To some extent, web sites with extensive lists of links on various
topics address the need Stuart cites.  Of course, there's plenty of
room for more finding aids, and this group could make a contribution.

The ubiquitous Dennis Kennedy has an excellent article on bookmark
management from a lawyer's perspective at:

http://www.lawyerware.com/article.asp?article=22&type=1

Jerry Lawson

P.S. The bookmark feature I like the best is the ability to have a
list of your most frequently used appear in the browswer window.
Later versions of both MS IE & Netscape Navigator have this feature.
In MS IE, it appears under the View menu as a "Links Toolbar."  You
can drag and drop the icon for a URL to the Links Toolbar, and can
even have folders on the Links Toolbar.  It's a real timesaver.

------------------------
   From: Stuart Levine <sltax@...>

> One of the problems that I perceive in lists of bookmarks is that they're too
> damned big.  After all, the purpose of a bookmark list is to winnow down the
> welter of the world wide web to the kernal of essential sites. . . .
>
>
> On 15 Dec 2001, at 18:12, netlawtools wrote:
>
> > 1. At the suggestion of Max Manshel, I have activated the "Bookmark"
> > feature of this group.  Any member can add the URL of a web site . . . .
---------------End of Original Message-----------------

	 I'm not sure if I'm thinking of the same type of
	 bookmark as Stuart and Max were -- but if we're just
	 talking about ordinary browser bookmarks here, then
	 please forgive me for pointing out that browsers
	 have a "file bookmark" (in Netscape) or "organize
	 bookmarks" (in IE) feature that enables establishment
	 of a hierarchical bookmark-filing system.

	 This seems to me greatly preferable to trying to
	 figure out in advance what will turn out to be the
	 "kernel" and what will be the "essential sites".


	 A complementary tool in each browser system is the
	 use of the "bookmark editing" function whereby all the
	 bookmarks that hasve nondescriptive titles (often
	 because the interesting material is at some obscure
	 back page within a main site) can be given descriptive
	 and relatively more-parallel titles.

	 Major categories are very readily established, to
	 form "folders".  Each of these can be subdivided into
	 subfolders.  Just as in Windows generally, the main
	 folders have adjacent little boxes with "+" or "-"
	 to control expanding or closing each mark level -- so
	 you can select the level at which you'd like to view
	 the whole structure, or the specific part of the tree
	 that's of interest at any given moment.


	 With three or at most four levels, a really monumental
	 number of bookmarks can be accommodated.

	 For instance with just, say, five main categories, and
	 just five subfolders within each of those, and going
	 down in the same way two more levels, you get 5^4 = 625
	 bookmarks.  With instead EIGHT categories at each level
	 and only THREE levels overall, you get 8^3 = 512 book-
	 marks.


	 One more important piece of advice:  back up your
	 whole bookmark file regularly to a different hard
	 drive, and preferably to a different machine on your
	 LAN or whatever you've got.  All that information
	 otherwise has a distressingly ephemeral character.


	                                         - p.

________________________________________________

Peter I. Lippman           A-L / Ashen & Lippman

P@...               PST 12:48:25 on 12/16/01

vox 818/249-5961       4385 Ocean View Boulevard
FAX 818/249-8384       Montrose California 91020
cel 818/601-8906                        U. S. A.
________________________________________________

             "A-L" is a service mark
    for the legal services of Ashen & Lippman

One of the problems that I perceive in lists of bookmarks is that they're too
damned big.  After all, the purpose of a bookmark list is to winnow down the
welter of the world wide web to the kernal of essential sites.  To that end,
let me suggest the following:

We (meaning the participants in this group) should begin a project that would,
as its finished product, have a list of essential bookmarks for the practicing
lawyer.  Some of those would be different for different practitioners. By way
of example, on my own list are the sites for the Maryland Courts of Appeals,
Maryland State Department of Assessments & Taxation, etc., that few people
outside of this state would view as essential.  Also, I have various tax
related sites that personal injury lawyers, for instance, would view with
distain.

I will be leaving town later in the week, so my time is now limited.  However,
by the first of the year, I will post my list as an HTML file with appropriate
links.



