Toronto, Ontario
‑‑- Upon resuming on Friday, November 13, 1998
at 9:45 a.m.
RESUMED: BERNARD KLATT
CROSS-EXAMINATION, Continued
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Good morning, Mr. Klatt.
A. Good morning.
Q. Before we get back to the topics we were dealing with yesterday, I wonder if I could ask you about a couple of other groups or organizations that I didn't have a chance to discuss with you yesterday.
Do you know what NERN is?
A. I have seen the initials, but I have forgotten it.
Q. It might help if you I gave you the group to which it refers: National Research and Education Network. Does that help?
A. Not particularly.
Q. If I added that Vice-President Al Gore was the Chair of this group, does that help?
A. It sounds like a U.S. project.
Q. Isn't that a U.S. project to try to coordinate the information highway?
A. I am not sure how active they are.
Q. Do you know that that is the group, or you don't know whether that is the group?
A. No, I am not sure what the mandate or the charter or ambition might be.
Q. What about cisco?
A. It is a company that makes Internet router products.
Q. Are they a small company or a big company?
A. In the router business they could be considered the largest.
Q. Do they know what they are talking about when they discuss Internet matters?
A. In their area of expertise, yes.
Q. Would you define their area of expertise.
A. They do have recognized expertise in routing.
Q. If they talk about routers, you consider them to be authoritative.
A. Based on their product.
Q. If they talk about matters outside of routers that they themselves produce, are they authoritative?
A. It would probably depend on the context and the subject.
Q. Would you pay any attention to how they use words?
A. It would certainly be interesting to look at.
Q. But you wouldn't take it as necessarily definitive.
A. As I mentioned, on their products they would be the definitive source in respect of that.
Q. Is that the same standard that you apply for the authoritative nature of all companies or just cisco? Do you restrict the authoritative nature of what a company says to the products that it produces?
A. I would grant that the producer of the product would probably know more about it than perhaps a competitor or other entity.
Q. But that's about it. For instance, Microsoft. If you were looking at how they use words, what limit, if any, would you put on the authoritative nature of their discussions of words?
A. I am not quite sure I follow.
Q. I was trying to see what you believe to be the authoritative ‑‑ I asked you whether cisco was authoritative when it comes to the way it uses words, and I think what you told me ‑‑ and, if I am wrong, please do correct me. I think what you told me was that cisco is authoritative when it talks about its own router products. When it ventures beyond that narrow area, it would be interesting to see what they say, but not necessarily authoritative. Is that right?
A. They have expertise relating to Internet router issues. They participate on a variety of technical committees, so they do have people on staff who are knowledgeable.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Is that what you said?
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Did you say that they were authoritative insofar as they talk about their own router products but, if they venture beyond their own router products, it is interesting to see what they say but not necessarily authoritative?
A. If they are commenting on something that is substantially out of their field of expertise, their authoritativeness would be considerably less.
Q. For instance, the way they use the word "telecommunications" ‑‑ authoritative or not authoritative?
A. They are not considered a telecommunications company.
Q. So they wouldn't know about that.
A. I wouldn't say they wouldn't necessarily know about it, but I don't ‑‑
Q. But you wouldn't trust them.
A. It would be interesting to see what they say in the context.
Q. That is why I wanted to know also with regard to Microsoft. Are they a telecommunications company?
A. They are not considered as such.
Q. So what they say about telecommunications would probably be beyond their area of expertise as well.
A. They do involve themselves in telecommunications protocols and products, so they definitely have expertise and understanding of matters that relate to that area.
Q. As opposed to cisco which never does any of those things, never involves itself in telecommunications issues.
A. I wouldn't characterize that as accurate.
Q. So what is the difference? Microsoft has an interaction with the telecommunications industry and so does cisco. Why is Microsoft reliable and cisco isn't?
A. I don't think I indicated any specific area.
Q. I am sorry...? The way they use the word "telecommunications", for example ‑‑ why is one authoritative and the other one isn't?
A. I didn't say one was or wasn't.
Q. I thought you did, sorry. I am just trying to understand the criteria that you are using to decide that one organization is authoritative in the area of how words are used and another might be less authoritative.
Specifically, you started to discuss cisco and you were first restricting it to their own products, and then we talked about Microsoft and you indicated to me that maybe their expertise was greater because they had interface with the telecommunications industry.
So I can apply the same standard to Microsoft as I apply to cisco. They are authoritative certainly in the area of the products they develop and, when you get outside the products they develop, it's interesting.
A. In terms of word usage, if we have a preponderance of dictionary definitions that define a word in a particular way, I am sure we can find novel or unique interpretations elsewhere. If the majority of reference material refers to and defines a word in a particular way, I would submit that that is the most accurate way of using that particular word.
Q. That is not really what I asked you. I asked you whether things are authoritative or not.
MR. CHRISTIE: It was a long convoluted question involving meaning. I think, with the greatest respect, the answer was responsive.
MR. FREIMAN: I guess Mr. Christie is not intending to re-examine.
MR. CHRISTIE: I beg your pardon?
MR. FREIMAN: I guess you are not intending to re-examine since you find it necessary to bring out all the points you would like to bring out in re-examination by ‑‑
THE CHAIRPERSON: Remarks go through the Chair.
Witness, I would ask you to direct your mind to the question and direct your answer in response to the question.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Can we try one more time? I want to understand what you consider to be authoritative in the writings and pronouncements of a company such as cisco when they are talking about definitions such as "telecommunications" or any other definition of words that are used in the telecommunications industry, and compare and contrast that with Microsoft.
A. For example, I would give cisco's understanding and definition of router terminology and processes and techniques a higher rate than that of Microsoft. In the area of software development or Internet applications, probably Microsoft would have the higher degree of expertise than cisco would.
Q. Let's see how this plays itself out in a minute.
THE REGISTRAR: Excuse me, the Court Reporter is having a hard time hearing with this equipment running. Could you try to raise your voice, please.
MR. CHRISTIE: Could we close off the equipment, perhaps?
THE CHAIRPERSON: Why is this on?
MR. FREIMAN: I am hoping to have Mr. Klatt's co-operation in order to authenticate some documents and to demonstrate some of the propositions that he has.
THE CHAIRPERSON: What are we doing, warming it up?
MR. FREIMAN: If we turn it off, we may not be able to turn it back on.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Klatt, you see what the problem is. Please raise your voice about as loud as I am talking.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Are you familiar with an organization called International Telecommunications Union?
A. ITU?
Q. Yes.
A. I know of it.
Q. What is it?
A. It is an international standards body, I believe, based in Switzerland.
Q. Yes, and what does it do?
A. It coordinates standards-making functions between various countries in the world.
Q. And you understand that it is an agency of the United Nations?
A. That is my understanding.
Q. You understand that it deals with technical standards. Do you also understand that it compiles statistics?
A. That could very well be one of the functions that they perform.
Q. Does it also deal with pricing policies internationally?
A. I am not aware of that.
Q. Do you know when the ITU was established?
A. No, I don't.
Q. If I suggest to you that it was established in the 19th century and, indeed, before the invention of the telephone and the telegraph, do you have any comment on that?
A. Like I mentioned previously, I am not a historian.
MR. CHRISTIE: If my friend is giving evidence on the subject, I object. Unless there is some witness to verify his statements, he is, in my submission, leading the cross-examination in a direction where he is giving evidence, not the witness.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I think it is obvious that the witness doesn't know the answer.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Do you understand that the ITU is involved in developing global standards for Internet telephony?
A. They may be involved in trying to coordinate standards and making efforts in that area.
Q. Is the ITU an authoritative body in discussing telecommunications matters?
A. The organization itself?
Q. Yes. When the organization publishes a document, is that authoritative?
A. My understanding is that they publish document describing agreed-upon standards that have been developed, and other product vendors or individuals who wish to implement products or software can choose to produce their products in accordance with it or extend it or a subset.
Q. I am not suggesting that their standards are mandatory, if that is what you are suggesting. I am asking whether, when the ITU issues a statement, that is authoritative on the subject matter that is covered, if it deals with telecommunications.
A. I am not sure in what area. That seems like a pretty broad ‑‑
THE CHAIRPERSON: In any area. You are familiar with the body. You have heard of the ITU as some sort of agency of the United Nations. Is what comes out of the ITU, you are being asked, in some way authoritative?
THE WITNESS: Certainly.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Next question.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. I think yesterday I ended by ‑‑ before we get there, maybe we will see if this equipment actually works.
You will remember that we were looking at a document called "PSINet: The Difference is Our Network."
A. Right.
Q. I think you said you accepted that this was an authentic document.
A. I believe it has been on one of the PSI servers.
Q. One of the reasons that I put this up was so that, if you had any doubt as to the authenticity of any document that I present to you that purports to come from the Internet, we have a facility available to check it and actually to go to that site and to compare the document I am presenting to you with what today, at this moment and this second, is on the Net. I take it that you don't insist that we do that with this; you are willing to accept its authenticity. Correct?
A. I am sure it represents the position of whoever created it.
Q. One of the documents that Mr. Christie, through you, put into evidence was another document by the same organization, PSINet.
A. I believe so.
Q. And it was put into evidence in order to support the proposition that the Internet backbone providers, such as PSINet, do not own the underlying circuits over which the Internet backbone passes. They don't own the physical Internet backbone ‑‑ I am sorry, that is entirely wrong. Let me say it again.
This document was put into evidence ‑‑
MR. CHRISTIE: Let me object.
What this document was put into evidence for is not for this witness to say; it is for us to argue. I may have made the decision on why the document was put into evidence. Why should this witness answer that question?
MR. FREIMAN: Fine.
Q. Your view was, and one of the propositions that you hoped to illustrate with the PSINet document, was that Mr. Angus was wrong when he said that the Internet backbone was owned by telephone companies. As I understood it, your evidence was that PSINet is an Internet backbone company and it owns the infrastructure, it owns the portion of the Internet backbone that it provides. Was I right in that summary of your evidence when you discussed this matter with Mr. Christie, specifically PSINet?
A. I think what we were trying to illustrate was that the component that PSINet owns and operates is not a telephone company.
Q. We looked yesterday at page 2. On page 2 we have the following statement:
"PSINet relies on many Inter-Exchange Carriers (IXC) to provide TD point-to-point T1 and T3 circuits for this network."
I think we agreed yesterday that IXC or interexchange carrier is typically a long distance company and that TDM point-to-point T1 and T3 circuits are digital circuits. Correct?
A. Digital leased line circuit, yes.
Q. And they were originally developed for voice communication. Correct?
A. I don't know what the original motivation for their development was.
Q. They are used for telephone communication, and their first use was for telephone communication.
A. That is entirely likely.
Q. In fact, their capacity is often described in terms of voice channels, is it not?
A. It can be.
MR. CHRISTIE: Excuse me, for the record, is that referring to T1 and T3 circuits both, when you said "they?"
MR. FREIMAN: Yes.
Q. In fact, what PSINet does own is revealed in the third sentence in that paragraph:
"Additionally, PSINet's complete ownership and operation of all aspects of the switching substrates...guarantees the best possible operational and technical solutions for those requirements."
So PSINet leases the circuits and owns the switches. Correct?
A. That appears to be the case.
Q. When they say "switches," they include in that the concept of routers; is that correct?
A. True. But are you asserting that telephone calls go through their routers?
Q. I am not asserting anything, sir; I am asking you questions.
What is a POP?
A. Point of presence.
Q. Can you explain to the Tribunal what that is and what is its significance?
A. In the Internet Service Provider business, typically a company will start offering service in its local calling area.
MEMBER DEVINS: Could you speak up a bit, please.
THE WITNESS: Once they realize that there is additional market potential outside their local calling area, in order to economically serve that area, it will establish what is typically referred to as a point of presence, which typically consists of a location in another calling area that is not local to where the Internet Service Provider is based, where they put a leased line facility back to what is referred to as the head office. The point of presence at the remote calling area would then provide service for subscribers in that area.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. The purpose of a point of presence is, in fact, to avoid incurring long distance telephone charges. Correct?
A. For the end users.
Q. And it is a way that the end users can link up with that particular provider.
A. True.
Q. If you look at the last two pages of the document in front of you, you will see an advertisement about points of presence for PSINet in Canada. I understand the column headed "City." That is the city that the end user may live in. We would be interested in the end user in this column. Right?
A. Right.
Q. And "Province" we understand. What is the access number?
MR. CHRISTIE: Are we referring to an exhibit and, if so, could I have the exhibit number?
THE CHAIRPERSON: It is not marked yet.
MR. FREIMAN: Let's mark it now as an exhibit.
MR. CHRISTIE: If it is not an exhibit, then I probably don't have a copy.
MR. FREIMAN: I think I did give you a copy but, if you would like a copy, here is one.
MR. CHRISTIE: Thank you.
MR. FREIMAN: Could we mark that as the next exhibit, please.
THE REGISTRAR: The PSINet document will be marked as HR-23.
EXHIBIT NO. HR-23: Document entitled "PSINet: The Difference is our Network"
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Referring to the last two pages of HR-23, what is the access number? What can the end user do with that access number?
A. It can access the Internet through PSINet at that number.
Q. What do they do if they want to access PSINet? I suggest to you that they call that telephone number by means of their computer, and they are linked over their phone line to PSINet through these POPs. Correct?
A. That would be one description of it.
Q. What is another description?
A. The phone call ends at the point of presence they are calling. There is no phone call handling that occurs past that point on PSI's network that you are referring to.
Q. I said they are linked to the PSI network by a phone call made by the end user which travels over the phone line to the POP.
A. The original assertion was that PSINet was a telephone company.
Q. When did I say that, sir?
A. That was in the information that you referred to previously.
Q. Which information is that?
A. I would have to ‑‑
Q. Tell me because I am puzzled. I don't remember ever saying that PSINet was a telephone company.
A. Perhaps you didn't; perhaps it was in Mr. Angus' ‑‑
Q. I don't think Mr. Angus ever talked about PSINet.
Just before we leave HR-23, I suggest to you that PSINet is, in fact, somewhat ambiguous as to whether it is an Internet backbone provider or an ISP. Is that correct?
A. There is no hard and fast definition of what the Internet backbone is. Just about anybody knowledgeable in the Internet will have a different idea about what constitutes the Internet backbone.
Q. But no one would suggest that MCI was an ISP rather than a backbone provider, would they?
A. I believe MCI does provide ISP functions.
Q. It provides ISP functions, but its real business is as a backbone provider.
A. It's as real as any other part of their business.
Q. We won't argue about that. I am suggesting to you, though, that PSINet is advertising itself to the Canadian public as an alternative for Internet services to telephone companies. Do you agree with that?
A. Where do we see this?
Q. Look at the first page; look at the first paragraph:
"One of the most important things to know about PSINet is that we built our network specifically for Internet applications. It's the salient feature of our service, setting us apart from telephone companies, systems integrators, and the dozens of ISPs you see advertised in the back of your local business section."
Do you agree with me that PSINet sees itself as providing a similar, but superior, product or service to telephone companies?
A. What I see them saying is that they view themselves as setting themselves apart from telephone companies.
Q. It is superior to what the telephone companies can provide.
A. But I think we were arguing about the characterization that the Internet backbone providers are telephone companies, and you are showing us that you agree by that statement.
Q. None of those were questions that I asked you. I am simply suggesting to you that PSINet believes that it is offering a service that is similar to, but superior to, that of telephone companies.
A. I don't see the word "superior."
Q. It is a service that sets it apart from telephone companies. It can do something that telephone companies can't.
A. That I would agree with.
Q. What it can do is offer a network of leased lines and switches that is not used for voice communication; whereas, telephone companies offer a system of circuits, either leased or owned, and switches that sometimes are used for Internet traffic and sometimes used for data or voice traffic.
A. That seems accurate.
Q. In fact, sir, I suggest to you that the Internet as a whole ‑‑ we won't talk about backbone ‑‑ uses mainly leased lines and that those lines are exactly the same mix of copper and fibre that is used to run the public telephone service.
A. I would disagree with that.
Q. You would or would not?
A. I don't agree that that is the case.
Q. I would like to suggest to you further that the telecommunications community and the Internet community both effectively share the same public network. Do you agree with that?
A. What do you mean by "share?"
Q. They occupy the same public network.
A. In terms of having equipment located in the same facilities and buildings?
Q. The Internet and the telecommunications community share the same public network. Their communications are resident on the same public network. Do you agree or disagree with that?
A. I have seen equipment for Internet companies co-located with that of telephone companies.
Q. I asked you a larger proposition. The telecommunications community and the Internet community both effectively share the same public network. Do you agree or not?
A. No, they don't share them. You can't put a telephone call, in the normal sense of the word, across the Internet backbone.
Q. I don't think that is what I suggested.
MR. CHRISTIE: I suggest that, if my friend is going to quibble and argue with the witness, he should define the term "share" so that it cannot be capable of being understood in the way the witness understood it. If he wants to use ambiguous questions, I object to them.
MR. FREIMAN: Very well.
THE CHAIRPERSON: You might define the word "public."
MR. FREIMAN: I am sorry...?
THE CHAIRPERSON: How do you define the word "public?"
MR. FREIMAN: A public network is a network that is accessible to the public, that is not privately owned. It is a network of telecommunications common carriers.
Q. You understand what a public network is, don't you, Mr. Klatt?
A. In general.
Q. I would like to show you a report from the International Telecommunication Union in 1997 called "Challenges to the Network, Telecoms and the Internet." I have reproduced a small portion of that, and I want to give that to you and to the Panel.
You have before you the entire document so that there is no issue that this is an authentic excerpt from the document.
MR. CHRISTIE: Can I look at that, please?
MR. FREIMAN: Certainly.
Q. I would like to turn your attention to page 18.
MR. CHRISTIE: Since we have never been shown this before and it is a document of some several hundred pages, I wonder if it would not be appropriate to let either myself or the witness look at this, unless he has seen it and understands it.
MR. FREIMAN: He can have a look at it. If Mr. Christie wishes to re-examine him on it, I will lend him the material and he can look at it to his heart's content.
MR. CHRISTIE: The problem is at the moment, having never seen this before, that I don't know whether I have any objections to it. I would like to glance at the introduction to see what it represents before I am in a position to know what to do about it.
The witness was given it, and then I asked for it from the witness, so the witness can't have it. I don't particular want to deprive anybody of the right to go full speed ahead, but it seems to me that we should have a chance to at least glance at it and see what it is so that I might consider possibly objecting to it.
