC 1999

As a Grex member, I move that the following resolution, adopted by
the Board on July 27, be rescinded:

In the event that Michigan Public Act 33 of 1999 goes into effect,
all public access to Grex shall be suspended, with the exception
of an informational web page, pending the formulation of new policies.

That's the resolution that my motion would rescind.  I think it is totally
unnecessary to shut down Grex, even temporarily, just because an unwise
law goes into effect.  We have no real idea if we will be targets of
prosecution at all.  As I think I said elsewhere, the interest groups
behind these state "Internet minor" statutes really want to go after
the "teaser" pages on adult porn sites.

Plus, even if by some remote chance Grex is prosecuted, I believe we would
be able to successfully defend ourselves in court.

response 2 of 203:

Jul 28 18:38 UTC 1999

I'm really surprized by the board's decision, and there is no way I can divert
all my email to another ISP before Sunday.  

 Is Grex going to forward my email? I'm in the middle of a job search.  My
resume has this email address. I can't believe I'm suddenly going to
disappear from the net.  Does anyone have any suggestions of how I can
manage this fiasco?

response 4 of 203:

Jul 28 20:55 UTC 1999

1) About the mail forwarding, I would hazard a guess that the board would
suspend public access by turning off logins (easily achieved by backing up
the password file, then replacing all of the passwords with *'s which
disable logins for that user). So you could probably set up a .forward
file, open a free mail account (hotmail etc), and then access your mail
from an internet cafe or someone else's internet connection.

2) I'm not expert on parliamentary procedures, but I'm pretty sure that
bylaws (in general) can be temporarily suspended by a 2/3 vote. I guess
since the GREX bylaws require 3/4 for amendment, a 3/4 vote might be
neccessary. So what you could do would be to have a motion to suspend the
voting procedures and have that immediately voted on and concluding
tomorrow or Friday, then invoke that motion (when voting ends; you might
be able to expidite it even more by ending voting procedures as soon as 75
people have voted yes; explain to people that this isn't a vote for
rescinding, merely to be able to have a vote; if the board gives you a
hard time, invoke whatever clause in the bylaws or declaration of
principles that says that the membership has a right to make the policies)
to call for a vote on your original motion immediately, the vote ending
right before whenever the point-of-no-return for shutting down GREX would
be (11:45 on July 31?). This may look confusing, but read it slowly and
you'll get the picture. Be sure to phone the keeper of the vote program to
start it up immediately for the suspension vote.
When all of the dust clears, somebody should propose an amendment to the
bylaws providing for emergency votes. I'm not doing any of this because
I'm not a member.

response 6 of 203:

Jul 28 22:33 UTC 1999

perhaps the board should re-convene via conference call and have an
emergency motion to rescind the shut-down motion.  If this judge is
an Engler appointee, he is probably conservative and may well uphold
the law.  

The government could not shut down grex or attempt prosecution while the
lawsuit is pending-- grex could get an injunction itself for that.  

Shutting down grex even for a small period of time could cause major
problems-- those with paying grex memberships could request pro-rated
refunds for the time that grex wasnt available.  If grex is down for more
than a day or two, grex will get swamped with inbound email, and probably
angry responses from ISPS getting email bounced back from grex.

A motion to completely shut down should have been voted  on by
full membership, and one could argue that this motion wasnt made earlier
because the board wanted to keep that vote to itself.

response 8 of 203:

Jul 29 00:14 UTC 1999

Re resp:6 - the hearing last week *was* to enjoin the state from
enforcing the law while the suit is pending. We're waiting for the
judge's decision. If it goes against us, the suit on the merits will
still go forward, but the law will be in effect and Grex will be
liable for prosecution.

I'm the board chair, so I'll try to explain where the board is coming
from on this. C. McGee has it basically right. We were planning for a
worst-case scenario that we don't expect to come about. But we felt
there should be a contingency in case the law did go into effect. I
suspect the reason that nobody - either board members or users -
initiated public discussion of this earlier is that we are so
optimistic of winning. In retrospect, it would have been better if
there had been. But there wasn't, so the board took it up for the
first time at Monday's meeting. We thought it would be irresposible to
continue with business as usual if the law goes into effect.  To cite
just one concern, users could be in jeopardy without knowing it - for
example, someone who posted sexually explicit text in a conference a
while ago and who isn't even on Grex anymore, even though their text
still is. We felt we needed some time to make decisions on what to do
about things like this.

Like Steve, I don't think this will really be an issue, since the
judge promised a decision before August 1, and I have every reason to
think it will be in our favor. At the hearing, which I attended, the
judge appeared very sympathetic to the our case. (Also, he's an ACLU
member, and not an Engler appointee since this was federal, not state,
court.) And in any case, a temporary shutdown would not be "running
away". If our request for an injunction is denied, the ACLU will
appeal, there will be a trial on the merits of the law, grex will
participate in that process, and we will fight the thing in court.

In the unlikely event of a shutdown, users won't be out of the
loop. I'll call an emergency board and staff meeting for purposes of
getting as many services up as we can as quickly as possible.  There
will be updates on the web page. It is probably feasible to use
Backtalk to have a discussion item in which users can post responses.
Email appears to be protected by the "ISP exemption" in the law, so I
think we'll be able to have that up and available with minimal
disruption.

Again: A shutdown appears very unlikely to happen. My take from my
participation in this suit is that the judge is almost certain to
grant the temporary injunction against enforcement of this law (he
promised a decision before August 1, as Steve points out) and we won't
need to worry about changing a thing when August 1 rolls around.