On 15 Dec 2001, at 18:12, netlawtools wrote:

> 1. At the suggestion of Max Manshel, I have activated the "Bookmark"
> feature of this group.  Any member can add the URL of a web site by
> selecting the Bookmarks menu choice at the group web site:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/network-lawyers/
>
> 2. The Poll feature is already active.  Any member can set up a Poll
> for voting by group subscribers.  It's pretty easy to do.
>
> 3. We are up to 57 members.  Not bad, given we are relatively new.
> Please pass the word to potential subscribers.
>
> Note that we can add members in bulk if they voluntarily want to
> subscribe.  For example, if you attend a meeting of the Technology
> section of your local bar association, you might describe the group
> and pass around the sign-up sheet to collect e-mail addresses.  I
> will be happy to enter such lists:
>
> Jerry Lawson
> 5406 Kinnerly Court
> Burke, VA 22015
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> network-lawyers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>


*************************************
Stuart Levine
Eastwick Rose Wright & Levine, P.A.
Baltimore, Maryland
Telephone:       410-685-6509
Telecopier:      410-685-6504
E-Fax:           208-275-1415
Cellphone/Pager: 410-802-5817
sltax@...
http://www.taxation-business.com
**************************************

1. At the suggestion of Max Manshel, I have activated the "Bookmark"
feature of this group.  Any member can add the URL of a web site by
selecting the Bookmarks menu choice at the group web site:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/network-lawyers/

2. The Poll feature is already active.  Any member can set up a Poll
for voting by group subscribers.  It's pretty easy to do.

3. We are up to 57 members.  Not bad, given we are relatively new.
Please pass the word to potential subscribers.

Note that we can add members in bulk if they voluntarily want to
subscribe.  For example, if you attend a meeting of the Technology
section of your local bar association, you might describe the group
and pass around the sign-up sheet to collect e-mail addresses.  I
will be happy to enter such lists:

Jerry Lawson
5406 Kinnerly Court
Burke, VA 22015

Among other pages missing from the Web archive are those belonging to people
who think that archiving their old Web pages is tantamount to copyright
infringement and/or stealing their image, sort of a right-of-publicity
claim. They protested via e-mail and the Web archive folks took their pages
off.
I think reasonable people could differ on the issue, but there were few
reasonable people in evidence.

Wendy R. Leibowitz
Legal Technology Columnist
Editor, E-Filing Report
1140 23rd St. NW
Washington, DC 20037
http://www.wendytech.com

Hi all,

I remember the discussion here about citations to materials on the Web
where the problem of lack of permenancy of Web docs and URLs was
discussed.   Perhaps that will be a problem of the past.  Here
is an archive of Web pages that goes back 6 years.

http://www.archive.org

I have each of the old pages that I looked for but they must have
missed some stuff :)

John

John DeBruyn, Denver CO USA

I find Yahoo very secure.  It so so secure that dummy members can not figure
how to get access.

I run three Yahoo sites and am a member of a dozen more.

For a big Deal, I think it would be terrific.  Documents can be stored,
calendar items, and many more features.

If you need any help setting it up give me a call or email.

On 11/27/01 9:26, "Wendy Leibowitz" <wendytech@...> saeth:

> My gut feeling is that yahoogroups is NOT sufficiently confidential for
> communication among lawyers about client business.  A low-cost solution
> would be to set up a Group list on your e-mail program. Most state ethics
> boards says that private e-mail communications do not violate the
> attorney-client privilege.

--
Strength does not come from physical capacity.
It comes from an indomitable will.
   --  Mahatma Gandhi

Law Office of Max Manshel
34 Collamore Terrace
West Orange, N.J. 07052-3919
[973] 243-2121

P.S. I hope it's OK to recommend a consultant on this list. Stuart, I
noticed you're in Maryland--a good person to know for collaborative spaces
and teamwork solutions is Sally R. Gonzalez. She's also a superb speaker. I
wrote about her when she was at Akin, Gump:

http://www.wendytech.com/articlescko.htm

She's now with Hildebrandt. Her "coordinates," as they say:

1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW
Suite 304 East
Washington, DC 20007
T: 202-471-4001
F: 202-471-4002
srgonzalez@...

Best of luck with your deal. Let us know what you end up doing. You'd think
more people would have figured out teamwork and online collaboration, but
it's still pioneering work in the legal profession.

Wendy R. Leibowitz
Legal Technology Columnist
Editor, E-Filing Report
1140 23rd St. NW
Washington, DC 20037
http://www.wendytech.com

My gut feeling is that yahoogroups is NOT sufficiently confidential for
communication among lawyers about client business.  A low-cost solution
would be to set up a Group list on your e-mail program. Most state ethics
boards says that private e-mail communications do not violate the
attorney-client privilege.

