Quote Originally Posted by AlanJReiss View Post
Jeff has this massive ambiguity going with the SC site. Its, by ICANN standards, his personal site. He wants to call it the SC site and tries to do that by asking the SC for money and getting the SC to agree to its content. So thats an ambiguity.
While I don't see that it matters whether it's my "personal site" or not, if it is (in my opinion, it's not in any practical or meaningful way), it only is in the most technical of senses. What's more important: who registered the site, or who decides on its content? I see no ambiguity, massive or minute.

Quote Originally Posted by AlanJReiss View Post
Then what happens if a new SC member doesn't agree to this concept and won't pay? Then by the operational definition here it would no longer the be SC site because it would no longer be all of them and all of them are no longer paying. This is a problem and this is why I brought this angle up.
I've already addressed the question of members who might choose to disassociate themselves from the WSC site. I'm not sure such a disassociation means that it's no longer the WSC site, in the same way that a non-unanimous decision on any topic doesn't mean that it's not a WSC decision.

Quote Originally Posted by AlanJReiss View Post
If it is a SC site then its a governmental site and its clearly under the ruling of Anderson. But Jeff said originally that he wanted it to be a private site so that he could advocate for overrides...
Not quite. One reason (not the reason) that the Committee (not Jeff) opted for a privately-funded site was to avoid potential problems related to ballot question information/advocacy.

Quote Originally Posted by AlanJReiss View Post
now he's changed his mind to it being a public site and he's only doing this for convenience.
Completely untrue. The site remains privately-funded. What I said that's new is that none of the uses of the privately-funded WSC site appear to violate any of the OCPF prohibitions, most notably the sending of unsolicited communications regarding ballot questions.

Quote Originally Posted by AlanJReiss View Post
This is a problem because the law has not changed on this. But Jeff has done quite a rapid metamorphosis on this position.
I don't know whether it was a rapid metamorphosis or not, but it is true that I've learned more about the details of the OCPF rulings. That learning, however, has not resulted in any substantive changes to the WSC site and its uses other than the addition of several potentially unnecessary disclaimers.

Quote Originally Posted by AlanJReiss View Post
If it is a private site then being connected to the town and advocating and masquerading as the actual WSC site is a problem.
In what way does the WSC site "masquerade" as the "actual" WSC site, whatever that even means? The WSC site *is* the WSC site, period. There is no other.

Quote Originally Posted by AlanJReiss View Post
If it is a private site then being connected to the town and collecting any number of emails including a link through to enews is a problem.
On what do you base that assertion? Per an email from the OCPF, the link from the WPS site to the WSC site is allowable.

Quote Originally Posted by AlanJReiss View Post
If status quo stays and enews is connected to WSC.org then I think that this is wrong and equal time should be given to WVN as a hyperlink.
No law that I'm aware of prohibits the WSC site from linking to any site that it chooses.

Quote Originally Posted by AlanJReiss View Post
If status quo stays then this leaves the door open for other ballot question groups to link right to the towns web launching page which also links to WSC.org... keep that in mind. This open pandoras box on an equal access theory.
Not according to the email that the OCPF sent to me. That said, if equal access to ballot question committees was deemed appropriate, I would personally prefer that equal access rather than removing all links. Information wants to be free!

Quote Originally Posted by AlanJReiss View Post
Jeff, I have to say that you really went out of your way to create a convoluted set of circumstances.
The School Committee (again, not Jeff) has created nothing convoluted. The publicly-funded WPS site legally links to the privately-funded legal WSC site that the School Committee uses (perhaps in an overly-cautious manner) to do its job: advocate for the Wayland Public Schools. That's pretty straightforward.

Alan, you and others keep repeating the same two basic assertions without any logical or legal support: (1) the WSC site is "wrong" (but in what way--no one will say?) and (2) the WPS link is "wrong" (but in what way--again, no one will say?). No one has suggested that it is inappropriate for the WSC to advocate for the schools, and no one with any legal authority has found anything improper about the WSC site or the WPS link. If such an authority does reach such a conclusion, my sense is that the WSC will act quickly to conform.