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>

response 35 of 203:

Jul 30 13:51 UTC 1999

Well, I'm willing to let the hot-blooded board members stay on, and the
chilled ones leave.  As a member of a board that once had the IRS suing us
individually for the the malfeasance of a staff member, I don't blame them
one bit for not wanting to take on the State of Michigan with their personal
assets and freedom at risk.  

I do agree with David on point two however.  Now is the time to hold the
discussions about how the membership wants to handle this when it comes up
again in the future.  I don't think we've seen the end of legislation that
tries to make us responsible for the content of the confrences.  I said in
some other response that the membership could direct the board to continue
to operate in defiance of the law.  That is certainly a scenario some people
would find appealing.  

I don't think we are ready for a member vote on any resolution, since I don't
sense any consensus or even agreement on what realistic options are.

Let the debates begin!

response 37 of 203:

Jul 30 16:08 UTC 1999

I didn't vote for this motion because of my personal liability as a
board member.  I would never vote to shut Grex down permanently because
I didn't want to expose myself to risk of prosecution.  If I felt I
couldn't take the risk, then I'd resign from the board instead.

For me the compelling reason is the risk of prosecution to our current
and former users.  There is material in our conferences that is arguably
sexually explicit and was posted by people who are long gone, and who
may well not remember that it is here.  And yet there is a chance that
they could be prosecuted.  I don't think that the board has a right
place such people at risk without their knowledge or consent.

The board motion was written with the intent of buying us some time to
figure out a long term policy for how Grex would operate under this law.
The law could still go into effect, or another law could (though the
existing policy is specific to this law), but not soon.  It'll be
months, at least, before there is a chance of the law being upheld.

My suggestion to Dave Cahill is to put his motion on hold.  All it does
now is suggest that the board's policy be withdrawn.  It doesn't suggest
an alternative.  We now have months to come up with an alternative. 
Leave the board policy stand for now, and come up with an good
alternative policy.  Then do a membership vote on that.

Basically there are only three policies possible:
  (1)  Permanent shut down
  (2)  Continue running with greater restrictions on what can be posted
       or who can access it.
  (3)  Continue running as we are, in defiance of the law.
Option (1) is pointless.  Anyone who wants it should just leave and let
people who want to keep running do it.  Option (2) is disgusting.  Grex
should not abandon its ideals.  Anyone who wants a safe and legal system
should go start one, but Grex/Cyberspance Communications should stand
fast.  So option (3) is the only valid one.

However, that still leaves lots of questions open that need to be
resolved:

  - What do we do with existing material on line that might be sexually
    explicit?  We could build a tool that let users review all their
    old conference postings and withdraw ones they didn't feel
    comfortable leaving up.  What do we do for users who are no longer
    here?

  - What do we have to do in terms of informing users of the risks they
    expose themselves by posting sexually explicit material here?

  - How open do we want to be about defying the law?  Should our home
    page declare our refusal to even try to conform, or should we be
    quiet about it?

  - How do we avoid being overrun by pornographic postings by people who
    know we are defying the law and who take out anonymous accounts to
    post trash here just to prove they can do it?

response 39 of 203:

Jul 30 17:51 UTC 1999

Re #35:  Do you understand that a member vote to keep running in defiance of
the law would be the members putting the board at risk of prosecution?  I
don't think anyone has the right to put someone else's reputation and money
at risk.

response 41 of 203:

Jul 30 19:16 UTC 1999

Right...but they don't have to prove it.  The mere act of bringing Grex's
board to trial would bankrupt us.

You forget, justice is a system that you can only play in if you're rich, or
have a fairly well-moneyed interest to back you.

response 43 of 203:

Jul 30 20:49 UTC 1999

There is one point to consider in all of this:  Unless Grex has a written
contract with some legal representation that provides for no-charge legal
defense, a shutdown (pending adjustments or whatever) is the only sane
option.  If, for any reason, the non-contractually bound offers of aid
fail to occurr, then Grex is essentially destroyed by any legal action,
notwithstanding personal liability issues of the board members.  I'd have
to have several attorneys provide proof otherwise before I'd accept that
it was not the case, but I can't imagine the entire assets of Grex paying
an attorney long enough to get to court, let alone actually win.  (Entire
assets=all the money, including selling ALL the hardware for cash.)

response 45 of 203:

Jul 30 21:24 UTC 1999

As to whether there should have been prior online discussion about a
contingency plan in case the law went into effect: I'm not concerned
about the "panic" possibility; we've never gone wrong by treating users
as level-headed folks and being forthright with them. And we might well
have gotten some good suggestions that the board didn't think of. As
chairman, I feel particularly responsible for the lack of advance public
discussion, and I apologize for any failing on my part.

However, after seeing the discussion in this and related items, I have
to say I'm of two minds on this issue. If there had been an item about
contingency planning earlier, then I suspect Dave would have been making
all his statements about the law not being a threat to us earlier as
well. I'm of course not a lawyer, but I must say I would have been more
than a bit uncomfortable at seeing the declarant for Arbornet, one of
the plaintiffs, arguing in a public forum that the law isn't a serious
threat to Grex and Arbornet, before the injunction hearing had even been
held. Given that the case isn't yet settled, I must say I'm not
comfortable about it now either.