If it's truly a Big Deal, you might consider establishing a Web-based
virtual deal room, which have been popular among many lawyers. In addition
to the services offered by lawcommerce.com, an article about such options,
with lists of companies at the end, is online at:

http://www.smartbusinessmag.com/print_article/0,3668,a%253D16302,00.asp

Wendy R. Leibowitz
Legal Technology Columnist
Editor, E-Filing Report
1140 23rd St. NW
Washington, DC 20037
http://www.wendytech.com

Hi Stu:

Besides using an extranet provider, you could install one of the
zillion packages:

http://nexist.sourceforge.net/groupware.html

that are out there on your own computer.  This way you take the
security issues in house as part of an extranet that you or your
firm would run.

Let us know where you go and what you do to set yourself up.

Thanks,

John

On 26 Nov 2001, at 9:13, Stuart Levine wrote:

> One of my partners is about to embark on a fairly large transaction
> involving numerous parties and counsel.  It would be helpful to have
> available to all participants the various facilities offered on Yahoo
> Groups, such as listserve capability and the positing of files (i.e.,
> documents).
>
> Query:  Assuming that the transaction does not involve a publicly
> traded company, is Yahoo Groups significantly secure and protected to
> use for the above purposes?  If not, should we set up a website with
> some sort of proprietary software, including listserve software?  What
> types of software?
>
>
> *************************************
> Stuart Levine
> Eastwick Rose Wright & Levine, P.A.
> Baltimore, Maryland
> Telephone:       410-685-6509
> Telecopier:      410-685-6504
> Cellphone/Pager: 410-802-5817
> sltax@...
> www.taxation-business.com
> **************************************
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ---------------------~--> Universal Inkjet Refill Kit $29.95 Refill
> any ink cartridge for less! Includes black and color ink.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/1_Y1qC/MkNDAA/ySSFAA/dpFolB/TM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------~
> ->
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> network-lawyers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>


John DeBruyn, Denver CO USA <jdebruyn@...>

Stuart,

You might look into some of the on-line deal rooms that are available now as
an alternative to Yahoo or building your own.  LawCommerce,
www.lawcommerce.com, is supposed to have a good one.

Best of luck!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tim Myles
email: tmyles@...
415.336.8105 (v)
415.276.3228 (f)
www.PageBid.com
The Evolution of Litigation Support Purchasing
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

----- Original Message -----
From: <network-lawyers@yahoogroups.com>
To: <network-lawyers@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 8:40 AM
Subject: [netLs] Digest Number 9


> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> network-lawyers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> There is 1 message in this issue.
>
> Topics in this digest:
>
>       1. Big Deals
>            From: "Stuart Levine" <sltax@...>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 1
>    Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:13:37 -0500
>    From: "Stuart Levine" <sltax@...>
> Subject: Big Deals
>
> One of my partners is about to embark on a fairly large transaction
involving numerous parties and counsel.  It would be
> helpful to have available to all participants the various facilities
offered on Yahoo Groups, such as listserve capability
> and the positing of files (i.e., documents).
>
> Query:  Assuming that the transaction does not involve a publicly traded
company, is Yahoo Groups significantly secure and
> protected to use for the above purposes?  If not, should we set up a
website with some sort of proprietary software,
> including listserve software?  What types of software?
>
>
> *************************************
> Stuart Levine
> Eastwick Rose Wright & Levine, P.A.
> Baltimore, Maryland
> Telephone:       410-685-6509
> Telecopier:      410-685-6504
> Cellphone/Pager: 410-802-5817
> sltax@...
> www.taxation-business.com
> **************************************
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

One of my partners is about to embark on a fairly large transaction involving
numerous parties and counsel.  It would be
helpful to have available to all participants the various facilities offered on
Yahoo Groups, such as listserve capability
and the positing of files (i.e., documents).

Query:  Assuming that the transaction does not involve a publicly traded
company, is Yahoo Groups significantly secure and
protected to use for the above purposes?  If not, should we set up a website
with some sort of proprietary software,
including listserve software?  What types of software?


*************************************
Stuart Levine
Eastwick Rose Wright & Levine, P.A.
Baltimore, Maryland
Telephone:       410-685-6509
Telecopier:      410-685-6504
Cellphone/Pager: 410-802-5817
sltax@...
www.taxation-business.com
**************************************

Thanks, John.

I think that this type of tool is roughly where the WWW & Internet e-
mail were in 1994.

It's there, it works, but most people have not realized that these
tools have enormous potential value.