THE CHAIRPERSON: This, I assume, arose overnight.
MR. FREIMAN: Yes.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Because Mr. Christie has not had an opportunity to view it, do you want five minutes?
MR. CHRISTIE: Five minutes might be enough; it would be better than nothing.
‑‑- Short Recess at 10:15 a.m.
‑‑- Upon resuming at 10:23 a.m.
MR. FREIMAN: I have asked Mr. Christie to request the witness to excuse himself while Mr. Christie makes submissions.
‑‑- Witness Withdraws
MR. CHRISTIE: For the record, what I did was look at this large volume myself and then gave it to Mr. Klatt, and I discussed nothing with him about it. I have indicated to my friend that I have objections with the process that he proposes to embark on.
In the information I am given, I am given actually Chapter 3, page 18, and Chapter 7, page 64, for some consideration, with some marks on the side. That is basically the two pages that I have been given and that I think the Panel has been given. I note that this is two pages out of perhaps 200 pages, some of which may or may not be germane. I can already see, even from highlighted portions, that what we are being given is sort of a question without an answer and there may be answers interspersed through the volume.
Why I am concerned about this is simply because the perception created by the introduce of two page excerpts from an extensive publication is frequently contrary to other parts of the text or, in some cases, is taken out of context in such a way as to create an inaccurate meaning about the conclusions of either the author, for whatever they are worth, or the substance of the analysis that supports the author. The author may quote sources and indicate things which are contrary to what thesis is put forward in this less-than-two-page extract.
I am very troubled by that process because, for one thing, in the time available in cross-examination, I will not be able to find ‑‑ although I have found, for example, page 2 of Chapter 1 and page 1 of Chapter 1 which, had I seen them before, would be very useful to my own arguments. What this boils down to is a very grave difficulty in terms of determining if the context is correct for the excerpts that are being presented and being able, if need be, to examine.
I don't know what the witness' view is of this extract or even of this report, whether he adopts it or doesn't adopt it. If it is being tendered in a way to contradict the witness with some allegedly probative material, we would certainly take the position that we would need some time to consider, in terms of re-examination, just the implication of the extract in relation to whatever else there is here.
I concede that it is a complex subject and one that involves technical considerations. To be fair in terms of presentation of the Respondent's case, I would certainly ask, subject to whatever the witness may say, that somehow we be given the opportunity before this subject is exhausted, if this document is in some way admissible, to consider it in more detail and to re-examine if necessary ‑‑ that is, if the witness adopts it in some way and is then confronted with it.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I would suggest that we see how this develops. I think we can assume that what is going to occur here is that certain propositions in the document are going to be put to this witness. He may acknowledge them, adopt them or reject them. I believe the evidence supports the notion that the organization which has produced this document, the ITU, is a division of the United Nations. It has been acknowledged that there is some authority to that body.
I would suggest that we proceed and see how we make out. If you need some time to consider other parts of the report that may have a bearing on the questioning, we may be able to raise that in your re-examination. The volume has been made available to you, and we will see what happens.
Recall the witness, please.
Is there someone here who wishes to identify themselves?
MR. DeBONI: My name is Ross DeBoni. I am here on behalf of the Canadian Jewish Congress, on behalf of Joel Richler.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
‑‑- Witness returns to the stand
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Mr. Klatt, would you open the document ‑‑ I don't know whether Mr. Christie wants to give you the entire document so that you can flip through to answer any questions you have about context or whether you are content to go with these two pages. Perhaps it would be helpful for Mr. Christie to give you the document.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Witness, if you want to look at the entire document to assist you in answering the questions, please let us know that.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Would you go to page 18, please. I am not looking yet at the portion with the asterisk; I believe that was put in by someone other than myself.
You will remember that I put to you the proposition that the Internet and the public switched telephone network use exactly the same system. Correct? You had some difficulty with that.
Let me see whether you accept as accurate the proposition in the first paragraph, on the fourth line down.
MR. CHRISTIE: This is Chapter 3, page 18?
MR. FREIMAN: That is correct.
MR. CHRISTIE: Each chapter has separate numbering.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. The proposition I would like you to consider is this:
"The Internet does not yet quite have the geographical spread of the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN), but it is not far behind. But that is not surprising because, after al, the Internet is an overlay on top of the PSTN. While the Internet mainly uses leased lines, those lines are exactly the same mix of copper and fibre that is used to run the public telephone service."
Do you agree with that proposition or do you disagree with that proposition?
A. It appears to me that the context of this chapter relates to the economics of the Internet, not to the functionality in terms of how it is actually implemented.
Q. But that is not my question. My question is whether you agree or disagree with the three sentences that I read to you.
A. Parts of it probably could be accepted, but the statement that the Internet does not have the geographical spread of the PSTN is not entirely accurate, because the Internet includes areas that the PSTN does not include. It is implying that the Internet is a subset of the PSTN, and that is not the case. The PSTN and Internet do not form a coterminous overlap and one is not a subset of the other.
Q. Let's direct our attention to the second sentence. Do you agree or disagree that the Internet is an overlay on top of the PSTN?
A. Parts of it may be considered that way.
Q. Do you agree with the statement that the Internet is an overlay on top of the PSTN?
MR. CHRISTIE: He has answered that. He doesn't have to agree in the way my friend wants him to agree. He said that it is partly true, and he has given an answer. He should not have to be forced to give the answer my friend wants. That is not really, as far as I am aware, the process of cross-examination. If he has answered it, he has answered it.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Do you agree or disagree, sir?
MR. CHRISTIE: I object to the question again. He answered it.
THE CHAIRPERSON: He answered in a particular way, and the question is put again whether he agrees with the proposition that the Internet is an overlay on top of the PSTN.
I take it you disagree with that proposition, do you?
THE WITNESS: It is true that I cannot accept it as being a 100 per cent factual statement. In fact, the Internet does not consist of an overlay on top of the PSTN. There are significant parts of the Internet that do not rely on the PSTN.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. The next sentence ‑‑ do you agree or disagree with the statement that the Internet mainly uses leased lines?
A. I will agree that the Internet does make use of leased lines.
Q. I am asking for the whole proposition, mainly uses leased lines.
A. Are we considering Internet as being just U.S., just Canada, or worldwide?
Q. The ITU is an international organization. As I understand it, the Internet is now a global network. Isn't that what the chapter is talking about? It is talking about the Internet spreading all over the world.
A. True. If we consider the global Internet, there are large portions of the Internet that do not use leased lines.
Q. Do you agree or disagree with the proposition that the Internet mainly uses leased lines?
A. For ground-based services. Obviously, satellite links are not leased lines. If we are looking at miles covered, the satellite links would make up a significant portion.
Q. So you disagree with the proposition.
A. If it helps the discussion, I agree that the Internet does use leased lines.
THE CHAIRPERSON: It's a simple question. The proposition is that it mainly uses leased lines. Do you agree or disagree with that?
THE WITNESS: Within the continent that would be the case, but not worldwide.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Do you agree or disagree that with regard to the leased lines that are used in the Internet, those lines are exactly the same mix of copper and fibre that is used to run the public telephone service?
A. Is it referring to a percentage, like 30 per cent copper and 70 per cent fibre? What does it mean by mix?
Q. I can't tell you what he means. I can tell you what the International Telecommunication Union is saying, and I can ask you whether you agree or disagree. If you want to explain why you disagree, if you do, you can. I am asking whether you agree or disagree with the proposition that the leased lines used in the Internet are exactly the same mix of copper and fibre that is used to run the public telephone system.
A. No, I can't agree with that.
Q. If we go over the page, in the first paragraph I would like to put these propositions to you:
"One of the premises of this report is the assumption that the telecommunications community and the Internet community are very different, but that they are both effectively sharing the same public network."
Do you agree or disagree with the assumption being made by the International Telecommunication Union?
A. This seems to be in the context of some economic projections. I don't think they are making a definitive statement regarding the technical operations of either the public switched network or the Internet itself.
Q. I am asking you whether you agree or disagree with the assumption being made by the International Telecommunication Union that the telecommunications community and the Internet community are very different, but they are both effectively sharing the same public network.
A. It is true that the Internet does use portions of the public switched telephone network.
Q. Is that agreement or disagreement?
A. As I previously mentioned, there are portions that overlap and there are portions that are unique and different.
Q. So is that agreement or disagreement?
A. Like the very next sentence starts off, depending on your perspective.
Q. But I am asking you whether you are agreeing or disagreeing, because I am not sure what your ‑‑
MR. CHRISTIE: I object to the questioner demanding an answer in relation to a specific sentence without allowing the witness to put the sentence in context. That is what my friend is doing by demanding an answer without reference to the sentence.
THE CHAIRPERSON: The witness is being asked to agree or disagree with an assumption contained in this report. Can you direct your mind to the assumption?
MR. CHRISTIE: Sir, if I may, the assumption is not necessarily fully articulated in the first sentence.
MR. FREIMAN: I have certainly told the witness that, if he disagrees and he has a reason, I would be glad to hear the reason. Before we can understand the meaning of his response, we have to know whether he is in fact agreeing or disagreeing.
Q. I am happy to have you explain, but I need to know before we get there whether you agree or disagree that the telecommunications community and the Internet community are both effectively sharing the same public network.
A. I agree with the portion of the statement that would say the assumption that the telecommunications community and the Internet community are very different.
Q. And what about the next part of it, which is what I actually asked you, that both those communities are effectively sharing the same public network?
A. Like I said, depending on your perspective.
Q. So you both agree and disagree.
A. Depending perspective or context.
Q. Which perspective and context does it depend on?
A. The issue we were discussing. Is it economics or is it technically how it operates or what it is used for, what can be done over it. The answer could very well, and probably would, be different.
Q. In terms that the ITU appears to be talking about, which is the physical characteristics of the network on which the two communities operate, the telecommunications community and the Internet community, the environment on which they operate, are they both effectively sharing the same public network?
A. You could look at it in the sense that portions of it are being shared.
Q. That is your final answer to the question?
A. That is the best way I can understand what is being asked here.
Q. Let's look at the next sentence:
"Depending on your perspective, the Internet might be seen as a way of optimizing the performance of the public network ‑‑ by squeezing greater capacity utilisation out of the same pipes ‑‑ or as a parasite which sits on top of the network and drains its life-blood without investing very much in its growth and development."
First of all, do you understand this sentence as saying that there are two ways of understanding the implications of the statement that they are sharing the same public network?
A. I believe from the perspective of ITU, which is traditionally the background activity primarily involving telephone companies' interests, they are looking at this from an economic point of view, which is implied by the phraseology that is used there.
Q. Are we both on the same page that what they are talking about are the economic implications of the fact that the two communities share the same public network, namely, from one perspective it could be seen as the Internet community optimizing the performance of the shared public network and, from the other perspective, it could be seen as the Internet acting as a parasite on top of the same public network and draining it economically without contributing? Do we understand that in the same way?
MR. CHRISTIE: Sir, that question is so completely abstract.
MR. FREIMAN: I stand by the question.
MR. CHRISTIE: I frankly don't know what it means.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Let's see if the witness understands it.
THE WITNESS: In the context of a traditional telephone company, they very well might envision the Internet as a parasite which sits on top of the network draining the life-blood. That appears to be one of their concerns.
There are large portions of the equipment in the typical telephone building that are not ‑‑ for example, Internet components are not used for telephone company purposes, and telephone company equipment is not used for Internet purposes. To say that they are the same network is not accurate.
Q. It would be accurate, would it not, if it referred to the circuits being used, not the switches? Direct your mind to the circuits.
A. But the circuits don't connect to the same devices.
Q. Direct your mind to the circuits.
MR. CHRISTIE: The witness is the expert. My friend can't demand that he answer in the way my friend wants him to.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I think this line is appropriate. Continue.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Direct your mind to the circuits. Is it accurate in terms of the circuits, that they share the same public network in terms of the circuits?
A. By circuits, are we talking about telephone circuits or Internet circuits?
Q. We are talking about the same mix of copper and fibre.
A. Would it be helpful to consider a telephone high-capacity line for a telephone circuit? Is that what we are referring to?
Q. I am trying to help you to conceptualize the statement from the ITU. You seem to have difficulty because the switching equipment that the Internet uses is not identical to the switching equipment that is used for voice communication or for data communication. So I am asking you to direct your mind simply to the circuits and to see whether that makes any sense to you about sharing the same public network.
A. But the circuits don't make up the Internet.
Q. I am not sure I am going to get any farther.
A. That is an incomplete assumption in terms of reference to the Internet.
Q. So you are disagreeing with the statement on the basis that you have to consider the switches.
MR. CHRISTIE: Which statement?
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. The statement that they are both effectively sharing the same network, and one can be seen either as a parasite on the other or as optimizing the performance of the other.
MR. CHRISTIE: That is two statements. He has been over the first one many times, and you are putting the two together.
THE WITNESS: We can't have an Internet with just telephone company switches.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. I don't think that is what was being suggested to you. If you understand the network as consisting of circuits ‑‑
A. The network doesn't consist of just circuits.
Q. If you were to understand the network as consisting of circuits ‑‑
A. It would be an incomplete understanding.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Don't argue. Just listen to the question.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. ‑‑ would that help you in terms of understanding whether you can agree or disagree with the statements in this paragraph?
A. If you consider the highway system as just bridges ‑‑
Q. If you consider the highway system as just roads and not overpasses or toll booths or directional signals ‑‑ you may understand the highway system as including the toll booths, but for the moment we won't talk about the toll booths. We will just talk about the highway.
A. Toll booths are not an essential component of the highway.
MR. FREIMAN: I think we have exhausted this discussion.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I don't know why this is so difficult, but maybe you could go on to something else.
MR. FREIMAN: I think so.
MR. CHRISTIE: I understand why it is so difficult, because he is not agreeing with my learned friend and saying what others would like him to say. The witness is the expert and, if the questions are phrased properly, in my submission, he has answered every single one of them. I really don't appreciate the editorial comment that you made, sir, at this point.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I don't care whether you appreciate it or not. Please continue.
MR. CHRISTIE: I object to it. I don't think it is fair without re-examination ‑‑
THE CHAIRPERSON: I can make comments about the witness' demeanour and the witness' willingness to answer questions, and it will bear on what weight the evidence is given.
MR. CHRISTIE: I can object to it, and I do.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. In general, sir, can I take it that, because of the numerous qualifications that you put on the statements, you disagree with the statements on the second page as they are phrased?
A. Like I mentioned, the first part I can agree with.
Q. That is that they are very different.
A. Correct.
Q. And after that?
A. With the qualifications that I have noted.
Q. You say that they are effectively sharing the same public network you disagree with and that the Internet optimizes the performance of the public network by squeezing greater capacity out of the same pipes ‑‑ you disagree that they are the same pipes, or do you agree that they are the same pipes?
A. The Internet does not use the same circuits as the telephone company does.
Q. Do you disagree with the concept of squeezing greater capacity utilization out of the same pipes because you believe that pipes include switches? Am I right?
MR. CHRISTIE: He said circuits.
MR. FREIMAN: No, he didn't say circuits.
MR. CHRISTIE: He said they don't use the same circuits. He didn't say switches, so please ‑‑ he said circuits.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Did you say circuits or switches? I will go with whatever you said.
A. I don't recall at the moment.
MR. CHRISTIE: Could it be read back?
THE CHAIRPERSON: What did you intend to say?
THE WITNESS: That the Internet doesn't use the same circuits that the telephone system uses.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. So you disagree.
A. I agree with what I just said.
Q. But you disagree that the Internet is squeezing greater capacity utilization out of the same pipes because you believe that they don't use the same pipes.
A. If we are talking Internet telephony ‑‑
Q. No, we are talking about the Internet and the public switched telephone network or the telecommunications network, the telecommunications community. Am I right that you don't believe that they use the same pipes?
MR. CHRISTIE: In doing that, my learned friend has put the word "telephone company" in place of "telecommunications."
MR. FREIMAN: I changed it back to telecommunications.
MR. CHRISTIE: As long as it is clear that the document says "telecommunications community," not telephone company.
MR. FREIMAN: Yes.
Q. Do you still remember the question?
A. I think I am being asked whether I agree with the statement that the Internet and the telephone circuits are the same.
Q. No, that they utilize the same pipes.
MR. CHRISTIE: He has answered that many times. I know he hasn't answered it to my friend's satisfaction, and it has become increasingly apparent that he hasn't answered it to your satisfaction, sir, but I submit to you that he has answered the question many, many times.
THE CHAIRPERSON: It may be that we have reached the point where counsel will have to consider whether we are going to get any more out of this that will be of any use to this Tribunal. There seems to be a divergence of opinion in the witness' mind, which he is entitled to articulate and he has in his own way.
MR. FREIMAN: I would like to mark this as the next exhibit, please.
MR. CHRISTIE: My submission is that this is not a piece of evidence. I suppose it is up to you to decide. It may be admissible as to something, I don't know what. It is not probative of anything. The witness has not accepted it unqualified. What is the purpose for which it is being tendered?
THE CHAIRPERSON: The argument to mark it, I suppose, Mr. Christie, is that these propositions were put to the witness, and his answers may or may not be relevant on some issue that you and other counsel will be arguing about, and the Tribunal had better have a copy of the document for those purposes. It is not evidence, but what is contained in the document.
MR. CHRISTIE: Thank you.
THE REGISTRAR: The document will be marked as HR-24.
EXHIBIT NO. HR-24: Document entitled "Challenges to the Network, Telecoms and the Internet" published by International Telecommunication Union
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Moving on, sir, I believe you suggested to the Tribunal ‑‑ and, if I am wrong, please correct me ‑‑ that it would be possible to avoid the telephone system entirely in connecting to the Internet, and you gave the example of AlphaCom as one example ‑‑ I believe it was the only example you showed us ‑‑ of avoiding the telephone system entirely. Is that the purpose of the AlphaCom evidence?
A. That is what they claim their product does.
Q. I would like to refer you to a document that was downloaded from the Internet ‑‑ and, again, we have a facility available if you have any hesitation or doubt or worry as to the authenticity of this document. I would be glad to have you download it or call it up and we will look at it directly.
Do you have any such doubt? Would you like to verify the authenticity?
A. I believe I have seen this document sufficiently.
Q. Have you had an opportunity to look at the document?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you think it would be useful and necessary to download it to ensure that it is accurate, or are you willing to accept that it is an authentic download from this site?
A. It probably is.
MR. FREIMAN: Could we mark this as the next exhibit, please.
THE CHAIRPERSON: What portions are you going to refer to?
