![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/1bad9c366ca6cddbe78ed016298c1584.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On 30-Nov-2006, at 05:04, Matthew Poole wrote:
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Jonathan Brewer wrote:
The request for removal has supposedly come through from BCL legal department. Although I don't agree with what is going on, they have asked us to ensure removal of the posts from the public eye - and I am trying to do this to the extent of my abilities.
Well, I guess if they want to serve a court order on the University of Waikato, they might be able to get it removed. Maybe.
In a similar situation on the NANOG list not so long ago, Merit decided to err on the side of not incurring legal fees, and removed an article from their archive immediately upon request from the individual concerned, without even waiting for a letter from a lawyer. This was controversial. The NANOG steering committee decided that the operation of Merit's archive was properly Merit's business, but that there was some value in making it easy for other people to operate independent archives, in the interests of diversity in archive administration policy. Merit also agreed to annotate their archive so that it was easy to spot where revisionist changes had been made. If people are concerned about the ongoing availability of an accurate NZNOG archive, a proactive response is to set up a private archive. I seem to remember doing this once before, on www.nznog.org which I hosted outside NZ (although that archive has since disappeared, since it suffered some small sickness which I didn't feel like fixing at the time, and we wanted to use www.nznog.org as a conference URL anyway). Joe