Jerry Lawson

This program looked useful for lawyers who are using the Internet to
push the boundaries of a conventional law practice:

*       February ABA Connection: Ethics Issues in Multijurisdictional
Practice
February 20, 2002, 1:00 p.m. Eastern.  FREE to ABA Members!
As the business world in which lawyers exist becomes more complex and
global, it has become common for lawyers to practice in
multijurisdictional
settings. Technically, however, multijurisdictional practice often
violates
professional conduct rules for lawyers, which allow lawyers to
practice only
in jurisdictions in which they are licensed. Many lawyers believe
that the
professional conduct rules no longer reflect the realities of
contemporary
practice in this regard, and there is movement to change the ethics
rules
accordingly. This program will look at the ethics issues lawyers face
when
they participate in cases that cross jurisdictional boundaries, how
practitioners seek to deal with these issues and proposals for
changing
professional conduct rules to accommodate MJP. Continuing Legal
Education
credit has been applied for in states that accept the teleconference
format.
To register, call the ABA at 1-800-285-2221 from 8:30 a.m. to 6:30
p.m.
Eastern weekdays, beginning Monday, January 21 or register online by
Friday,
February 15th at http://www.abanet.org/cle/connection.html If you are
unable
to participate in the live teleconference, the program is available,
at no
cost, for one month, on the ABA CLE website at
http://www.abanet.org/cle/connection.html. Tapes of the program are
available to ABA members for $50.00 two weeks after the program. To
order a
tape call the ABA Service Center at 1-800-285-2221.

Hi NetLs:

I would like to share an e-letter, that I think is very useful,  on
collaboration over the internet.  This publication highlights new
communication and collaboration tools as they become available,
collaboration success stories and other developments in what
Bernie DeKovien, it's publisher calls, co-working.

Perhaps we here in NetLs can find additional ways, beyond the
email discussion here, for lawyer-to-lawyer collaboration over the
internet--Co-Lawyering anyone :)  Take a look at the co-working
e-letter that follows and reply any suggestions for what we might do
as a group to experiment and familiarize ourselves with the use of
these new tools and collaboration techniques.

I have a couple of ideas but would like to hear from you first on
what you are doing and the ideas that you have for expanding our
discussion into these new formats for online interaction.

John, co-moderator, NetLs (Netowrk-Lawyers)

Here goes:the e-letter that I wanted you to see:

This week's issue: CoWorking Vol. 3, # 5:
http://www.technography.com/3/coworking305.html

In the first two stories we revisit a couple of "CoWorking Tools of
the Day" that have not only made it through the dot.com shakeout,
but have undergone some significant improvements.

Mind Manager

http://www.technography.com/3/coworking305.html#mindmanager

is a mind mapping tool with built-in collaboration features. eGems
is an information harvester

http://www.technography.com/3/coworking305.html#egems

of great value to anyone who does research on the web.

The last three stories all reflect on the growing acceptance of
collaboration technologies. "Social Capitol and Cyberpower"

http://www.technography.com/3/coworking305.html#cyberpower

gives us some hard statistics on the digital divide.
"Webconferencing Futures"

http://www.technography.com/3/coworking305.html#future

describes the growth of webconferencing. And "Collaboration and
the Bottom Line"

http://www.technography.com/3/coworking305.html#roi helps us

conceptualize the "real" returns for enterprise-wide collaboration.


Date sent:       13 Nov 2001 09:00:26 -0000
Subject:         CoWorking - Vol. 3, # 5
From:            "Bernard DeKoven" <bernie@...>

Forwarded by John DeBruyn, Denver CO USA
John DeBruyn, Denver CO USA <jdebruyn@...>

Yahoo beats French Court order seeking to limit access by
French citizens to Yahoo content.. Here is Professor  William R.
Slomanson with the details:

A federal judge in California ruled Wednesday that Yahoo's First
Amendment rights trump a French court order that seeks to force
the internet portal to prevent French users from viewing Nazi
memorabilia.

The judge stressed it was not a question of French sovereignty or
the moral acceptability of promoting Nazism, but rather whether the
French order, which transcends American borders, is consistent
with U.S. law.

http://www.law.com/cgi-bin/nwlink.cgi?ACG=ZZZ5IEWWRTC

PS I have an edited, translated version of the French Yahoo
Judgment on my Course Web Page at

http://home.att.net/~slomansonb/YahooJmt.html

Thanks to Bill Slomanson for circulating the news and transalating
the French judgment against Yahoo that the US Court would not
enforce.

