<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div><br><br>Am 17/12/2012 um 6:37 PM schrieb Noel Butler <<a href="mailto:noel.butler@ausics.net">noel.butler@ausics.net</a>>:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="GtkHTML/3.28.3">
removed council@ from CC as it would likely bounce, but...<br>
<br>
On Mon, 2012-12-17 at 14:30 +1100, James Polley wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
But back at my desktop on a bigger screen again, I notice that the following section is relevant too:
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote>
(3) The portion of the register of members comprising names of members and dates on which the person became a member must be open for inspection, free of charge, by any member of the association within five business days of receipt of a written request by the public officer or secretary of the association.
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote>
(4) A member of the association may obtain a copy of any part of the register on payment of a fee of not more than $1 for each page copied or printed, or without fee for an electronic copy of the information.
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
So it seems that your request for email addresses would actually be valid under point 7(4)
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
I'm still uncomfortable with the privacy aspects of this though.
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
It seems section 7 needs a complete overhaul, it appears to have very little regard for privacy.<br>
p3 I don't think is much of an issue as there is no contact or pivate information<br>
p4 should be removed entirely, because<br>
p5 should be implied.<br>
<br>
p6a should be amended to remove the bit of newsletters, if I didn't ask for it, then its a breach under the Spam Act, yes a breach because it would be an individual member sending it, not L.A., and if it was a L.A endorsed newsletter, then, it would be sent by official means which would not require a member seeking access to a members database to do it.<br>
<br>
I think the Federal Privacy Commissioner would have some serious concerns about some or a lot of S7.<br>
<br>
Cheers<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Noel, would you mind working on an amendment (or maybe a couple) to effect these changes? We'd need to have the text locked down 21 days before the AGM in order to have this on the agenda as a special resolution<div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<br>
</div></blockquote></div></body></html>