MR. FREIMAN: I am going to be referring to the third page, the Executive Summary.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Let's see where we go with it.
MR. FREIMAN: Just so the Tribunal remembers, I believe that evidence about AlphaCom was introduced in terms of a document that was downloaded from Interactive Frontier talking about the Transatlantic Online page and how it was going to keep track with a sailboat. That was the document we objected to being put into evidence because it didn't say anything about the technology that was in use.
Q. This is AlphaCom. This is the technology that you say bypasses the telephone system. I would like you to turn to page 3. Under "Executive Summary," follow with me and see whether you have any comments on this:
"AlphaCom International, Inc. (alphaCom or the Company) is an emerging company with the exclusive right to sell a high-speed wireless access computer modem called the InSat Wireless."
That is what you were referring to as being able to bypass the telephone system. Correct?
A. Right.
Q. Next sentence:
"This modem can provide a direct, 24-hour connection to the Internet for a desktop or laptop computer using the existing digital cellular telephone system in most major metropolitan areas."
Is that an accurate description, to your knowledge, of what the InSat Wireless communication that AlphaCom International sells does?
A. That is one the ways I understand it can be used, yes.
Q. How else can it be used? Can you find something in this document that tells us about anything else?
A. The other documentation I have seen regarding this product indicates that it works through their OrbCom satellite network that is being put in place.
Q. This works through OrbCom?
A. I believe that is what I have seen in other documents.
Q. Can you refer us to a document?
A. It would take me a few minutes to locate it.
MR. FREIMAN: Fine.
For the Tribunal's benefit, what we have done is hooked up a laptop computer to a projection screen. We have called up Netscape which is a browser software that allows us to have access to the Internet. We have connected through PC Anywhere by calling PC Anywhere phone number, and that got the image we have on the screen.
MR. CHRISTIE: My friend should not be giving evidence about phone numbers. He may be sliding it to the Tribunal very gently that that is his view.
THE CHAIRPERSON: It is not evidence.
MR. CHRISTIE: It is very useful psychological conditioning. Shall we put it that way?
THE CHAIRPERSON: We are immune to that.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. While you are doing that, may I suggest to you, sir, that the OrbCom satellite provides Internet e-mail and e-mail only?
MR. CHRISTIE: I hope my friend will give the witness a chance to do what he asked him to do. He is operating a computer at the moment, and to ask him questions in the process doesn't seem entirely fair.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Let's wait until he completes his duties here.
‑‑- (A Short Pause)
THE WITNESS: If Mr. Freiman has information that indicates that OrbCom does not provide anything other than e-mail ‑‑
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. That is my understanding, yes. In fact, what is indicated on the document, sir, that was not introduced into evidence was that the sailing yacht was going to be kept in touch with Interactive Frontier using the OrbCom satellite communication system, a wireless satellite modem from InSat, and that Internet access was going to be provided only by AlphaCom. In other words, I suggest to you that OrbCom is a method of getting messages, either telephone messages or short fax messages or short e-mail messages, and AlphaCom provides the Internet access. The Internet access by AlphaCom is access by means of the public cellular telephone network.
MR. CHRISTIE: That is not giving evidence, I take it.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. That is a proposition I am putting to you.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you understand what Mr. Freiman just said?
THE WITNESS: I think he is saying that that is his understanding of what their current capabilities are.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. That is my proposition to you. You may agree or disagree.
A. My understanding from what I have read of their product information is that the InSat product does allow access both through the OrbCom satellite network and the cellular data network. AlphaCom does indeed provide the Internet access, and OrbCom provides the satellite access capabilities.
Q. To what?
A. To the Internet through AlphaCom.
Q. Let's have a look. I have downloaded the OrbCom.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Are we through with this?
MR. FREIMAN: I would like to have it marked in evidence.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Is there any objection, on the same basis as HR-24?
MR. CHRISTIE: I don't know that any of it has been adopted or accepted or even referred to.
MR. FREIMAN: Let's make sure. Why doesn't Mr. Christie give me the opportunity to repeat what I did.
Q. Do you agree, sir, that the only way that this document presents to the public access to the InSat Wireless by way of AlphaCom International is through a direct 24-hour connection using the existing digital cellular telephone system?
MR. CHRISTIE: I object to the question.
The fact that this is the only way this document indicates anything is not probative of anything. It is not relevant. It's a trick question, of course. This document can indicate what it likes. It becomes admissible, even as a question, if there is a proposition in it that he is asked to agree with and adopt. Otherwise, the fact that the document says something and he is asked, "Does the document say that?" and he says, "Yes", "Next exhibit, please" ‑‑ so what?
THE CHAIRPERSON: Isn't the question: Is this the way AlphaCom does this? Isn't that essentially what the question is, how it advertises its product?
MR. CHRISTIE: No. The way I heard the question was explicitly thus ‑‑
MR. FREIMAN: I wonder whether the witness ought to be excused.
MR. CHRISTIE: Just to argue about how a question was phrased really has nothing to do with the witness. I just say that the question asked was: Is this what the document says? Does this document indicate thus?
That does not make the document admissible at all.
THE WITNESS: Would it be helpful if I could supply information at a later date that would back my contention?
THE CHAIRPERSON: We can't discuss that right now.
‑‑- Witness Withdraws
MR. FREIMAN: May I make submissions?
MR. CHRISTIE: I am not finished.
I would like the question read back. It struck me that the witness was asked: Is this the only way this document indicates access? The witness can read, as we can, and that may be what the document indicates, in part. Then, if the witness says, "Yes," my friend says it should be admissible.
It is not proving the authenticity of the document. The witness said he didn't have any way of verifying or otherwise that. It is not probative of anything. It is just a way to slip the document in without having to call a witness. It is not being adopted by the witness as true or false in any particular.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Let me see if I understand what is happening here.
He has put to the witness a statement on page 3 of 4, that portion of the first paragraph. He put to him the proposition contained in that portion of the document. The witness responded by saying that ‑‑ what was it ‑‑
MR. CHRISTIE: That there are other ways.
THE CHAIRPERSON: ‑‑ there are other ways of doing this, and then he went to the computer and, as I understand it, was not able to find the exhibit in the way that he suggested he might be able to do.
What Mr. Freiman is now doing is taking him back to the proposition to see if he agrees with the proposition on this page.
MR. CHRISTIE: If that is what Mr. Freiman was doing, I would not have objected. The way I heard the question was: Is this the only way this document indicates access? It is that question that I objected to.
MR. FREIMAN: May I simply note that Mr. Christie is attempting to object to one question before I had gotten through a series. If I had not started with that question, he would have been up and objecting to the fact that I had not established what the document says.
My next question is going to be whether he knows of any other way that this system works and on what basis he knows that and whether the company is in a position to know what its own product does and what the basis is for his belief that it does something else. It is a series of questions.
If Mr. Christie would allow me to complete it, there is some prospect of finishing with this witness today.
MR. CHRISTIE: Unfortunately, I can't read my friend's mind. When I hear what I think is an inadmissible question, I deal with that as best I can. I am not quite as clever at dealing with six questions at once.
THE CHAIRPERSON: There is no objection to the questioning focusing on what I proposed and on what I thought you were trying to achieve.
MR. FREIMAN: In my submission, if Mr. Christie objects to the foundation that I have laid when I attempt to introduce a document, that is fine. But to stop me at the first question and say that it is an objectionable question because I am trying to admit a document, when I have just begun to lay the foundation, is not a good use of the Tribunal's time and probably is not consistent with the concept of cross-examination that Mr. Christie during his cross-examinations continually insisted on.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Recall the witness, please.
‑‑- Witness returns to the stand
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Mr. Klatt, would you look at that sentence again. Can you first agree that the only way in this document that access to the InSat Wireless using AlphaCom is advertised or is described is by using the existing digital cellular telephone system?
A. That is what this document describes.
Q. Are you aware of any other means by which AlphaCom International Inc. connects to the system that it uses, other than the existing digital cellular telephone system?
A. From what I have read of this product, it is designed to provide Internet access by satellite network.
Q. You don't find that here anywhere, do you?
A. No, but I understand from other documents and information I have read that this is their interim method.
Q. But they don't have anything else now, do they?
A. I believe they do have some number of satellites in place.
Q. AlphaCom?
A. OrbCom.
Q. Do you see OrbCom somewhere in this document?
A. Not in this document.
Q. Have you seen a connection between AlphaCom and OrbCom in this document?
A. Not in this document.
Q. Have you seen any connection between AlphaCom and OrbCom in any document?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Which document is that? It is not the "sailing around the world" document, is it? That doesn't give us any connection whatsoever between OrbCom and AlphaCom, does it?
A. Unless we can see it.
Q. You have it. Have a look. Actually, you have it right up there; it's exactly the same document. Let's find it. What's the connection?
A. There are quite a few web pages that relate to both AlphaCom and OrbCom.
Q. Find one. Find something that tells us that AlphaCom uses anything other than the existing digital telephone system.
MR. CHRISTIE: I am going to object to this process. What is going on is that the witness has given his opinion, and my friend is demanding that he do research while on the stand to verify it. If it was any other form of expertise or if this practice were to be used in any other context, it would be seen for what it is.
The witness' opinion stands, and he is not required to produce library books, which is of course is normal parlance, and he couldn't. To force a witness to try and do research while he is on the stand, in my submission, is improper.
MR. FREIMAN: I am, in fact, giving him an opportunity. If he is willing to leave it on the basis that the only document in evidence before the Tribunal or the only document the Tribunal has been referred to mentions only one method by which this company provides access, and that is through the existing digital cellular telephone system, and that he believes that somewhere he has read something different and he is unable to locate that or cite it, I am glad to leave it at that. I thought I was giving him an opportunity to demonstrate that there is more than simply his word as to what is involved.
If he is happy to rely on his credibility and his reputation and his expertise in support of the proposition, I am happy, too.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I am inclined, in the face of Mr. Christie's objection, to leave it there.
MR. CHRISTIE: I leave it for the witness to say, but it is an objection and an observation I make in relation to general principle. I will leave it for the witness to decide whether he feels that is within his competence on this short notice.
THE CHAIRPERSON: It is up to you. Is it relatively easy for you to do this?
THE WITNESS: I will explain what I can say at the moment. The assertion, as I understand it, was that Mr. Freiman didn't know of any documents that mentioned AlphaCom and OrbCom. This quick search shows almost two million web pages that mention both AlphaCom and OrbCom. The very first document referenced is the one relating to sailing. The next one is an OrbCom document. I do believe that there is definitely a relationship between AlphaCom and OrbCom relating to Internet access.
To answer the specific question, I would have to do additional research.
MR. FREIMAN: I accept the witness' decision not to do additional research.
Q. Let me clarify something that troubles me in your last bit of evidence.
MR. CHRISTIE: Excuse me, my friend is misstating ‑‑
THE CHAIRPERSON: I am not sure that is a correct statement of what the witness was saying.
MR. CHRISTIE: He would have to do additional research.
MR. FREIMAN: He would have to do additional research. I am willing to put him to his option as to whether to do it or not.
Q. Before we get to that, I want to clarify something that you just said, Mr. Klatt. You said there are over two million web pages that responded to your query. You said that those are pages that have AlphaCom and OrbCom on the same page or they have AlphaCom or OrbCom in the same document?
You know, sir, how searches work, don't you?
A. In general, yes.
Q. When you put in the "and", you are expanding the universe so that it is a document that has either/or, not that has both/and. That is correct, is it not, sir?
A. Different search engines work in different ways, but my understanding is that Alta Vista will find documents that include both of those words.
Q. Yes, and it will also find documents that include only one of those words when you put in the "and" command.
Mr. Klatt, you are an expert on the Internet. You are an expert on access to the Internet. You know about search engines, and I am putting to you that it is entirely misleading to say that there are two million documents that include both AlphaCom and OrbCom in them. Do you agree or disagree with my assertion?
A. I would have to check to see the specific operational characteristics of Alta Vista's web searcher.
Q. Do you know anything about Alta Vista's web searcher as an expert in the Internet?
A. I have used it.
Q. Do you know whether, when you put in the "and" command, you get both/and or either/or? Do you know?
A. My understanding is that you get documents that have both terms in them.
Q. The documents have both terms in them. That is your evidence. When in Alta Vista you put word A and then you put the "and" and then you put word B, you are bringing up documents that have both words in them. I want to be clear that that is what you are saying.
A. That is my understanding.
Q. Let me suggest to you that that is entirely incorrect. Not only is it incorrect in terms of the both/and; it also will call up documents that have portions of the words that you put in. It will bring up words that have "Alpha" as well as AlphaCom and words that have "Orb" as well as OrbCom. That is also correct, is it not?
A. I would have to check further into the specific characteristics of the Alta Vista operation.
Q. Do you know, sitting here ‑‑
MR. CHRISTIE: Regarding that last question, there has been an answer, so I didn't interrupt it, but I do make this observation.
MR. FREIMAN: Could the witness please be excused.
MR. CHRISTIE: Certainly.
‑‑- Witness Withdraws
It is my submission that, if my learned friend puts to a witness a proposition in cross-examination that he does not adopt, that is an undertaking to call that evidence; otherwise, he should not put that proposition to an expert. He can ask him questions and he is stuck with the witness' answer. If he puts a proposition, as my learned friend last did ‑‑ and he may go on to do it, I don't know; I can't read his mind ‑‑ then, in my submission, it is an undertaking to call that evidence or it should be, or the proposition should not be put that way.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I am not sure the rule goes that far. If he doesn't call the evidence, there may well be some consequences that work to his disadvantage.
MR. FREIMAN: That is exactly the rule of cross-examination. Mr. Christie, in fact, took advantage of that very rule repeatedly in his cross-examination. It is assumed ‑‑
MR. CHRISTIE: I called an expert. If my friend is going to call an expert to back up these propositions, I have no objection.
MR. FREIMAN: The rule is exactly as the Chairman has said. If no evidence is called, if the witness does not adopt the proposition and no evidence is called, there may very well be implications and may very well be conclusions and inferences that the Tribunal will take, but it goes no farther than that.
MR. CHRISTIE: I have one other observation regarding this line of questioning. It is totally irrelevant to the expertise of the witness. To test his knowledge of the search engine Alta Vista and its mechanisms, whatever they may be, has nothing to do with the general operation of the Internet, which is what he has been discussing.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I think it was in relation to a specific area of questioning and an answer that he had given concerning two million or whatever the number was.
MR. CHRISTIE: 1,970,348.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I know it is Friday the 13th, but I would like to get back to the evidence. Call the witness back, please.
‑‑- Witness returns to the stand
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Have you had an opportunity to reflect, Mr. Klatt, as to the accuracy of your answer when you said that there are some 1,900,000 pages that Alta Vista tells you contain AlphaCom and OrbCom in the same document? Is that a correct statement?
A. I don't claim to be an expert on how Alta Vista implements their web search engine.
Q. You told the Tribunal that you were going to have some difficulty finding what I asked you to find because you put in the appropriate search terms and you got 1,900,000 documents. I am asking you whether that is a correct statement, that you have to go through 1,900,000 documents in order to complete your search because there is 1,900,000 documents that contain the words OrbCom and AlphaCom in the same document.
MR. CHRISTIE: Is that a question?
MR. FREIMAN: It's a question.
THE CHAIRPERSON: He is asking whether that is his evidence. I think that is an appropriate question.
THE WITNESS: If my understanding of how Alta Vista web searches is incorrect, the information I am presenting would not be accurate.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Can we start scrolling down and see ‑‑ scroll down a little bit. I just want to get one that doesn't have too many pages. Can we find a document that has maybe one page?
A. By one page, do you mean the size of the document?
Q. The size of the document. I don't want a large document. I would like a document that can be conveniently gleaned without spending three hours on it.
Is that a good one?
A. It's three pages.
Q. Let's have a look. Let's see the entirety of the document. Do you have it? Let's find AlphaCom.
A. It is not on that page.
Q. That is the fourth or fifth document that you brought up. Would you like to demonstrate that with any other document other than the sailing document, that perhaps this was a fluke?
A. I will accept that my understanding of how the Alta Vista search engine works may be flawed.
THE CHAIRPERSON: We will take our morning break.
MR. FREIMAN: I wonder whether we have now come to the point where we can mark this as an exhibit.
MR. CHRISTIE: I object.
MR. FREIMAN: Fine. We will deal with it afterward.
MR. CHRISTIE: Why should we wait? If there is an objection, why not deal with it?
THE CHAIRPERSON: Ten minutes.
‑‑- Short Recess at 11:27 a.m.
‑‑- Upon resuming at 11:44 a.m.
MR. FREIMAN: Perhaps before Mr. Christie raises his objection I can indicate the purpose and the basis on which I am seeking admission of the document.
The witness has confirmed that this is a document that would have been on the Internet and it was on the Internet, and I have given him the opportunity, if he wants to verify that this exists on the Internet. It is a document produced by the company about which he gave oral evidence that gives some evidence of what the company is and what it does.
On that basis, it is admissible as an exhibit. The Tribunal can make whatever use of it it wishes, bearing in mind the evidence of the witness as to his knowledge and information about the materials that are set out here.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Let me ask, Mr. Christie: Should we not mark it on the same basis that we marked HR-24?
MR. CHRISTIE: HR-24 was the "Challenges to the Network." I guess, consistent with what you said in that case, it would seem logical. I objected and I explained my objection; there is no point in repeating myself.
MR. FREIMAN: I am wondering whether it doesn't go beyond that. It may not be ‑‑
MR. CHRISTIE: If you have it in, why argue about it?
MR. FREIMAN: It cannot be used for the truth of its content, but it certainly can be used for the proposition that the company has said what is said in this document.
THE CHAIRPERSON: He recognizes the document. It is not admitted for the truth of the proposition contained on page 3.
MR. CHRISTIE: I don't quite know what my friend meant by his last comment, but let me put it this way. If it is to make the rest of the cross-examination relevant, I understand and I accept that. But if it is to be evidence that this is an authentic document from "the company," I don't think the witness went so far as to say that. He couldn't, as far as I know, and I don't think he did. On that basis, I leave it.
THE CHAIRPERSON: We will mark it on the basis I have suggested.
THE REGISTRAR: The AlphaCom document will be HR-25.
EXHIBIT NO. HR-25: Document entitled "AlphaCom, Company History and Personnel"
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Just before we leave the AlphaCom document, can we look at page 3 of 4 again, at the paragraph beginning "The InSat Wireless ‑‑":
"The InSat Wireless uses data compression software and the dormant or analog-side of the digital cellular network called Cellular Digital Packet Data (CDPD)."