John
John DeBruyn, Denver CO USA <jdebruyn@...>

1. I thought the draft welcome message looked OK.

2. The present lead article at LLRX.com is "Law Firm Extranets:
Baking a New Pie," based on my presentation at NY LegalTech in
September.  I've received a number of compliments and requests to
reprint the article.  I anticipate using this article for other
purposes in the future, so I'd appreciate other feedback, positive or
negative.

Jerry Lawson
http://www.netlawtools.com

Hi all, Please let me have your suggestions on the welcome
message. A tentative revision for your comment follows:

Welcome to the Network-Lawyers group at Yahoo! Network-
Lawyers is where lawyers, law professors, law librarians and other
legal professionals exchange information on the internet,
technology and related law topics.

Please send a message to the co-moderators at:

network-lawyers-owner@yahoogroups.com

if you would to introduce yourself and let us know your area of
specialization and other interests. We need to know what the
interests of the subscribers are in our efforts to increase the
usefulness and value of the group to its members.

We are a cooperative effort and encourage all of the members to do
more (you decide how much for yourself) than just read what
comes through. We are always looking for volunteers to join us as
co-moderators and active contributors in other capacities to the
development and growth of the group.

If you can help us behind the scenes as a co-moderator, trouble
shooter, publicist, information resource or  kibitzer.  Send us an
email at the network-lawyers-owner address above or send it to me
at jdebruyn@... and I will pass your note on to the
others.  I am sure we can use another good man (or woman :)

We also encourage you to pitch in by offering your suggestions
and comments on how to increase the value of Network-Lawyers to
its subscribers and ways to increase our numbers so that we reach
more lawyers and other legal professionals.

Thanks for joining Network-Lawyers and we are looking forward to
your participation,

John

John DeBruyn, Denver CO USA jdebruyn@...

P.S. I just revised this note and have not yet taken a look at
the format that it will be delivered to new subscribers.  If
you have a moment, please forward a copy to me. J.


John DeBruyn, Denver CO USA <jdebruyn@...>

I'm forwarding this message from the Berkman Center for Internet &
Society at Harvard Law School that I thought might be of interest:

========================
To kick off 2002, we'll be bringing our program on Internet-related
legal issues and controversies to Singapore on January 2 - 4.
Building on the success of the inaugural Internet Law Program
("ILAW") in Cambridge this past July, our own Professor Terry Fisher
will lead law profs Larry Lessig (Stanford), Charles Nesson (Harvard)
and Yochai Benkler (NYU) in a series of lectures and seminars on such
topics as Internet security, challenges to copyright and emerging
business models, cyber crime and jurisdiction, and speech and privacy
online.  The program is intended for a broad audience including
lawyers, entrepreneurs, journalists, and policymakers from
government and not-for-profits.  See
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw> for details, including
availability of CLE credit and the program's online component.

We'd appreciate it if you'd help us get the word out about our
program by forwarding this message to anyone you think might be
interested in participating, and especially to those in Asia.

We'd be delighted for you to join us. Thank you.

Eric F. Saltzman
Executive Director, Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Harvard Law School
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu>

There is an interesting article on Internet research at:

http://www.infotoday.com/searcher/oct01/price.htm

I'll be providing some comments on Price's new book about "The
Invisible Web" as soon as I've had a chance to check it out.

Jerry Lawson

P.S. I've been promoting this group via my web page & my e-mail
newsletter & I encourage others to do the same.

Just wanted to say "hi" to this group, and to thank those who set it
up. I am the editor of a newsletter dedicated to electronic filing, and
just posted a list of all the courts in the US who are using e-filing
in any form. Please feel free to check it out on my Web site, at
http://www.wendytech.com, and to e-mail me at wendytech@...
if you'd like to write an article on e-filing--pro, con, or skeptic.

On another front, I'm always interested in people who are doing
interesting, innovative things with technology in their legal
practices, particularly Web-based technologies. Is anyone really USING
"groupware" the way it was intended, or are lawyers all sole
practitioners are heart?

Best wishes,
Wendy Leibowitz
Editor, E-Filing Report
http://www.wendytech.com

To Lew for setting the example.

To the rest of you for taking up the torch.

I look forward to this.

John Kennedy

<FontFamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger>Hi Kathy:


The guidelines for the Net-Lawyers discussion contained a
standing permission to reproduce them in their entirety which is
what I did by putting his guidelines up for discussion at:




http://groups.yahoo.com/group/network-lawyers/files/


I am inclined to adapt them to the use of Yahoo Groups via the
participants entering and managing their subscriptions via an email
account.  Almost all of the 26 or so individuals who have sigend
up for Network-Lawyers have done so with their Yahoo account.


