In a message dated 10/25/00 7:42:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time, tstowell@chattanooga.net writes: > Since I doubt there needs to be any discussion on this, please vote on this > motion, numbered 00-34. Yes. Tina Vickery

I second Joy motion. Richard... Joy Fisher wrote: > > I move that we grant the Election Study Committee the requested extension > to finish their report. The new due date shall be 31 October 2000. > > At 05:37 PM 24 10 2000 -0500, Holly Timm wrote: > >The Election Study Committee (ESC) respectfully requests an extension of > >time for the preparation of their report until October 31st, 2000. It was > >deemed due either 10/24 or 10/27 depending on whether one interpreted the > >six week deadline as beginning when the motion was passed or when the > >formation of the committee was completed but the excellent and thoughtful > >discussion on the committee has not made finalizing the details and > >wording a speedy task. We are well into the final preparation of the > >report but do not wish to err in any haste to complete it. > > > >Holly Timm > >Chair > >Election Study Committee > >

I move that we grant the Election Study Committee the requested extension to finish their report. The new due date shall be 31 October 2000. At 05:37 PM 24 10 2000 -0500, Holly Timm wrote: >The Election Study Committee (ESC) respectfully requests an extension of >time for the preparation of their report until October 31st, 2000. It was >deemed due either 10/24 or 10/27 depending on whether one interpreted the >six week deadline as beginning when the motion was passed or when the >formation of the committee was completed but the excellent and thoughtful >discussion on the committee has not made finalizing the details and >wording a speedy task. We are well into the final preparation of the >report but do not wish to err in any haste to complete it. > >Holly Timm >Chair >Election Study Committee >

The Election Study Committee (ESC) respectfully requests an extension of time for the preparation of their report until October 31st, 2000. It was deemed due either 10/24 or 10/27 depending on whether one interpreted the six week deadline as beginning when the motion was passed or when the formation of the committee was completed but the excellent and thoughtful discussion on the committee has not made finalizing the details and wording a speedy task. We are well into the final preparation of the report but do not wish to err in any haste to complete it. Holly Timm Chair Election Study Committee

Vote results for Motion 00-32, made by Ken, seconded by Maggie, stated below: I move that "the Board direct the NC to apply for the Service Mark "The USGenWeb Project" as soon as possible." Yes - 0; No - 3; Abstain - 0; Not Voting - 12 Motion fails.

The motion made by Ginger, seconded by Richard, is numbered 00-33. The floor is now open for discussion. The term USGenWeb is this project's identifying mark. It has been used by this project for about four and one half years. Furthermore the Bylaws reserve the term USGenWeb for the exclusive use of the The USGenWeb Project. Any website affiliated with The USGenWeb Project is using the name under a license and is the lessee of the name as long as they comply with the standards and guidelines of The USGenWeb Project. No individual member or subproject has the right to privatize, or claim ownership of, the name of The USGenWeb Project, or the exclusive term USGenWeb, without the express permission of the volunteers of this project. Therefore be it resolved that the Advisory Board of The USGenWeb Project immediately formulate a letter of protest, to be sent to the US Patent and Trademark Office, in regard to Linda Lewis filing to acquire the trademark/servicemark to the term USGenweb, as part of her filing, and thereby attempting to privatize the term USGenWeb. The letter should cite prior use and also state the fact that Ms. Lewis is using the name by permission only and was given no ownership rights to the name. The letter should also include, as signatories, the name and email address of every member of The USGenWeb Advisory Board.

Please vote on the amendment to Motion 00-30 made by Maggie, seconded by Barbara as follows: I move to amend 00-30 by substitution of the following; I move the AB create a standing Grievance Committee (GC) as follows: 1) The committee shall consist of twelve USGenWeb members elected by ballot (Robert's Rules of Order, page 483 a) from open nominations of candidates by each Advisory Board member in turn until sufficient candidates have been elected. A majority shall elect, members shall serve until September 1st or until their successors are elected. Nominees shall consist of 7 CC's and 5 SC's with no two committee members affiliated with the same state. 2) The Advisory Board shall elect a Committee Chairperson by a second ballot comprised of those elected to committee membership. A majority shall elect. 3) The National Coordinator as an ex-officio member, has the right, but not the obligation, to participate in the proceedings of the committee, and is not counted in the quorum. 4) The committee is authorized to obtain any information deemed necessary for investigation and evaluation of grievances, including but not limited to public and private e-mails, obtaining statements from the parties involved, and other USGenWeb members, or other persons as related to the investigation or determination of a recommendation to the Advisory Board. 5) The committee shall meet on a closed unarchived email list under the same restrictions of secrecy regarding deliberations as for executive session of the Advisory Board. 6) The committee deliberations shall adhere to accepted parliamentary procedures for committees and USGenWeb bylaws. Nine members shall constitute a quorum for the conduct of committee business. A 2/3 majority of members voting on main motions/recommendations is required for approval. 7) The Grievance Committee Chair shall submit reports directly to the NC. The NC shall present the report to the Advisory Board in Executive Session. Recommendations of the Grievance Committee are not binding upon the AB for administrative or disciplinary action toward the person(s) involved. 8) Supplemental instructions may be given to the committee in accordance accepted parliamentary procedures. Maggie