Do you know what CDPD is? Do you recognize that term?
A. I have seen the term in reference to a cellular data modem.
Q. Do you know anything about that particular modality?
A. It is a digital method of putting information over the cellular network.
Q. The next sentence states:
"CDPD is a seamless overlay to existing digital cellular telephone systems ‑‑"
Do you know whether that is correct or not?
A. In specifics I don't, but I understand that they are related.
Q. Do you know whether CDPD is available in Ontario?
A. I believe it is.
Q. I suggest to you that it is not. Do you have any information that says that it is?
A. I understand that AlphaCom is marketing the InSat product in the Toronto area. If the AlphaCom product requires that capability, I would expect their product to be functional in this area.
Q. Did you find anything, sir, that would assist us with regard to your proposition about AlphaCom and OrbCom?
A. You are correct. There is only one document that mentions the two of them together.
Q. I would like to change gears for a moment and talk to you about a proposition that you disagreed with in Mr. Angus' evidence, and that was about the purpose of putting material on a web site.
My suggestion to you is that the purpose of putting material on a web site is for it to be read by the public. Do you agree or disagree with that?
A. I don't agree that that is the only purpose.
Q. You gave us two instances where putting material on a web site would not make it available to the public. Correct?
A. There can be a variety of reasons for posting material to a web site other than the desire to have the whole world read it.
Q. If you post material on the web site, it is available to the public unless you encrypt it with a password ‑‑ in other words, you block access with a password ‑‑ or unless you use what I would call colloquially a secret URL ‑‑ that is, an address that is not publicized and has no links to any other destination on the web.
A. Yes, that is certainly possible.
Q. It is not just possible. Those are the two methods that you discussed with us which a person who does not want the material on their web site to be available to the public can use.
A. I did mention those.
Q. Are there others?
A. There may be others.
Q. Are you aware of any?
A. Not that I can think of at the moment.
Q. Have you been to the Zundelsite?
A. I have seen it.
Q. Did you see any hint of a password for access?
A. Not that I am aware of.
Q. Did you see any hint of blind links or of pages that don't lead anywhere? By definition, you couldn't. Right?
A. True.
Q. So the material that was put on the Zundelsite is material that is available to the public. Correct?
A. That would be the case.
Q. And it is material that anyone hosting it on the web site would know that it was available to the public. Correct?
A. It could be accessed by people on the Internet.
Q. If someone wanted to ensure that it was not accessed by any member of the public, they would use the two methods you talked about. They might initiate a password so that only people who knew the password could see it or they might put information on that was inaccessible unless you knew the exact URL.
A. Those would be methods.
Q. Let's talk about caching for a moment. First of all, I just want to confirm with you that there is no suggestion that, because a document is cached, it is subject to mischief in terms of forgery or playing with the information. That is not what happens when a document is cached, is it?
A. Not typically, but it is certainly possible.
Q. Are you aware of that happening with any ISP ever, that an ISP has been accused of, let alone found to have been guilty of, changing the documents in its cache in a mischievous way or in any inappropriate way?
A. I don't specific knowledge of such incidents.
Q. "Specific knowledge" sounds scientific. Do you know of anything like that happening? Do you have knowledge of anyone accusing anyone of doing that?
A. I have knowledge of users complaining that the documents they get from their cache servers are not reflective of what is on what they would consider the authoritative site.
Q. In other words, people complaining that they are getting out-of-date, stale-dated documents instead of the latest revision. Correct?
A. That is the most usual complaint.
Q. What are the other complaints?
A. That the cache server sometimes interferes with their operation in terms of uploading or maintaining their web pages.
Q. What do you mean by interferes in terms of uploading and maintaining their web page?
A. When they try to post new data to their web pages, they have to go back to access it to see what the changes look like.
Q. You can't see it because you are stuck with the obsolete, stale-dated document in the cache?
A. That is often the complaint.
Q. That is the only complaint, sir. The only complaint that you are aware is that the cache sometimes provides a user with an earlier version of a document rather than its latest, most updated form. That's it. Right?
A. It is certainly possible for contents of the cache to be modified by somebody who had motivation to do so.
Q. You are not aware of any accusation on that basis, any incident on that basis, let alone anyone having been found to have done that.
A. Not that I can think of.
Q. So that is an agreement with my proposition. Right? You agree that you have no knowledge of anyone being accused of doing that, let alone anyone having been found to have done that. Do you agree with that proposition?
A. I don't know of any instances that I can specifically cite where that has occurred.
Q. Getting back to caching, I take it that you agree, because I think you said this, that it is not especially common in Canada.
A. It is becoming increasingly so.
Q. It is most common in Europe because where the action on the Internet is is in the United States and there are not all that many connections between Europe and the United States, so it makes sense not to tie up those connections. It makes sense for the ISPs, and they tend to maintain large caches in order to maintain their transatlantic lines. Correct?
A. That is what they do, but there are quite a few similar instances in Canada where there would be similar motivation to run cache servers.
Q. That is especially with regard to AOL and other large services. Correct?
A. And often with smaller servers, too.
Q. Do you withdraw the evidence that you offered in-chief, that it is not all that common in North America and more common in Europe?
A. I would say that web caching is probably more common in terms of percentage of ISPs that use it than would be the case in North America.
Q. In terms of what actually happens, my understanding is that at each level of the tree ‑‑ and maybe we should look at the diagram that was attached to the article that was put into evidence about caching. This is R-34.
First of all, dealing with R-34, what is the purpose of this document? Is this a scholarly article? Do you know?
MR. CHRISTIE: Is the witness required to explain the purpose of the document? I find that question ambiguous. It could mean a number of things.
Is there something curious about my objection? I am trying to do what you request and give the witness the document.
MR. FREIMAN: He has the document.
MR. CHRISTIE: That is my objection.
MR. FREIMAN: The witness introduced the document, and it was marked on the basis of his identification. I would like to flesh out what it is.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Put your question again, please.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Is this a scholarly article?
A. In terms of being published in a refereed journal, no, I wouldn't categorize it as such.
Q. Let's take a wider view of scholarly article. Is its purpose to add to the technical knowledge of humankind about the concept of caching, or is this, as it appears to me to be, a popularization for libraries as to why they might want to investigate the technology of caching?
A. I think it is both.
Q. Let's look at the diagram and see if I understand what is going on here. The diagram refers to a national cache, a regional cache and a local cache. Correct?
A. True.
Q. The shaded squares are actually upside down, but what it appears to suggest is that ‑‑ and stop me at each point if I make a mistake. The way caches work generally is that the request is sent up for a document and it goes through the local ISP into the Internet ‑‑ this is the first time a document is requested. It goes to the web site and retrieves the document.
As it goes back, it goes through a number of servers, and here they have called it a national server, a regional server and a local server. That is correct?
A. Yes.
Q. At its first stop at the national server, if the national server has a cache, a copy of that document is inserted into the national server's cache. Correct?
A. Right.
Q. So that the next time that there is a request coming up from the regional server, the national server doesn't have to send the request on up to the web site; it simply retrieves it from its cache, its treasure trove of documents. Correct?
A. That is its purpose.
Q. Does it stop there, or is the same document then cached regionally and locally on the same trip or on subsequent trips?
A. The document would be cached at the lower level cache servers as well, such as the regional and local caches.
Q. On the first trip?
A. Correct.
Q. The way the cache operates it has a certain capacity. A document sits in the cache. Because there are always new documents coming in, at some point relatively quickly the cache is full. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. When the cache is full, you have to get rid of something that is in the cache in order to allow new documents to be put into the cache. Correct? The usual algorithm that is used is to kick out first those documents that are least used, that have not been called on for a period of time. Correct?
A. The cache replacement algorithms tend to be rather complex, but that is certainly one factor in the decision as to what documents get replaced.
Q. It is the frequency of use or the fact that it has been dormant for a while, and it is also the volume. Even if there are two documents that have been dormant for the same period of time, the one that has a history of the most use will be kept on and the one that has a history of least use will be kicked out, as a general rule.
A. That could well be the case.
Q. So there is a turnover, and it is a relatively rapid turnover, isn't it, sir?
A. By "rapid," you are referring to...?
Q. What I mean is that, if you don't request a document for a very short period of time, it is going to be kicked out of the national cache almost immediately. It is slightly longer in the regional cache and could be a great deal longer in the local cache.
A. That is true, and it is quite dependent on the size of the cache and the amount of documents that are requested.
Q. As long as a document is being requested, it will be in the cache. If it stops being requested, it will be kicked out of the cache pretty quickly.
A. Or eventually.
Q. Let's look at what happens when we call up a document out of a cache. I think you said that FTC had a cache as well. Correct?
A. That's right.
Q. And you used the cache in order to conserve the need to use the leased line to the next server up.
A. Right.
Q. I am going to try to go through my understanding of what happens, and you will correct me if I am wrong. I assume that what we are talking about would be the same as would happen in Ontario; just changing British Columbia to Ontario, the local service provider in Ontario for a local service provider in B.C., and the same would be true in Nova Scotia and the same would be true in Newfoundland. The technology of caching is the same everywhere. Correct?
A. In essence.
Q. Let's assume that there is a document that has been requested and now is found in your local cache. I am one of your users, and I want to see the same document. I type in the URL on my computer, send the request to you. Instead of sending the request on, your cache server searches, finds the document and sends it right back to me. Correct?
A. That is an explanation of how it works.
Q. For that document, if I am one of your customers, the request originates in British Columbia. Correct?
A. Right.
Q. The document is found in British Columbia. Correct?
A. For that instance.
Q. And is sent right back to British Columbia. It never leaves British Columbia. In fact, it never leaves the Okanagan Valley, does it?
A. True.
Q. And the same would be true in Ontario. If I wanted to retrieve a document and it were in my ISP's cache, the request originates in Ontario, the document is found in Ontario and is sent back to me from Ontario. Correct?
A. That would be the case.
Q. And it never leaves Ontario; the loop never leaves Ontario. Correct?
A. Right.
Q. If perchance the document has not been called on before locally but has been called on before regionally, my request might go past your ISP into the next stage up, the BC Tel ISP. Is that the next server up?
A. That could be the case.
Q. And the cache software would search through the cache, find the document, send it back through you to my computer. Correct?
A. That would be the case.
Q. And the message still doesn't leave British Columbia, does it?
A. Right.
Q. Let's assume that we are going even farther and there is no document in the local cache or the regional cache, and it is an international document, but there is one in the national cache, the access point to the Canadian Internet. Let's say it is not in British Columbia at all; let's say that access point is in Alberta or in Ontario.
At that point the request originates in British Columbia, goes through your ISP, goes up to the next web server and then enters into the Internet, let's say, in Alberta. The national cache finds the document, retrieves it, sends it back on down through the next layers back to me. Correct?
A. That would be correct.
Q. In that instance the message originates in Canada, is answered in Canada and is received in Canada, and the loop never leaves Canada.
A. Right.
Q. That is true of any document that is cached.
A. In essence.
Q. I understood that you had some anxiety about the Zundelsite documents in view of caching. What was that? You thought that maybe the documents that the Tribunal has are not authentic because they might have been retrieved from a cache?
A. In the real-life case we are interested in, the documents retrieved from a cache don't necessarily reflect the same document that would be at that URL ‑‑
Q. At that time.
MR. CHRISTIE: Let him finish.
THE WITNESS: ‑‑ on the host server.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. It is not the same document because there may be an updated document. Correct?
A. That is certainly possible.
Q. But the document that is retrieved from the cache was at one point on the host, was it not?
A. That would be the assumption.
Q. So you are saying that the Zundelsite probably is found in caches, or is it not found in caches?
A. It is entirely possible.
Q. Do you think it is found in a cache? Do you think it was found in your cache when people were calling up the Zundelsite?
A. In our particular instance, it was an option whether a user chose to use a cache or not.
Q. Do you think it was in the cache?
A. I don't know.
Q. Do you think it is in a cache somewhere in Ontario? I am just trying to get the basis for your anxiety about authenticity? Do you think it is somewhere?
A. I wouldn't know.
Q. Do you think there is any single cache anywhere in Canada containing the Zundelsite documents that you are worried about or that you have some questions about authenticity about?
A. I am not aware of how often the documents would be updated or how often the cache documents would stay in place.
Q. So you are saying you don't know whether it is in a cache.
A. Not for sure, no.
Q. Is it your evidence that there is some anxiety, then, because it is likely that it was in a cache?
A. In instances where ISPs form caches, the document that is in the cache under the same web address could be different from the one that is at the original site.
Q. We understand that; we understand the stale-dating issue. The question that I am asking is: Is it your evidence that it is likely that some of the documents that have been retrieved were from a cache?
A. I would have no way of knowing.
Q. You talked about something called Internic in your evidence-in-chief. Do you remember that?
A. Yes, I think there was reference to that organization.
Q. Let's go over that again. What exactly is Internic?
A. It is a registration service run by a company called Network Solutions Incorporated out of Maclean, Virginia. It handles domain name registrations.
Q. What is the purpose?
A. To provide for an orderly allocation of domain names and to provide the administration functions associated with that capability.
Q. I am going to give you a document, and I am going to give five copies to the Tribunal.
Do you recognize this document, sir? What is this?
A. It looks like an Internic Whois Query.
Q. Who is being queried?
A. The Internic.
Q. About what particular entity is it being queried?
A. The domain name FTCNET.COM.
Q. And that is your server site. Correct?
A. Right.
Q. Do you accept the authenticity of this document? Do you have any anxieties about it? You are aware of the information. Just have a quick look and tell me if you are satisfied that the information is correct.
A. It is probably accurate as Internic knew it to be as of that date.
Q. As of the date, and it looks like it is May of 1998. You are content to deal with it as of the date that this document was published. I just want to understand what this tells us.
I would like to have this marked as the next exhibit, please.
THE REGISTRAR: The Whois Query will be marked as HR-26.
EXHIBIT NO. HR-26: Whois Query re FTCNET.COM
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. When the Whois Query says "Registrant: Fairview Technology Centre," what is it trying to tell us? We are talking about the domain name FTCNET.COM. What is it telling us about FTCNET.COM when it says the registrant is Fairview Technology Centre?
A. That is the first information ‑‑ I don't remember the exact wording, but we could probably call it up on the screen.
Q. If you would like to do that, that's fine. I really just want to understand what the information is. If it will help you to call it up on the screen, by all means please do. If you can do it without calling it up on the screen, we don't have to trouble ourselves.
A. In essence, it shows the individual organization that that domain name is associated with.
Q. That would be the person who wants to use that name for Internet purposes. Correct?
A. In our case, that's right, yes.
Q. In every case, isn't the purpose of Internic in order to reserve names and to prevent, say, Irving McDonald from registering McDonald's.Com and making it impossible for McDonald's Hamburgers to have McDonald.Com as their web site to be registered in order to protect their ability to use the name?
A. That is often the case.
Q. What else is the reason? It is also to allow people to know who you are. Right?
A. True. There are also individuals or organizations who will register many domain names in the hope that they can resell a domain name.
Q. So Irving McDonald may well register McDonald's.Com and then go to McDonald Corporation and say, "Guess what. You snooze, you lose. Pay me a few thousand dollars, or a few hundred thousand dollars." Correct?
A. That could happen.
Q. That could happen. The registrant here for the name FTCNET.COM is Fairview Technology Centre, and that means that Fairview Technology Centre wants to use the name FTCNET.COM and perhaps wants people who are curious as to what FTCNET.COM is to know that it refers to Fairview Technology Centre when they do a Whois Query. Am I right so far?
A. In our case, that is correct.
A. Then we have "Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact" and it registers Bernard Klatt ‑‑ that is you ‑‑ with an e-mail address. What is an Administrative Contact, Technical Contact and Zone Contact? What are they?
A. They are just titles that Internic uses to allow for various names associated with those functions.
Q. What does it mean that you are the Administrative, Technical and Zone Contact for Internic registration purposes?
A. In my case, I am the person who handles those functions.
Q. What are those functions?
A. From Internic's perspective, I am not sure. Basically, I am a contact person for that domain.
Q. You are a contact person. That doesn't mean that you are the author or that you are the registrant, does it?
A. The person registering domain names is often the Internet Service Provider.
Q. But the administrative contact is not the person who is responsible for content. By saying that you are the Administrative Contact, you are not saying, "I am responsible for content," are you?
A. Not necessarily.
Q. Or not at all. Administrative Contact is simply the person with whom Internic deals and presumably people who want to get information about technical matters with regard to the Net should go through the Technical Contact. This has nothing to do with content, does it?
A. Not necessarily.
Q. And Billing Contact is also you, Bernard Klatt, with an e-mail address. Billing Contact is the person, as I understand it, who is responsible for making sure that bills get paid with regard to this particular domain.
A. That is the person that Internic has on file, who they send their invoices to. Whether or not that is the person who pays, I don't know.
Q. It is simply the person who is on record as being the person to talk to when you want your money.
A. That is where they send the ‑‑
Q. And that certainly has nothing to do with content either. The Billing Contact is not a person who is responsible for the content of the site that is referred to, are they?
A. Not necessarily.
Q. Let's look at another one. Do you recognize this particular Internic Query?
A. It is a similar one to the previous.
Q. Again, your name appears as Administrative Contact, and we will talk about that in a minute. You have seen this before, haven't you?
A. I believe so.
MR. FREIMAN: Can we mark this as the next exhibit?
THE REGISTRAR: The Whois Query for Registrant: Canadian Patriots Network will be marked as HR-27.
EXHIBIT NO. HR-27: Whois Query for Canadian Patriots Network
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Dealing with HR-27, let's go over it again.
The Registrant is Canadian Patriots Network, and the domain name is FREEDOM-SITE.ORG. As I understand it, what is being said here is that the registrant, the person who has the right to use the name "FREEDOM.SITE.DOM and wants to reserve that name for its own use is something called the Canadian Patriots Network.
A. That is what is shown there.
Q. The Administrative Contact, Technical Contact and Zone Contact is Bernard Klatt. Correct?
A. That is also what is shown.
Q. With regard to the Canadian Patriots Network, what are your functions, if you still maintain them, with regard to the Canadian Patriots Network as Administrative Contact, Technical Contact and Zone Contact?