I think this will go a long ways to keep the moderators job in
dealing with subscribers (who forget the email commands to
unsubscribe and or modify their subscribtions) to a minimum.


Thanks for pitching in,


John



On 9 Oct 2001, at 13:41, Kathy Biehl wrote:


<FontFamily><param>Courier New</param><smaller>Wow, you are moving quickly! One
protocol/house-keeping
question -- do we
have Lew's permission to post these?

Kathy
<FontFamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger>


<nofill>
John DeBruyn, Denver CO USA <jdebruyn@...>

Wow, you are moving quickly! One protocol/house-keeping question -- do we
have Lew's permission to post these?

Kathy

Hi Kathy:

With this note from you I am circulating the guidelines adopted by
Lew for Net-Lawyers (which you just forwarded to me) on to the
other members of the Network-Lawyers discussion where we hope
to carry on Lew's good work.

The guidelines for the discussion are posted in the Network-
Lawyers file library at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/network-lawyers/files/

I would appreciate comments on the guidelines from those of you
who are willing to pitch in and help get Network-Lawyers up and
running.  You can post either to the group via

Network-Lawyers@yahoogroups.com

or just to the small group of individuals who have volunteered (and
we are looking for more volunteers to help moderate and guide the
Network-Lawyers discussion and collaboration) by sending your
email response to:

Network-Lawyers-Owner@yahoogroups.com

Thanks to all of you who have pitched in as well as those of you
who are going along for the ride :)

John

P.S.  We can also use your ideas on how else we might promote
the continuation of the Net-Lawyers discussion via Network-
Lawyers.  J.
.




On 8 Oct 2001, at 18:55, Kathy Biehl wrote:

> John --
>
> I downloaded the guidelines from the Net-Lawyers site. Please see the
> attached!
>
> Kathy
>
> At 04:04 PM 10/8/01 -0600, you wrote:
> >Hi Kathy:
> >
> >I had saved a copy of Lew's guidelines but changed computers and
> >cannot lay my hands on it.  They would make a great beginning point
> >for us.  Do you have a copy.  If not, and perhaps we can get some
> >publicity from, perhaps you could inquire of the Net-Lawyers group
> >and let them know what we are up to :)
> >
> >Again thanks for pitching in,
> >
> >John
> >
> >On 8 Oct 2001, at 9:34, Kathy Biehl wrote:
> >
> >> Okay, I'll bite . A a couple of questions:
> >>
> >> Will we set up and post guidelines for the moderators to use in
> >> evaluating posts? (I'm assuming no spam, no attacks on other list
> >> members) And how do you foresee rotating the moderator's
> >> responsibility?
> >>
> >> Kathy
> >>
> >>
> >> At 04:10 PM 10/6/01 -0600, you wrote:
> >> >Hi Kathy:
> >> >
> >> >This is an adventure in collaboration.  I have tagged you to join
> >> >us on the moderator team.  Check out the engine room and let me
> >> >know what you think.
> >> >
> >> >Thanks,
> >> >
> >> >John
> >> >
> >> >On 5 Oct 2001, at 9:59, Kathy Biehl wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Count me in. Thanks for setting this up.
> >> >>
> >> >> Kathy Biehl
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> www.fortunaworks.com
> >> >> Home of The Lawyer's Guide to Internet Research
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >John DeBruyn, Denver CO USA <jdebruyn@...>
> >> >
> >> www.fortunaworks.com
> >> Home of The Lawyer's Guide to Internet Research
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >John DeBruyn, Denver CO USA <jdebruyn@...>
> >


John DeBruyn, Denver CO USA <jdebruyn@...>

Hi Steve:

The more the merrier--you too have moderator stripes on your sleve.
(Actually its a little star--take a look in the engine room and tell
me what you think.

With you, Jerry and a few others pitching I think we can
make a go of preview "moderation" with about a half-dozen
moderators.  This will keep it from becoming burdensome while
permitting more frequent review so that messages can be relayed
onto the whole gang without much delay.

As you suggest it looks like the Yahoo Groups moderation features
should let that work for us. I have changed so the setting so that
we can experiment with a collectively moderated discussion.

Let's work with the idea while we gather more in put on the best
way to go..