Somebody set me straight if the preceding paragraph is off base.

response 47 of 203:

Jul 30 22:55 UTC 1999

Moving grex wouldn't be nearly that straight forward.  Firstly, if grex
moved its hardware out of the country, but staff & board continued to
reside in Michigan, this is not likely to be a big problem for the
state.  Arresting the staff & board would still be trivial, and what
might happen after that would be a moot point because it's unlikely
staff or board would consider serving in view of such a risk.  Laws of
incorporation vary from place to place.  Grex could probably incorporate
in Nevada without doing anything else, because Nevada has very lax
incorporation procedures.  Ontario probably has much stricter
requirements, like provincial residency, in order to incorporate.
Transporting the equipment across international borders also introduces
problems like customs duty.  There are other subsidiary issues, like
finding space, and an ISP, and funding these, that would not be trivial.
Realistically, therefore, you are talking about the following: (a)
shutting grex down, (b) some grex staff/board resign, (c) remaining
staff/board move to a new state or country, and reincorporate there, (d)
the assets are transferred, (e) a new ISP and home are found for grex,
(f) grex resumes operation.  This is probably like a year project and
has a significant chance of failure.

Having said that, I still think see the options a bit differently than
Jan:
 (0) shutdown (jan#1)
 (1) restrict who can get on (part of jan#2)
 (2) restrict what can be posted - either pre or post censorship (part
        of jan#2)
 (3) operate in defiance of the law (jan#3)
 (4) move grex to another state
 (5) move grex to another country
I think all of these options are pretty yucky.

response 49 of 203:

Jul 31 22:41 UTC 1999

Grex down under, if it ever came to that, but it won't (-:

response 51 of 203:

Aug 1 04:19 UTC 1999

I have to disagree with Dave's motion.  If the law comes into effect I
see one of two things happening under the current policy:

  (1)  In the intervening months, we've substantially worked out a
       plan for what the system will do.  The policy says the system
       will shut down until new policies are made, but if we already
       have new policies, then that is moot - there would be no shut
       down.

  (2)  In the intervening months, we've found other ways to entertain
       ourselves, and so we have no idea what to do.  I still think
       a temporary shut down is appropriate in that case.

Dave's saying that the wheels of justice grind slow.  Well the internet
and the media don't.   Here's an imaginary scenario:

  The legal system gets suddenly stupid and the law goes into effect.
  Naturally there is nationwide shock, and the lawsuit gets lots more
  publicity than it has to date.  Lots of reporters contact the lead
  plaintiff, Cyberspace Communications.  John Remmers is invited to
  appear on the Today Show.  We tell them that we haven't decided what
  exactly to do, but will continue running as before while we make up
  our minds.  (The reporters find someone else to say that the lack of
  response by Cyberspace proves that the law isn't as restrictive as we
  claimed it was.)

  Some geek somewhere sees John on TV and feels majorly pissed off.  He
  wants to tweek the government and prove how cleverly he can break this
  stupid law with perfect impunity.  The same news reports that told
  him about the law told him about Grex, a place where he can send
  Email anonymously.  So on the very day the law comes into effect he
  finds the nastiest piece of pornography he can find, dials into Grex,
  takes out an anonymous account, and mails off his filth to the minor
  children of many public officials and newspaper people around 
  Michigan, attaching a manifesto condeming the law.

  The local paper in Boondock County, Michigan prints a story about the
  open defiance by people on the Internet of this Michigan law whose
  constitutionality was just upheld.  The local prosecutor declares that
  he personally will bring the rule of law to the Internet and will
  find and prosecute the people responsible.

  The prosecutor contacts Cyberspace Communications asking for
  information about this evil person.  We tell them that we have no
  idea at all whom it might be, and explain to him that it is our
  deliberate policy to allow anonymous people to send Email from our
  system.  So what does he do?  Go back to his constitutents and say,
  "Whoops, I guess I can't find anyone to prosecute?"  No, he notes
  that by our participation in this lawsuit we admitted knowledge that
  our system could be used in this way, and yet we recklessly continued
  to run without taking any precautions.  He also notes that with the
  all the recent media coverage that this law and Grex have been
  getting, prosecuting Grex would get *him* lots of media coverage.
  He prosecutes.

  The ACLU leaps to defend us, and brilliantly manages the convince the
  state to let us keep running without restriction until the trial.  But
  meanwhile, Grex is getting even more worldwide publicity as a porn
  site.  We are flooded by waves of new people, half interested in
  seeing all our porn and posting more when they don't find enough, half
  interested in bringing the Wrath of God down on us, by doing
  everything from lecturing us on our sinfulness to crashing the system.
  The system become effectively unusuable.  We are forced to put some
  restrictions in place just to keep our head above water.  

  Many people around the world donate large amounts of money to help us.
  After months or years, the ACLU finally wins the case.  We slip back
  into obscurity, and try to put our system back together again.

It's just an imaginary scenario, but I think the only improbable link
in the chain is the first sentance - the one where the law gets upheld.
All the other consequences are pretty much inevitable if you assume
that and if we keep the system open.  I think some people would consider
the scenario just fine - rather fun even.  This version even has a happy
ending in that the law gets overturned (I just can't get away from
believing that that is inevitable, though if we are starting from the
assumption that it somehow gets upheld, maybe expecting that to be
reversed isn't appropriate).  But I don't see anyway that our community
doesn't get tromped, and protecting that is certainly the board's first
duty.

Let's face it.  If this law gets upheld, there is going to be *HUGE*
amounts of attention in the world media and on the Internet, and Grex is
going to be right at the middle of it.  To image, as Dave does, that in
the middle of that we will be able to continue business as usual while
we calmly discuss what action we should take is absurd.

response 53 of 203:

Aug 1 18:26 UTC 1999

   Grex is a nice fat target no matter what.  There simply aren't many
system like Grex, anywhere.

   Our participation in this lawsuit doesn't make any difference.

response 55 of 203:

Aug 1 22:28 UTC 1999

Re 17.  I'm flattered, but not interested in being made Lord Conqueror.

Re 38.  What view of mine are you saying is unrealistic?  I never
suggested that Grex be shut down over this.  Indeed, I only just now
heard about this discussion.

I am well aware (and frequently point out) that someone currently involved
in practicing law has insights not readily available to me.