A. It was primarily set up, as I recall, to reserve that domain name.
Q. Do you have anything to do with the content?
A. No.
Q. Do you have any responsibility for the content?
A. No.
Q. Do you accept any responsibility for the content?
A. No.
Q. If someone has an issue with the content, should they come to you?
A. They have in the past.
Q. Should they? Who do you send them to? Do you accept the responsibility or do you send them onward?
A. Depending on the nature of the inquiry.
Q. If I say, "Mr. Klatt, I don't like what is on domain Canadian Patriots Network. It offends me. I don't think you should be putting that on," what are you going to do for me? What will you say?
A. I would ask them if they had contacted the author.
Q. Who would that be?
A. It depends on the material.
Q. Would you direct me to Canadian Patriots Network?
A. That would be the first place they should check.
Q. Billing Contact, Marc Lemire. What is Mr. Lemire saying about his relationship to the Canadian Patriots Network by becoming the Billing Contact?
A. With Internic these domain names are entered and, if they are not paid, they disappear.
Q. So he is the person who should be paying for the registration and to keep up the registration of the domain name Canadian Patriots Network. Correct?
A. That is what he would do.
Q. That is what he would do, and that is what is meant by Billing Contact. Is there anything else meant by Billing Contact? Is Mr. Lemire assuming any other obligation? Should we be sending complaints about content to Mr. Lemire as Billing Contact?
A. If he is the author of the content complained of.
Q. I am asking whether, as Billing Contact, he should have complaints directed to him.
A. Not necessarily.
Q. I would like to show you one final Internic. Have you seen this one before?
A. It is dated ‑‑
Q. It is also 5/07. I am not sure whether it is the 7th of May or the 5th of July, but it is one of those two dates.
A. I think it is a July date.
Q. Have you seen this before?
A. Probably.
Q. Do you have any anxiety about its authenticity? Would you like to go to the Internic site and check to make sure it is the same information, or are you willing to accept the authenticity of this information?
A. This information can change, but as of that date it appears to be correct.
MR. FREIMAN: Could we make that the next exhibit.
THE REGISTRAR: The Whois Query for Registrant Ernst Zundel will be marked as HR-28.
EXHIBIT NO. HR-28: Whois Query for Registrant Ernst Zundel
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Just using the information you have given us so far, tell me if I am right in the following propositions.
This document tells us that the domain name, ZUNDELSITE.COM, has been reserved by someone named Ernst Zundel. Correct?
A. That is the name that was put in there.
Q. That is the name that was put in there. It was reserved by someone named Ernst Zundel ‑‑
A. That doesn't say that that is who did the reservation.
Q. That is the person for whose benefit this name has been reserved. Correct? That is what the document tells us. They may have made a mistake, but that is what the document tells us.
A. That is one way of interpreting it.
Q. What is another way of interpreting it?
A. The name usually has some relationship to the domain name that has been requested.
Q. So what is the other way of interpreting it?
A. That the person that wanted that domain name put that name in there.
Q. Where do you see that to be the case? What makes you say that?
Mr. Klatt, get serious.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Are you suggesting that it could have been unauthorized in some way?
THE WITNESS: People can register domain names for just about any name they want.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Again, the rest of the information tells us that the Administrative Contact, the Technical Contact and the Zone Contact is someone or something named Ingrid Rimland. Correct?
A. That is what is shown.
Q. That is what is shown. That would not be a person who would be responsible for the content of the domain by virtue of the fact that that person is registered as the Administrative Contact, the Technical Contact or the Zone Contact. Correct?
A. It doesn't imply that that is the author of any particular web content.
Q. And that isn't the person to whom one should direct complaints about content by virtue of their office as Administrative Contact, Technical Contact or Zone Contact. Correct?
A. What was the question again?
Q. That isn't the person to whom complaints about content should be directed by virtue of their office as Administrative Contact, Technical Contact or Zone Contact.
A. Complaints regarding web content go to the person that creates the web content.
Q. So, at first instance, it would go to Ernst Zundel, the Registrant. Correct?
A. That is not what this implies.
Q. You just told me two minutes ago that, if I had a complaint about Canadian Patriots Network, at first instance I ought to go to the Registrant, Canadian Patriots Network. What is the difference here?
A. We also mentioned that the ‑‑
MR. CHRISTIE: Excuse me. It is obvious that Mr. Freiman is excited about this possibility, but let me suggest that the witness ‑‑ there is a chorus of demands.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Would you wait outside, please.
‑‑- Witness Withdraws
What is your objection, Mr. Christie?
MR. CHRISTIE: The witness is being misquoted. It is being stated that he said that you should contact the Registrant. What the witness actually said ‑‑
THE CHAIRPERSON: To contact the author.
MR. CHRISTIE: To contact the author, and then he said to contact the Freedom Site to find out who the author is.
If my learned friend thinks that he is prepared to swear to the contrary, I am happy with that. The other alternative is to read back the testimony. If I am right, it would be very nice and appropriate for my learned friend to apologize and, if I am wrong, I will.
THE CHAIRPERSON: We are not here to exchange apologies. We are here to deal with what is appropriate or not.
We are going to recess now until ‑‑ we started late this morning, so we will adjourn for an hour and a quarter.
MR. FREIMAN: Mr. Chair, I only have about two questions left. It is probably more convenient to finish with this document, and then I will start an entirely new topic at the end of the lunch hour.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you not want to check while we are recessed?
MR. FREIMAN: We will check to see what Madam Reporter can tell us.
‑‑- Luncheon Recess at 12:29 p.m.
‑‑- Upon resuming at 1:50 p.m.
THE CHAIRPERSON: We will begin with scheduling. Perhaps we can start with Mr. Christie.
MR. CHRISTIE: At this time we plan on having witnesses as follows: Mark Webber, Robert Faurisson, David Irving, Tony Martin, each for one week.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Just a moment, I am trying to make a note here. Mark Webber ‑‑
MR. CHRISTIE: Robert Faurisson, David Irving and Tony Martin, each for one week, so that is four weeks.
Then one more witness we are looking to arrange would be approximately four days, but since we have not been able to finalize the arrangements for this witness, we can't tell you definitely whether they will or will not attend.
Doug Collins, Ingrid Rimland for one week ‑‑ Doug Collins for approximately a week or two or three days; and then possibly the accused. The decision has not been made respecting him.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Who?
MR. CHRISTIE: The accused.
THE CHAIRPERSON: The Respondent.
MR. CHRISTIE: Well, I guess he is accused ‑‑ alleged discriminator, respondent, whatever ‑‑ for a week, if he testifies.
THE CHAIRPERSON: What are these witnesses about, the first four you mentioned of one week each?
MR. CHRISTIE: What are they about?
THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR. CHRISTIE: Mark Webber is the author of some of the material. He will have knowledge of how it became attached to or situated on the site in question. He will be able to testify extensively about the effects of the material.
Robert Faurisson will be tendered as an expert in linguistics and document analysis.
David Irving will be called as an expert in historical writing and the context of historical writing and his observations respecting this writing.
Tony Martin will be called in the social context of works critical of Jewish positions.
Doug Collins will be called pertaining to the effects of and limits of social context pertaining to journalism in relation to the Zundelsite.
Ingrid Rimland will be testifying as to the nature, origin and content of the Zundelsite.
The accused would be likewise testifying on factual matters of that kind and the origin of the Zundelsite and his relationship, if any, to it.
I anticipate that would be approximately seven weeks.
THE CHAIRPERSON: This is for evidence-in-chief or the duration?
MR. CHRISTIE: I am anticipating in rough estimate the cross-examination, assuming that we are allowed to call these witnesses and this evidence. That is the best preparation I can give you at this point.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any comments before I ask you, Mr. Freiman?
MR. FREIMAN: About the appropriateness of this evidence?
THE CHAIRPERSON: No, I don't want to hear argument.
MR. FREIMAN: About the length of time?
THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR. FREIMAN: If these witnesses are called, they will certainly be cross-examined for the same length as they testify. I am still not clear on what Mr. Christie said. Does he mean they will be testifying for a week ‑‑
MR. CHRISTIE: I thought I made it clear. Both chief and cross.
MR. FREIMAN: Depending on what evidence is led, I think it will be probably accurate to say that cross-examination would approximate the length of examination-in-chief.
THE CHAIRPERSON: And after that?
MR. FREIMAN: Mr. Fromm, sadly, is not here to give us his list.
THE CHAIRPERSON: He left me a brief message.
MR. FREIMAN: In terms of reply, as presently advised, given the proceedings up to date, the only possible reply might be a reply witness with regard to the testimony we are hearing today, and that would be a half-day at most.
The question I have is whether Mr. Rupert is still going to be called.
MR. CHRISTIE: That is something I was just asked to raise.
Let me put on record my situation respecting the witness Klatt.
In all likelihood, it appears that cross-examination would not finish today before 3:30, by any means, and then I have a number of questions in re-examination, which means that Mr. Klatt will have to come back. There is a good likelihood that he might not even be finished in cross. I am not certain what Mr. Kurz' position is, but I understood from overhearing conversation that it could be fairly extensive.
I would submit this is the situation. Mr. Klatt has a flight that leaves in early afternoon to return him to his home from which he has been for many days. What I was going to suggest, if it is not inappropriate, is that we could recess with Mr. Klatt's evidence at approximately 3:15. He has to go back to his residence, pick up his things and get to the airport. I know you won't want to waste any time. That is why I raise it now, because Mr. Rupert is outside. I had told him, because of what I heard, that he should go home, but then I thought, if the Panel would be reluctant to adjourn because of any possible waste of time, then I might be able to call out of sequence Mr. Rupert.
If you could assist in this respect, I don't think it inconveniences anybody terribly. I can't speak for everybody, but it doesn't seem logical that it would make much difference if he has to come back anyway. It will cost him thousands of extra dollars if he misses his flight.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you expect to finish this afternoon, Mr. Freiman?
MR. FREIMAN: Yes.
THE CHAIRPERSON: But you have re-examination.
MR. CHRISTIE: I really have a lot of notes on that, yes.
THE CHAIRPERSON: We will deal with that in a moment. Mr. Kurz, please.
MR. KURZ: I would like to address the first issue, Mr. Chair, if you feel it is appropriate, to deal with not the appropriateness of the witnesses, but I have a question to address to Mr. Christie through you so that I can better understand. Is it appropriate to do that now?
THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR. KURZ: The list of Mark Webber, Robert Faurisson, David Irving, Tony Martin and Doug Collins ‑‑ of all of those, I only heard Mr. Christie to say that one is tendered as an expert. Because I am aware of who these people are, I am wondering, through Mr. Christie, whether he plans to tender any of the others, other than Robert Faurisson, as an expert.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I understood that Faurisson, Irving and Martin are experts.
MR. CHRISTIE: I should have made that clear. I meant to indicate that I will be tendering Mark Webber as an expert in revisionism, and I will be tendering him to verify that what is alleged to be published on the impugned site is revisionist literature respecting the Holocaust. I will be giving it social context in relation to his knowledge of the subject which is quite extensive. That is what I will be tendering him to verify in expert terms.
Robert Faurisson is indeed a revisionist, but he is also a trained expert in linguistics and has numerous academic achievements in that respect and in document analysis. He will be tendered in a sense similar to Dr. Prideaux.
David Irving will be tendered as an expert in historical writing and historical analysis and the scope and effect of historical discourse in modern times.
Tony Martin, likewise, will be tendered as an expert both in history and in the context of debates about history and the evolving Jewish issues and the social context of those debates. He is a university professor from New York.
Doug Collins will be tendered as an expert in journalism and the scope and effect of controversy pertaining to historical issues involving Jewish issues as well.
MR. KURZ: Is Mr. Collins an expert as well, I am sorry?
MR. CHRISTIE: In journalism.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Of course, nothing we say here today has anything to do with whether any of these experts are acknowledged as experts. That will follow in the usual course of events as the evidence develops. What I have to address now is scheduling.
This Tribunal began in May of last year. We are approaching the second anniversary in the spring of 1999. The scheduling to date ‑‑ and I believe the record will bear me out ‑‑ of the hearings in this matter have been exclusively governed by the convenience of counsel, and I am not singling any one counsel out. There are a number of counsel on this case. However, we have reached the point where there has been a concern created within the Tribunal.
Member Jain to my right is a professor who has duties at a university, and those duties resume in January, so he has his teaching responsibilities. I and my colleague to my left each have our own responsibilities outside of this Hearing.
What we propose to do to accommodate counsel as much as possible, but we have to accommodate our own schedule as well, is to set the week of February 15 to 19 to continue this Hearing, which happens to be a week in which Professor Jain is relieved of his duties because it is a study week at the university.
In a letter which I wrote to all counsel some time ago I talked about the possibility of two-day sessions, again to accommodate the schedules of Tribunal Members. Then beginning at the end of April we can schedule three-day hearings; perhaps we could schedule them for slightly longer hours, but the best we can do is three days of hearing commencing in April.
What I propose to do, quite apart from February 15 to 19, is to set out a schedule in conjunction with my colleagues for two-day hearings and three-day hearings along the lines that I have suggested. I will do that after I hear from each of you concerning what I propose. I am not prepared to set those days today because we each have to consult our own schedules.
That is the way it is going to have to be in order to complete this Hearing. We are under an obligation under the statute to complete this Hearing in an expeditious way, and I am afraid I am going to have to suggest to you that counsel is simply going to have to make themselves available on the dates that I stipulate. We are going to have to do our very best to complete this Hearing, I hope, before the summer.
Now let me hear from counsel for the Commission first.
MR. FREIMAN: The Commission accepts the appropriateness of the proposal. We will have someone here every day. I can inform the Tribunal that in the week of February 15 I will not be available and I will not be here, but that should not deter the Tribunal from setting that week or the three subsequent weeks that I will also not be available as dates.
The only indulgence that I might ask is that final argument not be set for that block of time.
THE CHAIRPERSON: It doesn't look at all like we are going to be there. Mr. Christie, please.
MR. CHRISTIE: My position from the outset was, and I think remains, that from my point of view the establishment of a whole block of time would have been preferable. Every time that I have to travel from my residence and principal place of business to here costs me two extra days and probably three to recover from the jet lag plus thousands of dollars. Every one of these two-day or three-day sessions for those who live in the Toronto area really aren't too inconvenient, although it affects people's calendars. I am the one whom it affects most.
I am not very happy about the situation.
THE CHAIRPERSON: We appreciate that it involves an extra burden on those who are travelling a long distance, as you must do.
MR. CHRISTIE: The week of February 15 I am not certain because I didn't bring my calendar. I know we had some correspondence about this, and I must say I thought I was only to provide the times and whatnot. Maybe I didn't understand that.
If you are saying that that is definitely the dates, I just can't say that I am available. I could make a phone call and maybe find out.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I guess the message that the Tribunal is giving to counsel is that we would like to continue to convenience counsel as we have in the past, but consistent with our responsibilities here under the law and under the legislation we can no longer do that. We have to proceed.
MR. CHRISTIE: I understand that quite well, and I don't object to the fact that in principle that is what you have to do. Let me just point this out. Of all the people in the room, there is only one party who stands in jeopardy and against whom an order or remedy is sought, and that is my client. The rest of the Intervenors, much as they have an interest and no doubt a legitimate interest in the whole subject matter, do not have the primary interest of either the Commission or the Respondent.
I would have hoped that consideration could at least be given in that regard. Realistically, this is not the only case I have to deal with, and I am sure that is true for a lot of other people, too. There is nobody else that can take over the responsibility of representing the Respondent. Without him there is no particularly good reason for the proceedings, so I am asking for consideration. If you will allow me a phone call, I can check that week and I could at least tell you what my situation is.
THE CHAIRPERSON: We haven't set any other dates other than the February 15 to 19, which is a precious week because it is a full week. We would have to be convinced beyond any doubt that it operated as a severe hardship. In other words, Mr. Christie, our thinking is that we need that week.
MR. CHRISTIE: I well understand. Let me say that, if there is an inferior court or something I can change, there is no doubt that I would. But if it happened to be a Supreme Court trial ‑‑ and I can't think offhand of what is going on in February ‑‑ that I couldn't get out of, I really would be in a bind.
THE CHAIRPERSON: On other occasions ‑‑ and you are a very busy counsel ‑‑ we have accommodated you and we have deferred to courts of superior jurisdiction and courts of other jurisdictions. At some point this Hearing has to be given some recognition and priority, having in mind that we are completing a year and a half here.
That is all we have to say. You will receive a letter from counsel concerning our proposed two and three-day dates.
I didn't ask other counsel about their position. I hope they don't have a great deal to say because I certainly can't accommodate very much counsel for interested parties.
Today we will be adjourning to the dates that are already fixed for December.
MR. KURZ: Let me say for the record ‑‑ and I believe I speak for all the Intervenors ‑‑ that we will simply be here on whatever dates you set. I just want to make that clear for the record that myself and other Intervenors and any other parties other than the Commission will agree with that position. We will either be here or we will not ask you to adjourn. We will accept whatever dates you set.
If I could make a very brief comment, because scheduling is on the list with regard to Mr. Christie's list of potential witnesses, I would like to say to Mr. Christie, through you ‑‑ I think Mr. Christie probably knows that there will be a challenge to each one of his potential witnesses and that he should be in a position where he has his witnesses lined up in case the Tribunal chooses not to accept the expert witnesses. If Mr. Christie is simply booking a week for each ‑‑ and I don't want to in any way prejudge any decision that you will want to make. I don't think I am raising anything that will be of any surprise to Mr. Christie in that, if he is calling an expert in revisionism, there will be a challenge. If for any reason the Tribunal decides to accept that challenge and not allow Mr. Webber to testify, then what I am asking Mr. Christie, through you, is to ensure that his next witness, Robert Faurisson or Mr. Irving, testify.
That is one point that I would ask that you make clear to Mr. Christie.
My second point is the order of the witnesses. From what Mr. Christie said, I assume that his order of witnesses after Mr. Klatt and after Mr. Rupert would be Webber, Faurisson, Irving, Martin and Collins. The order is important because it may well be that certain people will prepare for those witnesses and will want to personally ensure that they are there. If he changes that order, I wish to ensure that all of the parties have appropriate notice.
My friend Mr. Freiman has said "and reports." I know there is already a practice direction, but just to make it clear because we are coming on to December already, Mr. Rupert and Mr. Klatt, no matter what, will not take that many days. We are not that far from the 10-day limit for reports. We need reports for each of them. If Mr. Webber for any reason is knocked out and Mr. Faurisson is next, there has to be, if I may suggest, the 10-day report notice for each. That is just to make sure this thing continues on and no days are wasted.