Again, thanks for pitching in with us,

John


On 6 Oct 2001, at 13:21, simparl@... wrote:


<FontFamily><param>Courier New</param><smaller>In a message dated 10/6/2001
11:53:44 AM Central
Daylight Time, 
jdebruyn@... writes:


> Hi Stu:
> 
> I should have know you were on board with doing
something 
> along the lines of
<underline><color><param>0000,0000,FF00</param>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/net\
work-lawyers.</underline></color> 
> Here are m answers to your thoughtful questions about
how we 
> might arry on what Lew started and kept going all
these years:
> 
> > John--What do you have in mind?
> 
> My mind is set on a collective, collaboration,
consensus,
> coop kind of arrangement that would be more of a
community than 
> only emails going back and forth--but certainly just
carrying on
> the discussion, more or less, as it was in Net-
Lawyers would
> also be fine. I would like to see this as something
other than
> a strong leader with a lot of happy followers.
> 

Hello.

Yahoo Groups allows chat and some limited sharing of
files, too.


> > 1. Is this to be a "moderated" group (like Lew had
it wherein he
> > vetted every submission) or an "open discussion"
group (ala LNET-LLC)?
> 
> The two ends of the spectrum how to "moderate" a
discussion 
> group where the emails are circulated via a list
server like Net-
> Lawyers is using at Lsoft. They are: (1) review
every message 
> before it goes out to the group--this was very
burdensome and Lew 
> was a prince to handle that job; and (2) moderate by
requiring 
> members to be subscribed to the list, reminding those
who 
> encroach on the rights of the other members by
posting messages 
> that are off topic, personal, spam, flames et
cetera. Those
> who break the rules big time can be "banned." 
> 
> However we go on moderation, II would like to see the
group have 
> at least five or six moderators so the burdens can be
spread round.
> 

I have used both (1) and (2). It is a difficult
balance sometimes, but I 
usually find discussion groups that have some
moderation to be of a 
consistently higher quality than those that do not.
Nevertheless, that is a 
matter of preference. 

My vote is for moderated. I have left discussion
groups that had no 
moderation, because I found the content of the
discussions usually 
degenerated to a very poor level. Just my 2 cents.

.. 

> > 2. Is it going to be "Net Lawyers" or "Tech
Lawyers," a somewhat
> > broader category.
> 
> As I see it this depends on consensus of those who
show.
> 

My vote is for Net Lawyers. 


> > 3. By invitation only?
> 
> Certainly we should get invitations out if we are
going to roll with 
> this. Advance screening takes time and because of
the "red tape"
> constrains the size of the group which needs to be
large to support 
> a syndergistic level of message traffic. 
> 

What kind of advance screening? Of prospective members
of the community or 
of messages?

Cheers,

Steven D. Imparl, JD
Chicago, Illinois USA
<underline><color><param>0000,0000,FF00</param>http://www.imparl.net</underline>\
</color>
Author, Internet Law: The Complete Guide


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

<FontFamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger>


<nofill>
John DeBruyn, Denver CO USA <jdebruyn@...>

In a message dated 10/6/2001 11:53:44 AM Central Daylight Time,
jdebruyn@... writes:


> Hi Stu:
>
> I should have know you were on board with doing something
> along the lines of http://groups.yahoo.com/group/network-lawyers.
> Here are m answers to your thoughtful questions about how we
> might arry on what Lew started and kept going all these years:
>
> > John--What do you have in mind?
>
> My mind is set on a collective, collaboration, consensus,
> coop kind of arrangement that would be more of a community than
> only emails going back and forth--but certainly just carrying on
> the discussion, more or less, as it was in Net-Lawyers would
> also be fine.  I would like to see this as something other than
> a strong leader with a lot of happy followers.
>

Hello.

Yahoo Groups allows chat and some limited sharing of files, too.


> > 1.  Is this to be a "moderated" group (like Lew had it wherein he
> > vetted every submission) or an "open discussion" group (ala LNET-LLC)?
>
> The two ends of the spectrum how to "moderate" a discussion
> group where the emails are circulated via a list server like Net-
> Lawyers is using at Lsoft.  They are: (1) review every message
> before it goes out to the group--this was very burdensome and Lew
> was a prince to handle that job; and (2) moderate by requiring
> members to be subscribed to the list, reminding those who
> encroach on the rights of the other members by posting messages
> that are off topic, personal, spam, flames et cetera.  Those
> who break the rules big time can be "banned."
>
> However we go on moderation, II would like to see the group have
> at least five or six moderators so the burdens can be spread round.
>

I have used both (1) and (2).  It is a difficult balance sometimes, but I
usually find discussion groups that have some moderation to be of a
consistently higher quality than those that do not.  Nevertheless, that is a
matter of preference.

