>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from [Eberhard W Lisse
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 01:10:05 -0400 (EDT)
>
>>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jul 2 01:10:04 1999
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Received: from elch.de.uu.net (elch.de.uu.net [192.76.144.55])
> by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34B8FF00C
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 01:10:03 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from ac.lisse.na (pec-9.au1.sb.uunet.de [149.228.12.9]:4728)
> by elch.de.uu.net with ESMTP (5.65+:003/3.0.2)
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> id HAA26733; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 07:03:04 +0200 (MET DST)
>Received: from ac (ac [127.0.0.1])
> by ac.lisse.na (Postfix) with ESMTP
> id 44BA87A057; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 23:16:20 +0200 (CEST)
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [IFWP] AU turns ISPs into Netcops
>In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 01 Jul 1999 20:55:19 GMT."
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>X-face:
>4/$83U}~dPclG58D@9ZT@f%R;U+U_|zEGWiJ;_O+Fp?qX}$i00hWYpU9iV-HlNx+E.|pZ|9|uk^*8rlfpj)B!=b`~{&$=0>;;.Qwj^M5n4E6ImH!5#gz.[;}4n8ZV%i.m!Z[T
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 23:16:19 +0300
>From: Eberhard W Lisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Willie,
>
>and you thought I had gone, eh?
>
>Why don't you do us all a favour and get lost?
>
>el
>
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Willie whined:
>> On Thu, 01 Jul 1999 04:56:25 +0100, Jeff Williams
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >William and all,
>> >
>> > William, something you left out of your selection of Excerpts here
>> >is the amendment to the Australian bill regarding offensive content.
>> >I am providing it here for clarification purposes. It sort of puts this
>> >very good bill in it's proper perspective.
>> >
>> >"For instance, a last-minute amendment to the
>> > law called for "recognized alternative
>> > access-prevention arrangements." The
>> > association lobbied heavily for the amendment,
>> > which could give ISPs a way to satisfy their
>> > legal obligations by offering their subscribers
>> > filtering software, or by offering different levels
>> >of
>> > commercial service based on varying amounts of
>> > content filtering at the ISP level, Coroneos said.
>> > How this would work in practice has yet to be
>> > defined. "
>> >
>> > So as everyone can see clearly this law is not all that bad in
>> >reality, although a bit unecessary...
>> >
>>
>> *sigh* you also leave out the part where they say that this may end
>> up not being acceptable to the board who will oversee this, and that
>> this is just a loose interpretation.
>>
>> So why don't you try putting yourself into "proper perspective."
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> William X. Walsh
>> General Manager, DSo Internet Services
>> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934
>>
>> "The fact is that domain names are new and have unique
>> characteristics, and their status under the law is not yet clear."=20
>> --Kent Crispin (June 29th, 1999)
>>
>>
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"They were of a mind to govern us and we were of a mind to govern ourselves."
