Well, it took a whole morning to do it but here is a rough breakdown on the submissions. These are only rough figures since most submissions I only skimmed through and got a general feeling for rather than analyzed in depth.

I've tried to group them in to Five categories

A. Opposed to censorship

B. Accept censorship of 'really bad' (tm) stuff only

C. Support DoCA proposal in concept but with reservations (the Optus submission is a great example of this. They support the censorship so long as they can weasel their way out of their liability)

D. Support censorship strongly (the nets a bad place and hey, lets burn some books while we're at it)

E. Insufficient information to judge position.

1. 25

B. 4

C. 14

D. 12

E. 2

* Cat A answers largely came from individual internet users. cat A answer were largely unsolicited ( in the sense that unlike many pro-censorship bodies these people/groups were not given individual invitations to comment). These submissions ranged from one paragraph emails to keep off the internet, to extremely professional submissions which put many of the submissions by commercial bodies to shame (see the submissions of Dr David Maddison and Ms Irene Grahem for excellent individual submissions). These submissions tended to be ideologically opposed to censorship as well as criticising the proposal on technical grounds.

* Cat B answers tended to reflect a desire for maximum freedom but accepted some regulation 'may" be necessary in relation to universally unacceptable material.

* Category C answers. These mostly came from commercial organisations , ISP's etc. The general response was that they supported the concept of 'self-regulation' but wanted to argue over technical definitions of 'industry', 'reasonable knowledge' etc. ISP representative bodies, large ISP's and several others supported they idea of censorship so long as they could weasel their way out of liability, usually by pushing liability on to content providers.

There seemed a fairly even split in this category between submissions which were solicited and unsolicited.

* In Category D, almost all responses were from bodies which the government had sought a submission from. Indeed there were even a number from different government departments. Religious/family groups were strongly represented to the extent that some overlapped.

* Cat E answers were either unavailable or simply critiqued one part of a proposal without indicating their support or otherwise for the government proposal.

Individual users and content providers tended to be opposed to the censorship on both ideological as well as technical/practical grounds. Commercial interests remained just that, they tended to support the concept of classification/censorship and industry self regulation but almost universally wanted the proposal substantially altered, usually to absolve ISP's of any liability.

The pro-censorship push (12 submissions) was largely from religious/family/women's groups. They were almost all in response to an individual invitation by the government to comment on the proposals. Given that these organisations 'claim' to be representing large numbers of people it was disappointing that their submissions were either brief (no more work than a number of individual submissions) or simply recycled submissions to other bodies.

IMHO the most disturbing things about this is

1) the ISP industry appears to have no interest in freedom of expression and is quite willing to sell out on the freedoms of their users. ISP's could become the worst threat to the net in their apparent willingness to comply with the government proposals.

2) as mentioned in my previous post, the apparent stacking of the submissions by inviting comment predominantly from groups who are going to be pro-censorship.

Hope this provides some useful information.