My vote is for moderated.  I have left discussion groups that had no
moderation, because I found the content of the discussions usually
degenerated to a very poor level.  Just my 2 cents.

.

> > 2.  Is it going to be "Net Lawyers" or "Tech Lawyers," a somewhat
> > broader category.
>
> As I see it this depends on consensus of those who show.
>

My vote is for Net Lawyers.


> > 3.  By invitation only?
>
> Certainly we should get invitations out if we are going to roll with
> this.  Advance screening takes time and because of the "red tape"
> constrains the size of the group which needs to be large to support
> a syndergistic level of message traffic.
>

What kind of advance screening?  Of prospective members of the community or
of messages?

Cheers,

Steven D. Imparl, JD
Chicago, Illinois USA
http://www.imparl.net
Author, Internet Law: The Complete Guide


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Stu:

I should have know you were on board with doing something
along the lines of http://groups.yahoo.com/group/network-lawyers.
Here are m answers to your thoughtful questions about how we
might arry on what Lew started and kept going all these years:

> John--What do you have in mind?

My mind is set on a collective, collaboration, consensus,
coop kind of arrangement that would be more of a community than
only emails going back and forth--but certainly just carrying on
the discussion, more or less, as it was in Net-Lawyers would
also be fine.  I would like to see this as something other than
a strong leader with a lot of happy followers.

> 1.  Is this to be a "moderated" group (like Lew had it wherein he
> vetted every submission) or an "open discussion" group (ala LNET-LLC)?

The two ends of the spectrum how to "moderate" a discussion
group where the emails are circulated via a list server like Net-
Lawyers is using at Lsoft.  They are: (1) review every message
before it goes out to the group--this was very burdensome and Lew
was a prince to handle that job; and (2) moderate by requiring
members to be subscribed to the list, reminding those who
encroach on the rights of the other members by posting messages
that are off topic, personal, spam, flames et cetera.  Those
who break the rules big time can be "banned."

However we go on moderation, II would like to see the group have
at least five or six moderators so the burdens can be spread round.
  .
> 2.  Is it going to be "Net Lawyers" or "Tech Lawyers," a somewhat
> broader category.

As I see it this depends on consensus of those who show.

> 3.  By invitation only?

Certainly we should get invitations out if we are going to roll with
this.  Advance screening takes time and because of the "red tape"
constrains the size of the group which needs to be large to support
a syndergistic level of message traffic.

John DeBruyn

P.S.  Since I know you know how Yahoo Group discussions work
and wouldn't mind pitching in I just sewed a moderator star on to
your jacket.  J

>
> *************************************
> Stuart Levine
> Eastwick Rose Wright & Levine, P.A.
> Baltimore, Maryland
> Telephone:       410-685-6509
> Telecopier:      410-685-6504
> Cellphone/Pager: 410-802-5817
> sltax@...
> **************************************
>
>


John DeBruyn, Denver CO USA <jdebruyn@...>

Hi Lew, Good job well done. You hung in there with us through thick
and thin--Majordomo days and all. Thank you for being the pioneer with
the vision to create and maintain the Net-Lawyers group which has
been so helpful to so many of us.

Perhaps those who have hung in here from the good old days and
those who have joined more recently would want to continue your
good work and see where your vision might go from here.

To that end, I set up a place to celebrate this occassion and see
whether this party should be an Irsih-style wake or a continuination
of the your wonderful idea: Net-Lawyers.

The temporary gathering place for the celebration and perhaps
carrying on is:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/network-lawyers

I guess what I am proposing is that we Net-Lawyer enthusiasts
may want to continue the open community of lawyers online that
you created as collective enterprise managed on a collaborative
basis. If this goes any where, I would like to see aeveral co-
moderators and others taking on various supportive rolls to carry
your idea and vision forward.

I would like to see the group (if something is to continue here
evolve into partnerhsip with a half dozen or so "general parnters" so
that the burden does not fall on the shoulders of one person. But
that is just my thoughts and I am looking forward to what you and
the others may have to say here.

Again your vision and yoeman's efforts to carry the ball all these
years is very much appreciated,

John

John DeBruyn, Denver CO USA jdebruyn@...

Jerry, you're on.  I'm moving over to make room.  Much
appreciated.  John, John DeBruyn Denver CO USA

>I'm ready to help carry on the idea of a Net-lawyer
>type list, which  I believe still has great value.
>Let me know how I can help.

Jerry Lawson


John DeBruyn, Denver CO USA <jdebruyn@...>