THE CHAIRPERSON: We will continue with the cross-examination. Mr. Klatt would like to leave at what time?
MR. CHRISTIE: As close after three o'clock as possible.
THE CHAIRPERSON: We will go until about three o'clock.
MR. FREIMAN: I believe there was an objection that was made. I am not sure that it is appropriate for the witness to be here for any further argument.
Madam Reporter has completed the task given to her of transcribing the questions and the objection, and it would be for you to decide what force, if any, to give to Mr. Christie's objection to my question. Perhaps Madam Reporter could read back the original question and answer.
‑‑- The Reporter read back as requested
THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Christie, please.
MR. CHRISTIE: In order to understand my objection at this late stage, I would have to have the question and the objection. What I think I was objecting to was the suggestion that I thought Mr. Freiman was making to the witness, that he would refer them to the Registrant. That is what I objected to.
It is clear that he said he would refer them to the author and the Canadian Patriots Network. I think in the question, in fairness to Mr. Freiman, he also said "or Canadian Patriots Network" or "Canadian Patriots Network or the Registrant, which is it?"
THE CHAIRPERSON: Why don't we let Mr. Freiman put the question again, having read what the witness said previously.
‑‑- Witness returns to the stand
CROSS-EXAMINATION, Continued
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Mr. Klatt, before we broke for lunch, I asked you: If someone had difficulty with the content of the Zundelsite, based on the information here, you would refer them at first instance to Ernst Zundel. You disagree with that or you agree with that?
A. Regarding the ...?
Q. If someone came to you and told you, "I have a problem with the content of the Zundelsite. I don't like it. I object to it," you would say, "Don't look at me. I am just the ISP." Right?
A. That is our position.
Q. And you would send them on to Ernst Zundel at first instance.
A. This web site doesn't exist, to my knowledge.
Q. I am asking you based on this registration and using it as an example. Would it be any different here than for any other web site if somebody said, "I have a problem with this?" You would send them at first instance to the Registrant. Correct?
A. That could certainly be an option for them to do.
Q. You would send them at first instance to the Registrant.
A. Or whatever the contact information is.
Q. On this sheet the contact is the Registrant. That is the only person on this entire sheet who could possibly be responsible for content. It couldn't be the Administrative Contact; it couldn't be the Billing Contact. Didn't we establish that?
A. In the previous examples we looked at, the author of the content is listed as the Administrative, Billing, et cetera.
Q. Is it?
MR. CHRISTIE: I have an objection that arises out of what the witness said. I have to ask the witness to leave.
‑‑- Witness Withdraws
I heard the witness say this site doesn't exist.
MR. FREIMAN: So...?
MR. CHRISTIE: So, what was the relevance of introducing this if this site doesn't exist?
MR. FREIMAN: Mr. Christie again assumes that I have asked all the questions I am going to ask and he has all the information. We have had an answer from the witness, and I will deal with the answer from the witness. It doesn't change any of the answers he has given so far. I am going to ask him as to the meaning of all of this.
MR. CHRISTIE: Let me say, then, that what it changes is my understanding of relevance. At the point that this was introduced, I assumed that the Zundelsite, as is represented here, was the Complainant's case, the documents that are relevant to the proceeding. Otherwise, if Mr. Zundel has another site or the Zundelsite doesn't exist, this would be totally irrelevant.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I assume he is using this document as an illustration of the focus of his cross-examination with who is responsible in the event of complaints. What is the complaint procedure? Is it directed to the Administrative Contact, et cetera?
MR. CHRISTIE: I never understood for a moment that this was a hypothetical question. I didn't object to the introduction of this document simply because I assumed it was germane and that the Commission is going to link it to the Complaint. I frankly thought this was the Zundelsite registration domain name. If that is not the case, I think the Commission should at least let us know.
MR. FREIMAN: This is quite amazing. The witness is giving evidence, and I have a responsibility to account for the witness' evidence. He has given some answers ‑‑
MR. CHRISTIE: Well ‑‑
MR. FREIMAN: One moment; sit down, Mr. Christie, please. Let me finish
The witness is giving evidence. We will follow up on all the answers. The document has been admitted for a proper purpose. It has been identified. We will talk more about it. We will talk about what it means or what it doesn't mean. If Mr. Christie is dissatisfied or thinks it doesn't stand for certain propositions and thinks you should be tearing it up and throwing it away, he will bring up all that information on re-examination. You don't stop someone's cross-examination in mid-stream after a witness has made an amazing statement and say, "Let's get off this topic because that's the end of it."
Let me finish, and we will see.
MR. CHRISTIE: I can accept that generally, but when something as profound as was just stated ‑‑ unless the Commission intends to challenge that, and I didn't hear my friend say that. This document has been identified as being totally irrelevant. That is a surprise to me, but that's fine.
Assuming that this Zundelsite does not exist, I would submit that the document has no relevance. At that moment the Commission has to give some indication of what they allege its relevance to be. I assume they can link it and say it does exist to some site.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I offered a suggestion as to what might be the relevance, but perhaps I should hear it from Mr. Freiman.
MR. FREIMAN: I don't think I have an obligation, as Mr. Christie points to in his cross-examination, to lay out a road map for my cross-examination. If I misbehave, if I have done something wrong, the Tribunal will let me know in due course and will take whatever inferences and whatever steps are necessary. It is not for Mr. Christie to stop me on the first question for about the fourth time and imply that there is something wrong, that there is no relevance and that we should get off this topic.
He may not be happy with the topic. He may not be comfortable with what is about to be said, but he will have to sit and wait and listen and deal with it in re-examination in four or five or six weeks or however many weeks he needs to prepare.
MR. CHRISTIE: I am more happy with the result. If this evidence is true, then the Zundelsite registered as it appears to Ernst Zundel and not referring to the alleged offending site is a clear indication that Ernst Zundel is not attached to the documents in question in HR-2.
THE CHAIRPERSON: That might be your argument several weeks hence.
MR. FREIMAN: Exactly. There is no point in wasting time arguing.
MR. CHRISTIE: Please; I have just a brief submission.
Not one word has explained the relevance. Maybe, Mr. Chair, you have said what the relevance is and I may have missed it. Assuming that is the case ‑‑
THE CHAIRPERSON: We will wait to see what the relevance of this is.
MR. CHRISTIE: All I can say is that, until the relevance is established, at this point it is shown to be irrelevant.
Normally I sit back and take the position that we assume that the Commission has some relevance to it and that it will be linked. When I am told by the witness that this site does not exist, at that moment I say the question of relevance is entirely clear. At least then somebody should tell me.
THE CHAIRPERSON: We know it existed at one time.
MR. CHRISTIE: Do we?
MR. FREIMAN: May I suggest that this simply illustrates the impropriety of what Mr. Christie is doing. He is trying to start his final argument here, trying to minimize whatever may happen by putting propositions before you that will tend to obfuscate matters. Why doesn't he just sit back and wait and listen and find out?
The witness has identified this document as a document with which he is familiar. If nothing else, you can see that the name of his ISP appears on this document. Let's sit back and wait and see what happens.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Enough. Call the witness, please.
‑‑- Witness returns to the stand
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Mr. Klatt, the question I asked you is: Using just the information that we find on this page, what is the difference in your response to someone who asks about Canadian Patriots Network or someone who asks about this? Under Canadian Patriots Network ‑‑ you said that in the other ones the same name appeared for the Registrant and other portions of the registration. That is what you said, isn't it?
A. Correct.
Q. And that was exactly right in the case of your own site, but look at FREEDOM-SITE.
A. It is also important to keep in mind that this is a domain name registration, not a web site registration.
Q. Yes.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry, say that again, please.
THE WITNESS: It is a domain name registration, not a web site. You can have a domain name registration without any associated web site.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Let's get down to it, Mr. Klatt. Let's just understand a little better what we are looking at. Let's go back to the Canadian Patriots Network for a moment.
We know that this is what happens when someone wants to reserve a name and he or she or it reserves it through Internic. First of all, how do you do that? Who does that? Is it the Registrant who completes the registration or is it someone else?
A. It can be either way.
Q. Either the Registrant or...?
A. Somebody else can do it on their behalf.
Q. Like...?
A. Myself or an Internet Service Provider or some third party.
Q. Typically, it is the ISP who completes the registration, isn't it, because the ISP knows how to do this and the prospective registrant may not?
A. I guess in quite a few cases that would be the case.
Q. For instance, in the Canadian Patriots Network, did Mr. and Ms Network do this or did you?
A. I believe the way that came about is that Marc mentioned that he did want to reserve the domain name and asked if he could do so referencing FTCNET.
Q. So Mr. Lemire contacted you, informed you saying, "I would like to register the name FREEDOM-SITE.ORG and reserve that name for use on the Internet. Can I use your web server site as a reference for the location?" Correct?
A. That is to the best of my recollection.
Q. What we are talking about are the two lines at the bottom: ALPHA.FTCNET.COM and BETA.FTCNET.COM. Correct?
A. Right.
Q. Those two, as I understand it, are representations by the registrant that, when the name is confirmed, the Internet communication, the web site or the domain site will be physically located on ‑‑ there will be two locations on the Internet where you can find this particular site. One will be ALPHA.FTCNET.COM and the second will be BETA.FTCNET.COM. Correct?
A. It doesn't imply that you would find the site there.
Q. What does it imply?
A. That the queries that do the conversion between name and number can be handled by that site.
Q. So there will be something that the site will do on behalf of the FREEDOM-SITE.ORG. Correct? You say the conversion between the name and the number.
A. That's correct.
Q. What does that mean?
A. Internet addresses have ‑‑ servers anyway have an IP address associated with them.
Q. Let's clarify that. You implied in your criticism of Mr. Angus' testimony that he was just wrong to say that numbers were associated with sites and that, in fact, increasingly all you need are names. What you meant was that, where there is a web page on someone else's server, the web page often doesn't have a number. You were not implying, were you, that something like FREEDOM-SITE.ORG wouldn't have a number? It has a number; that is how you find it.
A. In this case, yes.
Q. And in all cases. The registrant entity will have a number. There may be pages that belong to someone that are not identified by a number because you reach them by reaching the number of the entity that runs the domain site. Correct?
A. I don't believe that is entirely correct.
Q. What is incorrect about it?
A. My understanding is that you can have multiple domain names set up with a single IP address.
Q. That is the exception, that you can have a number of domain names and they all go through the same number.
A. That is my understanding.
Q. But otherwise Mr. Angus was right. You do have numbers and you have names for these destinations. It is just that, if the destination itself is occupied by more than one page often associated with more than one individual, those subdivisions may not have numbers. Correct?
A. That is not what I am trying to say.
Q. I understand that what you were trying to say was that not every destination has a number.
A. Not every domain name has an IP address.
Q. Because some of them share IP addresses.
A. Correct.
Q. There are no domain names that don't have an IP address.
A. We just got through saying that not all domain names have IP addresses.
Q. All of them have an IP address; it may just be the same IP address as another domain that is in fact associated with the same organization or the same owner.
A. No. It could be hosted on the same server, but it could be a completely separate organization.
Q. We won't spend a lot of time debating that because the issue that I want to deal with is what this means. It means that, when someone sends out a query, at some point it has to pass through your server in order to translate the query into a number.
A. Internet registration requirements are that two domain name servers be listed. You have can have quite a few more if a person so chooses to arrange it.
Q. But this is the minimum; you can't have fewer than this. If we know nothing else about a site, we know that on the basis of this registration this is one way for the number to be located that corresponds to the destination being sought. It is on your server. Correct?
A. Which one are we looking at?
Q. We are looking at FREEDOM-SITE.ORG.
A. If that domain was set up on our server, that would be the address.
Q. Isn't the Registrant saying and weren't you saying on its behalf that it would be? Mr. Lemire asked if he could cross-reference your site as the location where these addresses translated into numbers, and you said "yes." So you are actually representing to Internet that your server is a location where the address will be translated into the numbers for the IP address.
A. No, it is not a commitment. If the Registrant chooses to activate the domain, we certainly could host it there.
Q. Aren't you saying you will host it?
A. No, it is not a commitment. There are thousands of domain names that are registered that are not active.
Q. Of course, but if it is activated, you are committing yourself that you will do it.
A. At that particular time.
Q. I am just saying that what you are telling the people at Internic is: When this particular destination is up and running, it can be resident on my server for purposes of locating the IP address.
A. At the time of registration there is no commitment that the web site will be activated.
Q. I didn't say there was. I said: If this thing is up and running, it can sit on my web site for purposes of the IP address. That is what you are saying, isn't it?
A. No, it is not a commitment.
Q. So what are you telling them? You are telling them, "If this thing is up and running, I may or I may not do it? If it is not up and running, of course, I won't do it, but if it is up and running, maybe I will and maybe I won't."
A. The domain name server information can be changed at any time.
Q. What are you telling the Internic people? Are you giving them a commitment or not? Are you telling them you are going to do something or not?
MR. CHRISTIE: I don't know how many times he said that it is not a commitment. I really don't understand ‑‑
THE CHAIRPERSON: I don't understand his answer.
MR. CHRISTIE: Let me suggest that it is so clear that it is ‑‑
MR. FREIMAN: I would ask Mr. Christie not to suggest.
MR. CHRISTIE: I object.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I am allowing it to continue.
MR. CHRISTIE: The cross-examination is being abusive, and it should not be allowed. It is asking the same question again and again, and the answer has been given, for the purpose of oppression, and I object to that, whether the Chairman allows it or not.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. What are you telling Internic then?
A. That the person making the request is asking Internic to assign the use of that set of alphanumeric numbers for the purpose of registering that domain name.
Q. What does FTNET.COM have to do with that? What does Internic find out by the fact that you have put FTCNET.COM and both the ALPHA and BETA for Canadian Patriots Network.ORG.
A. They don't find out anything other than that there are two domain name servers listed there. Internic does not go and check to make sure that those even exist.
Q. So what are you telling them? You are telling them nothing.
A. Nothing that is of particular concern to them.
THE CHAIRPERSON: What I am not understanding is what follows upon activation.
THE WITNESS: If indeed it is followed through with activation and the domain name servers remain as initially listed with the Internic, that is where that domain would be hosted.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. So, when it is first activated, it is contemplated to be hosted at that site.
A. It can be in many cases changed to a different location if the plans change.
Q. And it should be re-registered, shouldn't it?
A. It only has to be valid when it is activated. Internic does not go out and verify that those domain name servers, either primary or secondary, are ‑‑
THE CHAIRPERSON: What we are looking for is what happens in the usual course of events.
MR. CHRISTIE: He is trying to answer, and I really don't think ‑‑
THE CHAIRPERSON: I am trying to be helpful to the witness.
MR. CHRISTIE: I don't think the witness needs help. The witness is giving answers. Either the Chair is not liking them or my friend is not liking them, but I really don't think it is fair for either the Chair or my friend to interrupt.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Christie, I am not trying to interrupt. I am trying to understand the evidence, which is pretty important for us.
MR. CHRISTIE: I don't think it is hard to understand.
THE WITNESS: There is a problem on the Internet of domains being registered with domain name servers set up that don't match reality. That happens on a regular, ongoing basis, but it doesn't affect the registration of the domain name.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Let's see if we can do this quickly so that we can send you off to your plane in good order and high spirits.
The issue is this for Internic. When you register a domain, they expect you to tell them where the domain is going to be physically located. Correct?
A. They don't really care where it is going to be located.
Q. They expect the registrant to be able to point to two places where it will be located. They don't even like the fact if it's one; that is not enough. You have to give them two names.
A. In order to satisfy their requirements for operational web site, but to register they are not required to be operational. Primary and secondary domain names do not have to be valid or functional in order to register a domain name.
Q. No, but when you register the domain name, what you are saying is, "When I am up and running, I am going to put this domain onto these two sites." Isn't that what you are telling Internic and isn't that, further, what Internic is telling the world when it issues the answer to this query?
A. There are lots of web sites that are up and running that don't have Internic records that match what is actually in place on the Internet.
Q. I think you may be getting a little tired, Mr. Klatt, and not listening as carefully as you think you are to my question.
MR. CHRISTIE: It is the same question, probably 10 times. I object to it again. He has given an answer. My friend doesn't like the answer; he wants a different answer. Apparently the Chair is prepared to let him ask it until he gets it changed, and I don't think that is appropriate.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I will allow you one more attempt to clarify, speaking for myself and my own mind.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. We are not talking about what happens as a result of registration. I am suggesting to you that at the moment of registration what is being told to Internic is that the registrant plans, when it is up and running as it is now advised today ‑‑ based on what it knows today, the registrant plans to have its server as this ALPHA and BETA indication.
Isn't that what the registrant is telling Internic?
A. I guess ‑‑ I shouldn't say "I guess." In many cases that indeed is what occurs. In many other cases, people put in whatever domain name servers are convenient. There is a lot of domains registered AOL.COM or IBM.COM when there never was any intent to imagine that the registrant could host their content on the AOL or IBM. It was just a convenience in terms of registering the domain name.
Q. In this case, Mr. Lemire asked you, "May I use your server name?" didn't he, and you said "yes."
A. Yes.
Q. So that means that you were willing to host his site when it got running.
A. We were already hosting his content, but it was under the FTCNET domain.
Q. All I am saying is that you were willing to host his site, this domain, if and when it got running.
A. In his particular case, yes.
Q. Looking at HR-28, how did that come to be registered? Did someone come and ask you whether they could use ‑‑ did you register this, as you did the Canadian Patriots Network?
A. Not to my recollection.
Q. Who did?
A. I don't know.
Q. So your friend Ernst Zundel didn't ask you to register the domain name ZUNDELSITE.COM?
A. I don't think he asked me to register it.
Q. Did he ask you if he could use your sites, FAIRVIEW.NET and FTCNET.COM?
A. No, he doesn't know any requirements for registering domain names.
Q. Did anyone ask you if they could use FAIRVIEW.NET and FTCNET.COM to register something called ZUNDELSITE.COM?
A. Not to my recollection.
Q. When you first saw this ‑‑ when did you first see this?
A. It would have been at the judicial review exam earlier this summer.
Q. Did it cause you any difficulty or concern that somebody had put down your address as the server that was going to host something called ZUNDELSITE.COM?
A. No. It has no impact on the operation of our system.
Q. So your evidence, as you sit here today, is that you don't know who registered this, you don't know how they came to know your server address ‑‑
MR. CHRISTIE: You didn't ask that question.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Do you know how they came to know your address, FAIRVIEW.NET and FTCNET.COM?
