At 09:18 AM 10/17/00 -0400, Joe wrote: >Okay, Tim, I'll buy that. I let my frustration get the better of >me on that one anyway. The language was too intemperate for which >I apologize. Accepted. >But what the Board needs more than anything else is solid >information upon which to base decisions on how to proceed with >filing for the service mark. We need a committee report with >"Objective", "Body" (discussion), "Conclusions" and "References". >That way the Board can follow the line of thinking and check for >themselves (using the References) on questionable conclusions. >There should also be room for a minority report and gag orders do >not promote this. Speaking only for myself, I agree that if someone wanted to provide a different conclusion ie minority report, they should be able to do so. However, I think that while a committee is in session that matters discussed within a committee should not be discussed on the various lists by the participants of those committees until after a report is issued. Once freed from committee representation they become one of the members of the group at large and are free to discuss whatever they want. Additionally I think that if it is asked that members not share private deliberations even after off the committee they should abide by that. As far as I know, no member of the Trademarks committee has discussed any item from the committee's discussions on the lists. Tim

Hi All, I just wanted to let you all know I am back from South Carolina (got back this morning at 5am). Since we were away for 6 days, I am a little behind the times. I will catch up tomorrow and make any necessary web page changes. The trip was a combination trip to visit my family and to see my daughter's Duke Crew race Clemson and Tennessee. Duke trounced both of the other teams and that was a thrill!!! (My apologies to all of you Clemson and Tennessee fans out there-grin). Pam

Okay, Tim, I'll buy that. I let my frustration get the better of me on that one anyway. The language was too intemperate for which I apologize. But what the Board needs more than anything else is solid information upon which to base decisions on how to proceed with filing for the service mark. We need a committee report with "Objective", "Body" (discussion), "Conclusions" and "References". That way the Board can follow the line of thinking and check for themselves (using the References) on questionable conclusions. There should also be room for a minority report and gag orders do not promote this. Joe Tim Stowell wrote: > > At 12:28 PM 10/16/00 -0400, Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny wrote: > > > >Here apparently was a committee appointed entirely by the NC with > >a gag order imposed. Gagged from disclosing disscussions and > >conclusions from the Board and the membership? Who does the NC > >and the Board represent? And I was critized for putting forth a > >motion, in the open, with a Board member as committee chairman. > >What hypocracy. Was this latter more effort to protect someone > >from grievances? Certainly seems that way. The membership gets > >bamboozled again. This gets worse all the time. But, the majority > >decided in the last election that they were satisfied with this > >kind of leadership. So we get the kind we deserve. > > > >Joe > > Joe, > > Things are not always as one might suppose them to be. > > It is true that I set up the committee. Then I became a member of that > committee ex-officio. Whatever else the committee did after that was > up to them. > > Tim -- 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

At 12:28 PM 10/16/00 -0400, Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny wrote: > >Here apparently was a committee appointed entirely by the NC with >a gag order imposed. Gagged from disclosing disscussions and >conclusions from the Board and the membership? Who does the NC >and the Board represent? And I was critized for putting forth a >motion, in the open, with a Board member as committee chairman. >What hypocracy. Was this latter more effort to protect someone >from grievances? Certainly seems that way. The membership gets >bamboozled again. This gets worse all the time. But, the majority >decided in the last election that they were satisfied with this >kind of leadership. So we get the kind we deserve. > >Joe Joe, Things are not always as one might suppose them to be. It is true that I set up the committee. Then I became a member of that committee ex-officio. Whatever else the committee did after that was up to them. Tim

This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------DE0710AD0F7205DC1F7C1581 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here apparently was a committee appointed entirely by the NC with a gag order imposed. Gagged from disclosing disscussions and conclusions from the Board and the membership? Who does the NC and the Board represent? And I was critized for putting forth a motion, in the open, with a Board member as committee chairman. What hypocracy. Was this latter more effort to protect someone from grievances? Certainly seems that way. The membership gets bamboozled again. This gets worse all the time. But, the majority decided in the last election that they were satisfied with this kind of leadership. So we get the kind we deserve. 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 --------------DE0710AD0F7205DC1F7C1581 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: <USGENWEB-ALL-L-request@rootsweb.com> Delivered-To: jzsed@slic.com Received: (qmail 25685 invoked from network); 16 Oct 2000 15:41:57 -0000 Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (63.92.80.123) by eagle.slic.com with SMTP; 16 Oct 2000 15:41:57 -0000 Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e9GFEIk21656; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 08:14:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 08:14:18 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@windo.missouri.org Mon Oct 16 08:14:18 2000 Message-ID: <006e01c03784$36b1b300$8dcec796@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" <wchs@windo.missouri.org> Old-To: <USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org>, <USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 10:17:32 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Subject: [USGENWEB-ALL-L] Interesting Resent-Message-ID: <5su0sC.A.MSF.Ktx65@lists5.rootsweb.com> To: USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: <USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com> archive/latest/16432 X-Loop: USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGENWEB-ALL-L-request@rootsweb.com X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 I wondered how long it would take until the AB was asked to do something in regard to Linda Lewis' application. Now another motion has been put forward, telling only a part of the statement by Linda Lewis in regard to her application. Being a member of the Trademarks Committee and under a gag order, I am not at liberty to divulge the remainder of Linda Lewis' statement....not even by paraphrasing. However, please keep in mind that I would not have posted what I posted in regard to the application that should be made....