Since Motion 00-33 closely parallels Motion 00-32 - I've labeled it Service Mark II. Please cast your vote on the motion made by Richard and seconded by Shari, stated below: I move that "the Board instruct the National Coordinator to immediately prepare an application for the Service Mark "The USGenWeb Project" on behalf of the project, and to file the application with the U.S. Patent and Trademarks Office (PTO)as soon as funds are available. I further move that the National Coordinator be instructed to use the name "The USGenWeb Project" whereever possible in the application and where the name of an individual is required he be authorized to use his own name or the name of the current Representative-at-Large, as appropriate. I further move that the National Coordinator be instructed to request Linda Lewis to communicate with the U.S. Patent and Trademarks Office stating she has no objection to our application. I further move that the National Coordinator be instructed to keep the Board apprised on a day-to-day basis of the progress in preparing the application and that he be instructed to immediately consult with the Board in regard to any difficulties and/or delays in preparing the application. Additionally, once the application is submitted the National Coordinator shall keep the Board apprised on a regular basis of the progress of the application and of any additional communications to or from the U.S. Patent and Trademarks Office. These actions are taken with the understanding that monies will be collected privately to cover the costs of the application."

I'll check on it. I believe Nancy Trice has also pointed that out - probably just a clerical error as both were sent with the same information. Tim At 07:58 PM 10/20/00 -0500, you wrote: >At 05:46 PM 10/20/00 -0400, you wrote: >>Early this morning I received confirmation from Network Solutions Registrar >> that the domains had been changed over as previously requested. > >I see that although the registrant name has been corrected on usgenweb.net, >it is still listed as Rootsweb for usgenweb.org --- is there a reason for this? > >Holly > > >

At 05:46 PM 10/20/00 -0400, you wrote: >Early this morning I received confirmation from Network Solutions Registrar > that the domains had been changed over as previously requested. I see that although the registrant name has been corrected on usgenweb.net, it is still listed as Rootsweb for usgenweb.org --- is there a reason for this? Holly

Early this morning I received confirmation from Network Solutions Registrar that the domains had been changed over as previously requested. Tim

No Joe Tim Stowell wrote: > > I believe that Richard's questions have been answered as I've heard nothing > further regarding them. > > Therefore, please cast your vote on Motion 00-32, made by Ken, seconded by > Maggie, stated below: > > I move that "the Board direct the NC to apply for the Service Mark "The > USGenWeb Project" as soon as possible." -- Zsedeny Genealogy - http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm NDGenWeb Archives - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/nd/ndfiles.htm Pembina County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm Ramsey County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm

There are factors to be considered other than just filing for a mark. factors like which mark to file for, how to handle financing, whether to seek legal advice, etc. My vote will follow this message. Joe -- Zsedeny Genealogy - http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm NDGenWeb Archives - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/nd/ndfiles.htm Pembina County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm Ramsey County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm

I will be out of town for about 8 days beginning Tuesday afternoon, October 17. I will probably not have any internet access during that time. I will leave my votes on pending motions with Richard, to be cast for me. Thank you, Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com Ginger votes NO on Motion 00-32. Richard... Tim Stowell wrote: > > I believe that Richard's questions have been answered as I've heard nothing > further regarding them. > > Therefore, please cast your vote on Motion 00-32, made by Ken, seconded by > Maggie, stated below: > > I move that "the Board direct the NC to apply for the Service Mark "The > USGenWeb Project" as soon as possible." -- Richard M. Howland IlGenWeb State Coordinator Mailto:illinois@usroots.com ICQ # 898319 NE/NCR CC Representative USGWP Advisory Board ILGEN-L List Co-ordinator ILPIATT-L List Co-ordinator IL-CHAT-L List Co-ordinator TXYOUNG-L List Co-ordinator HOWLAND-L List Co-ordinator WOODWORKING-L list Co-ordinator VARNER-L List Co-ordinator FISHING-L list Co-ordinator HEDGEHOGS-L List Co-ordinator http://www.rootsweb.com/~ilpiatt/piatt.htm http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richpump/YoungCountyCemPage.htm http://www.pets.rootsweb.com/~hedgehogs/index.html http://www.crafts.rootsweb.com/~woodworking/index.html http://www.wf.net/~richpump/HowlandOnLine.html http://www.wf.net/~richpump/camppage.htm

NO At 11:54 PM 10/17/00 -0400, you wrote: >I believe that Richard's questions have been answered as I've heard nothing >further regarding them. > >Therefore, please cast your vote on Motion 00-32, made by Ken, seconded by >Maggie, stated below: > >I move that "the Board direct the NC to apply for the Service Mark "The >USGenWeb Project" as soon as possible."