A. Various people do know those addresses.
Q. Pardon?
A. Quite a few people know our domain name servers. It is not hard to find.
Q. But do you know how the registrant came to know your domain name or the registration site?
A. I am not sure who the registrant is.
Q. So you don't know how they came to know.
A. No, I don't.
Q. That is what I was saying two minutes ago. In fact, you don't know anything about this. It is just something that is on Internic with your name on it or the name of your location. Correct?
A. I have ‑‑
Q. You have what?
A. I have talked to Marc regarding that particular domain name.
Q. This is Marc Lemire?
A. Right.
Q. Why did you think Marc Lemire would know something about this?
A. He has helped with the FREEDOM-SITE organization domain name and was interested in getting a ZUNDELSITE.COM domain name registered also.
Q. He was interested in assisting with the registration of ZUNDELSITE?
A. I believe that was some discussion we had.
Q. That you had with him?
A. Right.
Q. What was the gist of that discussion?
A. He was interested in registering the ZUNDELSITE.COM.
Q. And...? Did he ask if he could use your address, as he had for FREEDOM-SITE.ORG?
A. I don't recall that he made any specific request.
Q. Do you recall that he didn't make a request?
A. I don't know whether he requested or not.
Q. Do you know if Mr. Lemire is an associate of Mr. Zundel?
A. I am not sure what the relationship is.
Q. Do you know that they are colleagues, or not?
A. I don't know the relationship between Mr. Zundel and Lemire.
Q. Did you ask Mr. Zundel about that?
A. I haven't questioned Marc or Mr. Zundel regarding their relationship.
Q. Did you ask Mr. Zundel about the request to register the Zundelsite? He is your friend. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And the registration occurred in October of 1996. That was after you had come to know him. Correct?
A. Right.
Q. So did you ask him?
A. It may have been mentioned at some point in passing.
Q. And what happened?
A. I don't think he was opposed to it.
MR. KURZ: I am sorry, Mr. Klatt, I didn't hear.
MR. FREIMAN: He didn't believe he was opposed to Mr. Lemire assisting with the registration of that name.
Q. Correct?
A. That is my understanding.
Q. Now you tell us that your understanding is that this particular web site doesn't exist or this domain doesn't exist.
A. I haven't accessed it.
Q. But you told us it doesn't exist. I want to know how you know that it doesn't exist.
A. To my knowledge, it doesn't exist.
Q. What does that mean? You have tried to access it and you haven't been able to find it? Or you asked somebody and they told you that it doesn't exist? What does it mean?
A. I remember back in July trying to access it and it didn't exist.
Q. So as of July your evidence is that it didn't exist. Do you have any other basis for your statement that it doesn't exist? Did anybody else tell you something? Did you discuss it with someone?
A. The domain name was registered in the 1996 time frame, and I don't know what all the plans were regarding it.
Q. I am asking whether you had a conversation with anyone else about the existence or not of this particular location.
A. I am pretty sure I talked to Ingrid Rimland.
Q. Is she a friend of yours as well?
A. I am acquainted with her.
Q. Do you want to try calling up the location and see if it exists or not? Perhaps Mr. Angus can assist in getting the projector on.
Shall we see if find anything?
It is telling us that the Netscape is unable to locate ZUNDELSITE.COM. It doesn't have that DNS entry, and the DNS entry is exactly what we are looking at here. Right ‑‑ a domain number search?
A. The last two entries on the page refer to the domain name servers.
Q. It is telling us that it can't find it at the domain name server at which it was registered or at any domain name server. Correct?
A. As I understand it, the domain name server that is used as the local Internet Service Provider that this machine is connected to, their information is updated from the Internic on a periodic basis, and whatever they currently have as information gets checked. If that isn't found, it goes to the next higher level, attempting to find a match for it.
Q. There are two reasons why it can't find it. First of all, you let go of FTCNET in terms of web hosting in the spring, didn't you?
A. We no longer host commercial clients; that is true.
Q. And, for instance, Canadian Patriots Network, if it ever was on your server ‑‑ was it ever on the server?
A. Not under that domain name.
Q. Under a different domain name.
A. No.
Q. It was under your own domain name for a while. Right?
A. Right. It had the URL FTCNET.COM/~FREEDOM.
Q. Right. And it's not there any more either, is it?
A. I believe there are pointers to its current location.
Q. But it's not there any more.
A. Correct.
Q. So that is one reason, that there is very little, if anything, left on FTCNET. The other reason is that, in fact, the Zundelsite is part of a server at Webcom. Correct?
A. As far as I know, it has always been at Webcom.
Q. It's at Webcom. That doesn't say anything about the fact that someone was trying to reserve the name ZUNDELSITE.COM. Correct? To prevent anyone else from using that name. Correct?
A. Domain names are reserved for a variety of purposes.
Q. Someone was trying to reserve that name. Correct?
A. Right.
Q. And that person is noted to be the Registrant, Ernst Zundel, whoever that may be. Correct?
A. That is what is shown there.
Q. And that person, whoever that is, gave your web server as the address where they intended or where they represented that they intended to have the domain posted if and when it was up and running. Correct?
A. The reason for registering a domain name is to reserve the domain name. It doesn't indicate plans for where that site is going to be hosted. It is not even necessarily an intention that there is going to be an active web site. Often domain names are reserved for a resale.
Q. We have been over that. What I said is that it is a representation that, if and when the location was up and running, it was going to be hosted on your web server. That was the representation.
MR. CHRISTIE: That is probably the fifteenth time my friend has asked the same question. This is like the reporter who asks the same question 15 times until somebody gets angry, and the angry response is used.
I object to this process. It is entirely unfair.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Where are you going now?
MR. FREIMAN: I am just going to finish off with this and get on to my next question.
Q. Can you answer that or not? If you can't answer it, just say you can't answer it.
A. The question being...?
Q. The question being that the representation that is being made is that, if and when ‑‑ not when, but if and when ‑‑ the web site or the server domain is up and running, it is intended to have it on your web server.
A. No, that is not the representation in terms of intent.
Q. What does it cost to register?
A. Initially, I think it was $100. I think they have since reduced the rates to $70.
Q. Who pays for that?
A. The most likely would be the Billing Contact.
Q. To your knowledge, under FREEDOM-SITE.ORG, who paid for it?
A. I don't know.
Q. Under the ZUNDELSITE, who paid for it?
A. I don't recall.
Q. It could have been you?
A. Perhaps. I have paid for many domain names.
Q. I suggest this is one of them.
A. I could look back in the records and see which domain names were paid for. That may have been one.
Q. Let's go on to talk about mirrors. You spoke at some length about mirrors and mirror sites.
I think the suggestion you made ‑‑ and, again, I would like you to correct me if I am wrong ‑‑ is that because sites can be mirrored, even if the main site were to be deleted, there would still probably be mirrors that would be sending out the prohibited content or the objectionable content.
A. I don't know that I would characterize the content in any particular way.
Q. Assuming that one were to shut down a given site, you thought the probability was that there could be mirrors that would still be dispensing the same content.
A. That is certainly possible.
Q. Let me just clarify a few things. First of all, a mirror has a different address; it has a different URL. Correct?
A. Right.
Q. And the URL is an important thing to know because that is how a significant number of people find the site that they want. That's right, isn't it?
A. Yes, that is a useful way to locate it.
Q. In fact, let me show you a document.
Mr. Klatt, have you ever seen this document before?
A. No, I haven't.
Q. Would you agree with me that it appears to be something that is distributed by a group with the initials WOTAN, Will of the Aryan Nation? That is what it appears to be from the title at the top.
A. I see the letters.
Q. It doesn't mean anything to you?
A. No, I have not seen this.
Q. Have you ever heard of WOTAN or Will of the Aryan Nation before?
A. Only in reference to the cross-exam in July.
Q. That was the first time you had heard those names, is it?
A. Yes.
Q. This appears to be in French. You can't read very well what is said there, but at the bottom of the page there is what I will call a banner. Is that a fair characterization of what it is? Is that a banner, or how would you characterize what you see at the bottom?
A. The web address and e-mail?
Q. Yes.
A. Sure, let's call it a banner.
Q. The banner says: "http://www.ftcnet.com/~chs. Correct?
A. That is what it says.
Q. It also gives an e-mail address, chs@ftcnet.com.
First of all, let's just remind ourselves that the e-mail address would be an e-mail address at your web server, and it is one of the functions, as I recall, that we discussed right at the beginning of your cross-examination, that you do for your clients. You provide them with an e-mail address.
A. Right.
Q. So it is fair to assume, then, that whoever this organization is or whatever is being advertised here is a client of yours, at least to the extent of having arranged for an e-mail address with your server.
A. That is a client address that I have seen.
Q. So it belongs to one of your clients. In fact, C.H.S., as I recall ‑‑ and please confirm for me ‑‑ is the address for Charlemagne Hammer Skinheads?
A. Those names were associated with it, yes.
Q. That was the name of the client who had the e-mail address, chs@ftcnet.com. Correct?
A. I believe so.
Q. And that is a client in France?
A. It purported to be from France. I don't know for sure if they were from France.
Q. They purported to be from France. Do you recall how they contacted you?
A. By e-mail.
Q. And they asked if they could have e-mail service set up? Did they contact you by e-mail in order to set up e-mail?
A. No, they weren't asking for e-mail service.
Q. What were they asking for?
A. For a web site.
Q. How did they come to have e-mail?
A. In order to set up a web site, we have to create a user account for them.
Q. And this is the user account that you set up in response to their request for a web site that you received by e-mail allegedly from France. Correct?
A. Right.
Q. You have never met these people?
A. No.
Q. And you don't know who they are.
A. No.
Q. The Internet address, the URL, www.ftcnet.com/~chs, that is the web site that you assigned to them as a result of their e-mail request to you. Correct?
A. It's a web address that points to the location to where they were able to store their content.
Q. Where they would be able to store their content. But it is not incorrect to say that you assigned them this particular address.
A. I don't recall that I assigned it. Usually people ask what they can use for their web address.
Q. And in this case...?
A. I think they may have indicated some preference for the three letter initials.
Q. C.H.S., and you accommodated the request.
A. Yes, that is usually the case.
Q. As I understand it, what is happening here is that this group, its banner, is letting people know how to reach their web site. Is that right?
A. That was their web site address.
Q. That was their web site. Do you understand that the purpose of the banner at the bottom is to tell the world how to get to their web site and how to send them e-mail?
A. That would certainly be most likely what they had in mind.
Q. What they have at the bottom there is the URL. Correct?
A. Above the e-mail address.
MR. FREIMAN: That's right. Could this be the next exhibit, please.
THE REGISTRAR: The document entitled "Will of the Aryan Nation" will be marked as HR-29.
EXHIBIT NO. HR-29: Document entitled "Will of the Aryan Nation"
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Let's assume that the organization that corresponds to this publishes controversial content. Does this organization publish controversial content? Do you know?
A. Based on media inquiries, it appears that some people have an interest in it.
Q. What does that mean? Does it mean they publish controversial content? Do you know if their content has been the subject of some controversy?
A. Yes, the media has taken an interest in it earlier this year.
Q. Maybe we can assist you. I am handing you a two-page document. Do you recognize this document?
A. It appears to be something similar to what Ms Matheson showed me back in July.
Q. If we look at the bottom left-hand corner, we see a URL, and it is alpha.ftcnet.come/~chs/. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And that is a URL that terminates at your web server. Correct?
A. Their web content was on our server.
Q. It was hosted on your server. This is the C.H.S. group whose URL we saw a moment ago in HR-29. Correct?
A. That's right.
MR. FREIMAN: Could we mark this as the next exhibit.
MR. CHRISTIE: Could I ask the relevance or is it ‑‑
MR. FREIMAN: We will work with this.
MR. CHRISTIE: Usually, there is an explanation of relevance that satisfies the trier of fact at some point. I am raising the issue now. My friend says that at some point it will be clear. I am asking ‑‑
THE CHAIRPERSON: Before we mark it, we will address that.
MR. FREIMAN: May we have the witness excused then?
THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
‑‑- Witness Withdraws
I just point out that we have to let Mr. Klatt go very shortly, and the interpreter will be here very shortly and we will proceed with the next witness.
MR. CHRISTIE: Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate it.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps we can address this now.
MR. FREIMAN: Let's address it now and we won't have too much more.
I intend to use this document in order to illustrate a number of propositions about mirror sites in relationship to original sites, the ease and difficulty of accessing a mirror site when the original site is shut down. This is an example of a site and content on a site in the original that the witness will confirm was in fact deleted from the site. Then I will have some questions about mirrors.
THE CHAIRPERSON: We won't have time to pursue that line.
MR. FREIMAN: May I please request that? I don't wish to cast any aspersions but, having gone to some length in determining or in revealing the relevance, it would be extremely helpful if I could ask two or three questions about this, so as to avoid any possibility that by accident this matter becomes public.
THE CHAIRPERSON: You don't need a great deal of time?
MR. FREIMAN: I don't need a great deal of time.
Q. Mr. Klatt, let us assume ‑‑ you are familiar with this, having seen it with Ms Matheson. Correct?
A. Right.
Q. You told me that this group publishes controversial material, at least that the press was interested in it and a controversy was caused. Correct?
A. I don't know if the press publishing a comment on the material necessarily led to controversy but, yes, the press has published material regarding this web site.
Q. Have you formed an opinion as to whether there is anything controversial about the material on the C.H.S. site?
A. I really don't read French.
Q. Even looking at the cartoon, for instance, would that make you believe that it might be controversial or not?
A. It is some artist's rendition of whatever concept he is trying to portray.
Q. I am not asking you to interpret it for me or to tell me what it is. I am just asking whether, in looking at it, that leads you to believe that it might be controversial, just from your looking at the cartoon; forget about the language.
A. How do you mean "controversial?"
Q. It's an English word. Do you know what "controversy" means? I understand you don't like the idea of calling something a hate site, and you just say there may be controversy around it. I want to know whether this is the sort of thing that might lead to controversy, might lead some people to take offence and to think that it was defamatory of a group.
A. I agree that there has been controversy regarding the content on that web site.
Q. Looking at the picture, do you understand why there might be controversy?
A. I suppose somebody might take offence with it.
Q. Let's assume, as was the case, that this was deleted from the web site. This was deleted from your server. It is no longer on your server. The C.H.S. site was shut down. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. Find me the mirrors, please. Can do that?
A. Find which?
Q. Find some mirrors. You don't have a URL any more, so let's see if we can find some mirrors that mirror this location.
What I am putting to you, sir, is that, if you don't have the URL, you have to find the mirrors which have a different URL by some means other than entering the URL. I would like to see if we can do that.
A. What we are trying to do is find this particular web page?
Q. This may be of some assistance to you. See if you can find the C.H.S, Charlemagne Hammer Skinheads. If this is helpful to you in suggesting some search words, that's great; if not, we will try something else.
A. This one appears that it may be in Spanish.
Q. Netscape is unable to locate the server, the same as we found for ZUNDELSITE.COM. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. I don't want to keep you from your plane. When we reconvene, maybe we can continue this discussion and the implications of what we have just seen.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Klatt. We have already said that you are not to discuss your evidence with anybody. You have the date on which you are to return.
THE WITNESS: Which date in December?
THE REGISTRAR: Monday, December 7.
MR. FREIMAN: May I ask at this point that this be marked as an exhibit.
THE REGISTRAR: The document entitled "Merry Hannukah!" will be marked as HR-30.
EXHIBIT NO. HR-30: Document entitled "Merry Hannukah!
THE CHAIRPERSON: We will take a recess until the Interpreter arrives.
‑‑- Short Recess at 3:25 p.m.
‑‑- Upon resuming at 3:35 p.m.
MR. CHRISTIE: In view of my anticipation of objections to the next witness, I will explain the relevance of the evidence to start with.
This is a witness I will tender of extensive experience both as an ethnic German and a German of considerable cultural and social involvement in Canadian society. I will deal with his experience, his background, his involvement in German Canadian cultural organizations. I will seek not to qualify him as an expert but to give the background of his observations pertaining to his own experience as to the effect of the Holocaust publicity on German culture, social life, the effect on the reputation of Germans, the effect of the Holocaust publicity on Germans, and the general attitude of the public toward Germans that he has experienced as a result of the publicity surrounding the Holocaust.
I will be alleging that it demonstrates a widespread prejudice against the entire German community, and it will be my intent to argue that Germans are human beings, too ‑‑
MR. KURZ: I am sorry to interrupt, but I think Mr. Rupert is sitting here listening to Mr. Christie describe his anticipated evidence.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Ask Mr. Rupert to leave the room.
MR. CHRISTIE: I was saying that my intent is to show the social context in which there is debate about the subject of the Holocaust ‑‑ its actual nature, not whether or not there was a Holocaust ‑‑ whether all Germans are guilty and whether Germans are impacted by the vilification process of some of the publicity surrounding the Holocaust.
MEMBER DEVINS: Mr. Christie, is this witness being offered in the same way that you offered a number of other witnesses in May or June of last year? I believe we had heard some similar evidence. Is this witness being offered in the same capacity?
MR. CHRISTIE: Yes.
MEMBER DEVINS: Thank you.
MR. CHRISTIE: I am going to submit that it is somewhat similar to the defence of section 319(3)(d) in the Criminal Code context, I admit, but to some extent it is analogous. We have in effect, I submit, a balancing of human rights. There are Germans in this community who have a collective reputation, a social and cultural reputation, and there are Jews in this community who have a social and collective reputation ‑‑ not that one defamation justifies another, but that in some contexts debate of historical issues in which there is controversy. Let's say that there are differences of opinion on the extent and the involvement of various people in various acts in historical context.
This may be relevant and germane to assessing whether, in effect, the social context justifies the remarks exchanged.
Actually, I think this is somewhat analogous to the views of Nietche Iron in the Collins case in the recent British Columbia Human Rights context. There is still scope for the discussion of public issues that might be offensive to some in view of there being some social interaction between conflicting ideas.
In the main, the objective is to demonstrate the effect upon German cultural and social life in Canada of the expressions of the Holocaust that have occurred, and that is why I am calling this particular witness.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Before other counsel address it, the Tribunal ruled on similar witnesses who were offered in roughly the same context. Subject to discussing it with my colleagues, perhaps you can focus your argument. I believe we would be inclined on the same basis as before, without being unduly repetitive, to hear this evidence.