Dave's take on the law in #0 puzzles me, and seems contradictory. It's
far from obvious to me that it's aimed only at "teaser pages on adult
porn sites." If that's really true, then Grex and Arbornet don't have
standing in the case, Grex shouldn't have become involved, and Dave
shouldn't have been the declarant for Arbornet. If we don't think
this can have serious consequences for Grex, we shouldn't be plaintiffs
at all.

Anyway, an article in last week's Detroit Free Press indicated that
the Michigan State Police plan to use it to nab "internet predators"
without having to produce a victim. Hmmm... Presumably if someone
posts sexually explicit material and a cop decides that it looks
"predatory"?  A scary prospect. In any case, I think we have to go by
what the law actually says, not a best-case scenario of how it might
be applied.  Look at the text in item 98, resp. #7 (resp:coop,98,7),
read Section 2(c) definiing "sexually explicit verbal material", then
Section 5, which criminalizes posting it where it would be seen by
minors. Then think about Grex's open conferences, where postings hang
around for years and are probably just about all seen by minors at
some point. The "ISP exemption" in the law doesn't appear to apply to
the conferences. I don't buy it that the law is only for "porn sites".

As has been pointed out, Dave's motion can't be voted on by August
1st, and there's no provision in the bylaws for "emergency user votes"
to override the time limits. However, this issue may come up again.
Assuming that the judge grants the injunction before August 1, the
Attorney General's office may decide to defend the law, in which case
there would be a trial on the law's constitutional merits 6 to 9
months from now. A possible (but I think unlikely) outcome of that
trial could be that the law is upheld and goes into effect. At which
point, decisions will need to be made about what to do. At least in
that case, we'll have had at least 6 months for thorough discussion.

response 10 of 203:

Jul 29 02:37 UTC 1999

I understand the reasons for shutting down -- both the legal worries, and
the idea that it well make a statement about what the law would do, as a
sort of protest action.  I will, however, miss Grex if the law passes and
it's decided that bringing the system back up in infeasable, or against
people's principles.  (I think it's been said in other conferences that Grex
would be taken down if it ever ceased to be the free system it is now.)
Though my participation has often been uneven, Grex has been the most stable
email address I've had, and I really enjoy the conferences.

response 12 of 203:

Jul 29 12:45 UTC 1999

The law is being fought in federal court, not state court.

response 14 of 203:

Jul 29 16:15 UTC 1999

Geez, John, calm the hell down.

I didn't get "herded" into anything.  I didn't like the sound of this
policy when it was brought up, but I asked a lot of questions, and was
convinced that it was a prudent thing to do.  remmers outlined some of the
arguments.  Another one was that if Grex did get sued under the law, we
would at the very least have to hire counsel.  (Unless the ACLU agreed to
defend us, which they might.)  That would wipe out Grex's bank account
right there - there woould be no need for a trial, becasue we'd be gone.

All the policy does is grant us a little time to figure out how to
proceed.  Saying "shut down Grex" makes it sound like drastic,
end-of-the-world action, but it's not.  The board was not panicking - it
was just making a disaster plan so we could *avoid* panic.  All we're
talking about is getting a little breathing room to decide what to do. 

All of the board members are strong believers in democracy and the need
for participation of the membership in important decisions.  I'm
absolutely positive that the board and staff would work as quickly to
allow everyone to participate as the staff did to bring Grex up after the
last disk crash.

I'd like to ask everyone to have a little faith.  I know you M-Netters
have had issues with boards on M-Net which may have made you distrustful.
But the history of Grex's politics is much different, and I don't think
I'm out of line in asking people to believe in that last paragraph.  I'll
certainly pledge to try my hardest to be sure it's correct.

response 16 of 203:

Jul 29 17:00 UTC 1999

There's a day and a half left for the judge to act.  Tick, tick, tick, 
tick...

I do not distrust the Grex Board.   I just think it can be wrong 
sometimes.  I think it made the wrong decision in this case.  I don't 
think it would have made the same decision if the issue had been 
considered carefully.  It *could not* be thought out well at a policy 
brought up for the first time and discussed in it's entirety during part 
of a single Board meeting.  So I disagree with the process, aside from 
the decision itself.

I do trust the Grex Board.  I trust John Remmers, and I trust Jan 
Wolter.  I trust you, Mark.  I have not said otherwise.  I think you 
are, each individually as well as collectively, better decision makers 
and representatives of the Grex membership than I would be, even if I 
had the time and interest and support to get on the Board (which I do 
not).  My objections are not even based on a difference in philosophy.  
I just think you guys overlooked some things.

response 18 of 203:

Jul 29 17:51 UTC 1999

So, Jep, why haven't you entered an item to discuss what Grex should do
should this law go into effect?  I see you venting a whole lot of anger
but not doing what you say needs to be done which is discuss our options
and help formulate a plan in the remote event this decision goes against
Grex.  Of course we won't know a lot about our options until after the
judge has ruled, we get some of the details of his ruling, and possibly
have had a chance to get specific legal advice.  Do you see, at
all, the circle of what happened and why? 

response 20 of 203:

Jul 29 18:09 UTC 1999

Oh - I also use Grex for some business e-mail.  It is up to the
Board to see that I continue to have access to this, since e-mail
is not a source of liability for Grex.

response 22 of 203:

Jul 29 18:43 UTC 1999

I agree...this is a natural response to a very real, if small, risk.  The
chances of anything happening *are* slim, but the consequences if anything
did are dire.  A chance to pause and regroup would make sense.

Re #20: I don't think Grex is under any obligation to provide you with
uninterruped email service, and I think one of the user agreements
specifically says they incur no liability from interrptions (though I'd have
to look.)  I don't think threats are going to help matters any.

response 24 of 203:

Jul 29 18:57 UTC 1999

Squeeeaak.  We got lucky.