It appears from TM Committee report that what should be applied for is a Collective Service Mark, not just a Service Mark. What is not clear is whether or not there was any discussion or information obtained as to whether and why the application should be The USGenWeb Project, USGenWeb Project or USGenWeb. Certainly any facts obtained in such a discussion have not been presented in the report. Nor is there any indication in either the report or Motion 00-32 prescisely how the NC should apply for the mark. Although I doubt that was the intent, directing "the NC to apply for the Service Mark" could be construed as a direction for Tim Stowell to personally own the mark. For the above reasons, and as much as I would like to see this resolved and a mark applied for, my negative vote on Motion 00-32 follows this posting. Holly Timm

After due consideration, we recommend that the AB apply for the Service Mark "The USGenWeb Project" , as soon as possible. Along those lines, after reading reams of stuff about TM's, SM's etc, we should have Linda Lewis write a letter stating she has no objection to us doing this. After studying the information available on line in regard to the legalities involved, the only way there would be a clash would be if Linda filed an objection to the Project acquiring the SM's. There is not any reason to ask Ms Lewis to write such a letter, the AB can file for the mark "The USGenWeb Project" or "USGenWeb" however they decide is best for them. Another recommendation is the following: I suggest that we recommend that a disclaimer be filed with the application. This disclaimer would be to the effect that exclusive use of the words "The" and "Project" were not being requested EXCEPT in the context of the mark. This done in an attempt to expedite things. Otherwise, that request will be made by the USTPO and slow the approval of the mark down. I would also recommend that the difference between a service mark and collective service mark be ascertained, so that the Project acquires the one most applicable to the situation. IMHO this would be a collective service mark. For information purposes I have included the definitions of a Trademark, Service Mark and a Collective Mark. I have also included the URL for folks to read a FAQ for themselves. It is highly recommended that every board member read the FAQ listed below. Ken Short Chairman TM Committee http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmfaq.htm#DefineCollMark What is a trademark? A trademark includes any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination, used, or intended to be used, in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from goods manufactured or sold by others, and to indicate the source of the goods. In short, a trademark is a brand name. What is a service mark? A service mark is any word, name, symbol, device, or any combination, used, or intended to be used, in commerce, to identify and distinguish the services of one provider from services provided by others, and to indicate the source of the services. What is a collective mark? A collective mark is a trademark or service mark used, or intended to be used, in commerce, by the members of a cooperative, an association, or other collective group or organization, including a mark which indicates membership in a union, an association, or other organization.

I'm still waiting on a report from the TM committee... what did they find out and what did they think about applying... and about what is the difference between an SM and a TM... et cetera. At 11:54 PM 10/17/00 -0400, Tim Stowell wrote: >I believe that Richard's questions have been answered as I've heard nothing >further regarding them. > >Therefore, please cast your vote on Motion 00-32, made by Ken, seconded by >Maggie, stated below: > >I move that "the Board direct the NC to apply for the Service Mark "The >USGenWeb Project" as soon as possible."

At 4:07 PM -0700 10/19/00, Holly Timm wrote: >I'm still waiting on a report from the TM committee... what did they find >out and what did they think about applying... and about what is the >difference between an SM and a TM... et cetera. Me too. I thought we were supposed to get a report by Oct 15, containing at the very least the recommendations on all the questions that Tim posed when he formed the committee. I do agree we should apply for the Service Mark "The USGenWeb Project" as soon as possible, as long as we also apply for "USGenWeb", and as long as the "Applicant" on both applications is named as "The USGenWeb Project", an unincorporated non-profit association, rather than any individual. While I can't see any reason why not to apply for "The USGenWeb Project", we can't stop there. As Richard Howland, John Strunk, and many others have pointed out, it does little to protect us against somebody else putting up "The USGenWeb Genealogy Network" or "The NonProfit USGenWeb Site" or "The USGenWeb Digital Library" or "The USGenWeb Transcription Database", etc., etc. There haven't yet been any immediate threats to the exact phrase "The USGenWeb Project", it's only other phrases using USGenWeb that are being threatened. -- Teri

I believe that Richard's questions have been answered as I've heard nothing further regarding them. Therefore, please cast your vote on Motion 00-32, made by Ken, seconded by Maggie, stated below: I move that "the Board direct the NC to apply for the Service Mark "The USGenWeb Project" as soon as possible."