MR. FREIMAN: Without accepting that it has any value, my only concern is that it does appear to be exactly the same evidence that we have heard from three other witnesses.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Is this the last in this general category?
MR. CHRISTIE: Yes, it is.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I take it it is not evidence of long duration.
MR. CHRISTIE: No, I don't think so.
THE CHAIRPERSON: We need an interpreter?
MR. CHRISTIE: He is actually capable of understanding a good deal of the English language and, of course, is prepared to take the oath in the English language, but would appreciate and really need the assistance of the Interpreter for probably somewhat complex questions or cross-examination.
THE CHAIRPERSON: He will begin in English?
MR. CHRISTIE: With the oath, and that is as far as I can go.
SWORN: KARL RUPERT
Toronto, Ontario
‑‑- INTERPETER SWORN
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. Could you please tell the Tribunal your background.
A. Where should I start? I came to this country in 1956.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you wish to speak English or German?
THE WITNESS: Some English words may flow into what I say. I will try my best.
THE CHAIRPERSON: We will have the questions translated into German for you and, if you wish to respond in English, you can respond in English. If you need any assistance in understanding anything, you can ask the translator to translate for you.
MR. FREIMAN: I note, Mr. Chairman, that the witness appears to have notes with him. I would ask that he give those notes to one of his friends or put them in his pocket, but that he not testify from those.
MR. CHRISTIE: If they are needed to refresh his memory on some issue, it may be that they are relevant. I don't know that it is impossible for him to refer to the notes. In fact, it may be useful and, in fact, he may have a right to refer to them.
MR. FREIMAN: Well, I would ‑‑
MR. CHRISTIE: We don't know yet how they were made, so perhaps the objection would be appropriate later.
MR. FREIMAN: I would ask that the notes not be referred to until such time as he feels the need for it, and then you can rule as to whether they are admissible.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Would you inform the witness that it is the ruling of the Chair that he should put the notes in his pocket. If he finds that, in order to answer a question, it is necessary to refer to them, you can draw that to our attention.
THE WITNESS: That's fine.
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. Would you describe your background in relation to your early life.
A. I was born in Germany.
Q. When?
A. In 1927, the 13th of March. I was educated in Germany. Then I was in the army.
Q. How long?
A. Close to one year.
Q. When?
A. In 1944 until May 9, 1945.
Q. Where?
A. I was on the Russian front, in Belgium, Holland, and then in Germany and then in Czechoslovakia. I had been kept in Czechoslovakia until May 9.
Q. From May 9 where you kept as a prisoner?
A. In Laven.
Q. Where?
A. In Laven, in Czechoslovakia.
Q. And whose prisoner were you?
A. Russian. The Czechs and Russians combined.
Q. How long were you a prisoner?
A. I was a prisoner ‑‑ this is a long story, if you want to hear it.
THE CHAIRPERSON: He is just asking how long you were a prisoner.
THE WITNESS: I was a prisoner until September 1949 in Russia.
THE CHAIRPERSON: For how long?
THE WITNESS: Four years in Russia. I arrived in Germany again on September 23, 1949. It was an awful time.
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. What kind of awful time?
A. If you want to hear the whole story from the beginning, I was a prisoner in Russia and, believe me, this was not a holiday.
Q. Just give us a few examples.
A. In Laven they captured us. I had an automobile. I had to drive along the troops and then I had to leave the car. Then they collected us and brought us to what must have been a former army camp. There, I threw my papers away and we had our uniforms on. They made two groups when they captured us. If they had no papers, they put them in one group and behind the building they were shot.
What saved my life was I had a whole package of cigarettes. Cigarettes in those times were really like gold. Two guards nearly fought each other for my cigarettes. In that incident I came to group that was not behind the building.
From there on we marched through the city until we came to a huge camp. From there we had to march for at least half a day to a railway station. This was the next day. We didn't get anything to drink or anything to eat. Certainly in those days already there were men like I am now ‑‑ I am 71 now ‑‑ who couldn't march any more, and they killed them right on the spot.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you want a glass of water, Mr. Rupert?
THE WITNESS: In those days I was 18 years old and I was in good shape, but the really old ones and the really young ones sat down sometimes. We were getting weaker because it was very hard, with nothing to drink and nothing to eat.
From there they brought us in cattle cars to a camp in Germany.
Q. To Germany?
A. Yes, from Laven, from that camp where they collected all the prisoners. They put us in cattle cars and went to Germany. There they were unloaded, and then we had to go to a Russian camp. It was a labour camp.
When we arrived there, they took all our personal things like rings, watches and whatever we had they took away from us. In that camp we could keep our medals, we could keep our uniforms. Then at the end of May they came and we had to give away our medals to them. They kept us there until September. I can't recall the period exactly.
In September an officer came in and told us, "You should prepare. We have to go for six weeks to a camp in Poland to shift some coal from one railway to another." This is the kind of story you get. We thought, if we got that six weeks behind us, finally we would get home. But we spent 18 weeks in cattle cars on the railway. They brought us to Polish-Ukraine. This is where the railway line ‑‑ in Europe you have a smaller railway line.
Q. The gauge narrowed or changed? The Russian railroad is wider.
A. It is getting wider in Russia. There they had to unload all the goods they took out of Germany ‑‑ machinery, anything. We had to build big barns that kept the goods, and then we had to load them in Russian ones.
I was there probably for a good year. From that 48,000, 18,000 died in this year, and some others were weak and so on.
Then I went to a camp in Pripjet Marshes. I caught malaria there. We had to get wood ready to put it on the railway and they shipped it somewhere. This was our work there.
Then I came back to the camp, and then they transported us not back to Germany but to Kiev. In Kiev I did a lot of work in the building industry.
Q. Did you get paid for that?
A. You must be kidding. Do you know Russian prisoners that get paid?
Q. What was the food like?
A. I should go back a little bit to that 18 days we were in that cattle car on the railway.
In the morning we did get about this much water and they put a spoon of fishmeal. Fishmeal is what you feed to the animals. This we got for 18 days. Then during the day a drop of water from the locks. From the locks they brought water in. In those days it was locomotives, and they brought us water. It was warm; it was not cold.
In the camp in Poland and in Kiev and in other camps it was very limited, especially in Poland and Kiev. For weeks we did get just water and grain
‑‑ no salt in it, just plain water and grain. A lot of us went colour-blind. It is a disease that at night you see nothing. A lot died from the water. Your legs get big and the water goes right up to the heart and, when the water reaches the heart, you fall down. Actually, I had it, too, and I was in the hospital for quite a while.
What kept me going ‑‑ it is hard to describe. The little bit of bread and water I did get I couldn't eat, but I had it. One guy said, Well, he will probably die tomorrow." Like a miracle, a change came and I pulled through.
Then they brought us down to the forest, and we had to cut trees down. That was away from Kiev, I would say, 100 kilometres in a small camp. There were about 30 people there. They had no houses. What we did was build out of the ground some holes and built a roof over our head.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Excuse me for a moment.
I want this witness to be able to tell us about what he wishes to tell us about while he is here in Canada, so at some point in time maybe you could lead him in that direction.
MR. CHRISTIE: I was about to do that.
Q. I take it you spent some winters in Russia and then you came back to Germany and you came to Canada. Is that right?
A. To make it short, from Kiev they transported us to Russia and from there close to Charkov and from Charkov in 1949 they transported us to Germany.
Q. How long did you stay in Germany?
A. In Germany I stayed until 1956.
Q. Then what did you do?
A. Then I immigrated to Canada.
Q. When you came to Canada, were you involved in any German-Canadian cultural organizations?
A. From 1969 on.
Q. What organizations have you been involved in?
A. The first one was the Toronto Carnival Society. I became a Vice-President and then after President.
Q. Of what?
A. Vice-President and President.
Q. Of what organization?
A. The Toronto Society.
Q. Was that a German-Canadian cultural society?
A. Yes, it was. It was the biggest Carnival Society in Toronto.
MR. EARLE: Could we get that name again?
THE WITNESS: The first Toronto Carnival Society.
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. It had a German name, did it?
A. German and English.
Q. What other organizations have you been involved in?
A. Can I look at my notes for a moment?
THE CHAIRPERSON: To look at names of organizations?
THE WITNESS: To look up the names. Don't forget I am 70 years old and my memory is not as good as when I was 18 or 20.
Then I was the founder of the Bavarian Club. I founded the Bavarian Club of Canada in 1979. It is still here. I used to be President for three sessions; the sessions were always two years.
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. Of the Bavarian Club?
A. Yes.
Q. And the next?
A. Then I was Director in the Club Harmonie. Actually, I am still.
Q. When was that? Give us the time frame. Do you have the years or not?
A. The Club Harmonie closed up years ago. I am talking about the eighties.
Q. Any other German cultural organizations?
A. I am still an executive in the Carnival Society. Then I was President of the Curling and Lawn Bowling Federation of Canada. I represented Canada three years ago in Austria. There were about 20 countries represented, and I represented Canada.
Then I was Vice-President of the TransCanada Alliance of German Canadians. I was Vice-President of Ontario, and then I was for many years Vice-President from coast to coast. TCA is the umbrella organization over Canadian clubs.
Q. Is that all Canadian clubs or German Canadian clubs?
A. German Canadian clubs.
On November 1 we had a general meeting and election, but I refused to ‑‑ they nominated me again for Vice-President, but I refused because 70 years is the time to quit. I am still a member there.
I was also Vice-President of the TCA Education Trust for three years.
Q. So you have been actively involved in German Canadian cultural organizations since 1969.
A. Yes.
Q. Are you familiar with and have you dealt socially with German Canadian cultural issues?
A. Yes. I was involved in meetings. I had a big meeting personally in Hansehaus, and I had about 50 people there. Then I was holding meetings together with other executives.
Q. Are you familiar with the term "Holocaust publicity" and the story of the Holocaust?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you describe what effect this has had in your experience on German Canadian cultural and social life?
A. It is a tool that destroys our community right up to the family. I could say even in my family. Eighty per cent of the German Canadian men here don't believe it like it is served to us.
Q. Why is that?
A. I lived in that time. I saw what was going on. A lot of things seem impossible to me and impossible to them. I would say half of the women say, "Well, maybe there is something to it." They are saying it because they are afraid.
Q. Are you afraid or are others afraid of discussing this issue?
A. I am among the very few who stands up, who is not afraid.
Q. Have you experienced fear in the German community about discussing this issue?
A. Yes, last night in a birthday party. It was the first thing when I came in that they talked about. I said nothing. I stopped to listen, though.
It is continuously an issue where it gets so far that some of them walk out from a small family party. Like I say, the women are afraid you might get your house burned down or you get a demonstration in front of your house, and so on. I would say 80 per cent of the men are not believing in it.
When I think back. I have been really a slave and, to me, when I hear that Germany already paid $100 million for this ‑‑
THE CHAIRPERSON: Excuse me, Mr. Rupert. What Mr. Christie was asking you was what effect the story of the Holocaust has on the social life of German Canadians. Can you direct your mind to answering that question?
THE WITNESS: Yes. It destroys our ethnic society. Clubs one after the other close. The kids everyday in school are so annoyed with it, and they are coming home to the family and asking their parents. Most of us don't want to talk about it to the kids.
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. Why not? Do you feel guilty about something in regard to the Holocaust?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever hurt Jews or persecute Jews or assault Jews or take them off to concentration camps or kill anybody?
A. I have been asked this already by some Canadians. I had my own upholstery business; this was in the sixties. I closed my contract with a customer and then he invited me for a glass of whisky. I had to sit down, and I made a rule that I would never discuss anything political with a customer. He more or less forced me to sit down, and he asked me about concentration camps. I said, "Sir, I never saw anything; I never can tell you anything." Then he said he was an officer in the Canadian army and he visited Dachau. He said, " You know yourself in the early years in Dachau they gassed Jews. Today it isn't over."
I said, "Well, I saw nothing." And he said, "Honestly?" I said, "I saw nothing wrong."
THE CHAIRPERSON: Let's wait for the next question.
MR. CHRISTIE: This is really the last question.
Q. Do you feel that Germans have suffered any effects from the stories that are currently promoted in the media and elsewhere, in schools? Have they suffered any ill effects from the presentation pertaining to the Second World War and the Holocaust?
A. Yes. It destroys you. If you hear it every day ‑‑ you would see Davis in the Star or especially away back in the Telegram. He always wrote some stories about the bad Germans. It destroys you. You feel so bad. Especially the women start believing it.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any more questions?
MR. CHRISTIE: Just one.
Q. How does the German community generally react to Ernst Zundel in Toronto?
MR. KURZ: How is that relevant, Mr. Chair?
MR. CHRISTIE: To the social context in this community of whether or not there is some effect of promoting hatred of Jews or exposing them to contempt or ridicule by anything that is attributed to Ernst Zundel. I thought it was pretty germane.
THE CHAIRPERSON: For what it's worth, answer the question.
THE WITNESS: To Ernst Zundel? After his court cases, in some parts they look up to him, but on the other side they are afraid to get acquainted with him. His awesome stories on what that man went through ‑‑ having his house burned down.
The German papers ‑‑ have you ever seen a German reporter here? They are afraid to come down. I studied that man. A few years ago I met him through something, and I studied that man. I figured that man is honest; this was my impression. He is not stealing; he is honest. This is why I kept on studying him.
After his cases went on, I took some press releases and tried to get them published in the German papers because I am known to them very good. An owner from the German press told me, "Karl, listen, my house owner is a Jew. I cannot publish this. Either he puts my rent up so high I cannot pay any more or he throws me out."
THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any more questions?
MR. CHRISTIE: Those are my questions.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Any cross-examination?
MR. FREIMAN: Very briefly.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Mr. Rupert, I got the impression from what you were telling us that you are very deeply affected by the experiences that you recounted to us regarding your capture and the next four years that you spent in Russia. Am I right? This was an important part of your life?
A. This was an important part of my life. Sometimes I still get a little emotional, but it is behind me.
Q. It is behind you, but it is an important part of your life and it does make you feel emotional from time to time, doesn't it?
A. If you were four years in prison, would this not affect you?
Q. I am asking you.
A. It affected me, yes, but it is finished. I have no hard feelings.
I tell you what. I came to that country. A lot of your fathers and grandfathers came to that country, too. They worked together. I supervised the Upholstery Division.
Q. Let me ask you a couple of questions.
A. Go ahead.
Q. Has anybody ever suggested to you that the experiences you have told us never happened, that they never happened?
A. Nobody told me.
Q. Nobody has ever said that to you.
A. No.
Q. Has anyone ever suggested to you that you are just telling that story in order to make Russian people feel guilty in the hope that you are going to get compensation? Has anybody ever suggested that to you?
A. No. I thought about it. I should have a right to get paid, especially right now because some German companies want to get paid for injuries during the War.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Rupert, wait for the next question.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Has anyone ever suggested to you that you are just telling this story in order to prevent people from talking about German war crimes? Has anybody ever suggested that to you?
A. No.
Q. Has anyone ever suggested to you that you don't have any proof of the story you are telling us, that your memory is poor, that you can't remember exact dates and you don't have any photographs or any other documentary evidence about it? Has anybody ever suggested that to you?
A. No, but you could go to the Immigration port. That have to have all sorts of documents.
Q. Let me just ask you: If somebody were to suggest that to you, how would you feel? How would you feel if I told you that I thought what you told us today never happened? Would you feel good about that?
A. I probably would say, "Well, what a dink. That guy is nuts or crazy."
Q. Not so crazy or is crazy?
A. I would that he is nuts. I would not take him seriously.
Q. Would you feel that somebody who suggested that to you was being fair to you and was being respectful of you?
A. I don't get exactly what ‑‑
Q. Maybe the interpreter can help you. To say that it never happened, you are making it up, all you want to do is to get money or stop people from talking about German war crimes ‑‑ if somebody said that to you, would you feel that they respected you?
A. No, I would not take him serious.
Q. Would you think that their purpose was to be friendly to the German community?
A. I don't think so.
Q. Would you think their purpose was to be unfriendly to the German community?
A. I would say so, yes.
Q. Would you say their purpose was to cause hatred of the German community?
A. It's getting close, yes.
MR. FREIMAN: Thank you. Those are my questions.
THE WITNESS: But still I am saying ‑‑
THE CHAIRPERSON: Is there any re-examination?
MR. CHRISTIE: If the witness has more to say, I think he should be allowed to say it in answer to that question.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Did you want to answer the last question more fully?
THE WITNESS: Something like this never happened to me and, like I said, I wouldn't take him serious.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. From everything you have known about Ernst Zundel, has he ever suggested that it never happened?
MR. FREIMAN: That is not re-examination.
MR. CHRISTIE: That is. You brought it up. You made it in hypothetical form, but in my respectful submission, Mr. Chairman, the implication could only have relevance if it was implying that Ernst Zundel had said that it never happened, that you're lying, that there was no Holocaust. I thought that was exactly what it was relevant for, so I ask him, quite correctly I think: Have you ever heard Ernst Zundel say anything like that about Jews, that the Holocaust never happened?
THE CHAIRPERSON: I am going to allow it.
THE WITNESS: If you asked me that question, actually it should be explained what you really mean by Holocaust. There are so many items ‑‑
THE CHAIRPERSON: Just a moment, until Mr. Christie puts a question to you.
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. Mr. Freiman asked you some questions about Germans like you being told that there were no prisoners treated badly in Russia, and you gave your answers.
Has Ernst Zundel ever said that the Holocaust never happened, to your knowledge; that there were no camps, no gas chambers, no Holocaust?
THE CHAIRPERSON: Would you translate it for him?
THE WITNESS: I understand. You mean personally to me or in a meeting or in a speech?
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. In any public utterances that you are aware of, has Ernst Zundel ever said there were no camps, there was no persecution, Jews never suffered, there was no Holocaust?
A. He never denied that there was any concentration camps. In those days they had different names like war camp or labour camp, but he denied there was any gassing of people.
Is this a satisfactory answer?
THE CHAIRPERSON: Are there any further questions?
MR. CHRISTIE: I have nothing further.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Rupert.
MR. CHRISTIE: Maybe I do have one question, I am sorry.
Q. What has been the effect on the German community of Mr. Zundel publishing his views?
MR. FREIMAN: That I really have to object to.
THE CHAIRPERSON: That doesn't fall within re-examination, I am sorry.
You may step down now, Mr. Rupert.
We will adjourn now until December 7.
‑‑- Whereupon the Hearing was adjourned at 4:28 p.m.
to resume on Monday, December 7, 1998 at 9:30 a.m.