I would like to second this motion. Richard... GingerH wrote: > > Since I believe it is of paramount importance to protect > our name from being privatized by any individual, whether > they are within USGW or without it, and since Linda Lewis > has stated in private mail to the members of this board that > she would not withdraw the application she filed with the > US Patent and Trademark Office, attempting to privatize the > term USGenWeb, I am introducing the following motion: > > 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. > > Ginger > gingerh@shawneelink.com -- 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

Since I believe it is of paramount importance to protect our name from being privatized by any individual, whether they are within USGW or without it, and since Linda Lewis has stated in private mail to the members of this board that she would not withdraw the application she filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office, attempting to privatize the term USGenWeb, I am introducing the following motion: 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. Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com

At 02:30 AM 10/12/00 -0400, you wrote: >Please cast your vote on Motion 00-31 made by Ken, seconded by Maggie, >stated below: > >I move that Previously Adopted Motion 99-25 be amended to read: > >"That the Board Secretary not be currently serving as a Board member. > >The appointee must either be knowledgeable in parliamentary procedure or be >willing to learn proper procedure using Roberts Rules and be well versed in >the Project Bylaws. Duties of the appointee shall be those assigned by the >Chair (NC). The NC shall insure that the secretary be subscribed to all >appropriate mailing lists. As a minimum these lists would be the >USGENWEB-ALL-L, STATE-COORD-L, ARCHIVES-L, the Board-Exec-L and the Board-L." Yes - 2 No - 10 Not voting - 3 Motion fails.

At 02:33 AM 10/13/00 -0400, you wrote: >At 01:19 AM 10/13/00 -0500, you wrote: >>Tim I would like answers to my questions before voting on this motion. >>Richard... >> >>Tim Stowell wrote: >>> >>> 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 > >Richard, > >Are you refering to this note from you? > >Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 22:12:53 -0500 >From: ILGenWeb State Coordinator <richpump@wf.net> >Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] >To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com > Ken may I inquire where the NC is supposed to get the money for this filing? What address is to be used? From what I have been reading. We would only be filing for "USGenWeb"? Maybe we would be better off applying for "WasUSGenWeb"? Richard... >----------- Breaking down into a numbered format Richard's questions are: 1. Where the NC is supposed to get the money for this filing? A. If need be, ie to get the ball rolling, I can supply the filing fee, for now, but would hope to be partially refunded by the other members of the Project. 2. What address is to be used? A. That would be for the AB to decide. 3. We would only be filing for "USGenWeb"? A. I believe so, based on what I saw in some earlier notes from one or two persons here. 4. Maybe we would be better off applying for "WasUSGenWeb"? A. --- The above answers are mine, and mine only. Others will I'm sure have different answers. Lastly though - perhaps in addition to Richard's concerns - there has been talk on the some of the lists about this and why the membership at large is not being asked to vote on this. I pass this along to address the concerns of those who have expressed these reservations. Tim

I must have missed something. I didn't hear this argument when a trademark committee was formed. Joe kshort wrote: > > At 10:58 AM 10/13/00 -0400, you wrote: > >Ken, > > > >What alternative suggestions do you think should be instituted? > > > >Maggie > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: kshort <kshort@kroo.com> > >To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> > >Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 12:37 AM > >Subject: [BOARD-L] Revised Motion 00-30 - Amendment > > > > > >Why does the chair have to be elected by the AB? Seems to me, we are micro > >managing again. > > > >Ken > > There is not any reason for the Board to be involved in selecting the > committee chair. They are adults and have the knowledge to select their > own chair and should be allowed to do so. > > None of us will be on this committee, so why should we force them to accept > who we think should be chair? > > One of the biggest problems we have is the AB trying to micro manage > things. We should not be doing that. Once a committee is picked, they are > given their guidelines and are turned loose to do the job they were > selected for. We should only get involved by answering > questions, clarifying something that might come up and/or replacing > someone who for what ever reason has to resign. > > Have we gotten so arrogant we think we have all the answers. I sure hope not. > > Ken -- 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

At 10:58 AM 10/13/00 -0400, you wrote: >Ken, > >What alternative suggestions do you think should be instituted? > >Maggie > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: kshort <kshort@kroo.com> >To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 12:37 AM >Subject: [BOARD-L] Revised Motion 00-30 - Amendment > > >Why does the chair have to be elected by the AB? Seems to me, we are micro >managing again. > >Ken There is not any reason for the Board to be involved in selecting the committee chair. They are adults and have the knowledge to select their own chair and should be allowed to do so. None of us will be on this committee, so why should we force them to accept who we think should be chair? One of the biggest problems we have is the AB trying to micro manage things. We should not be doing that. Once a committee is picked, they are given their guidelines and are turned loose to do the job they were selected for. We should only get involved by answering questions, clarifying something that might come up and/or replacing someone who for what ever reason has to resign. Have we gotten so arrogant we think we have all the answers. I sure hope not. Ken

Yes Maggie ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 2:30 AM Subject: [BOARD-L] Motion 00-31 - vote Please cast your vote on Motion 00-31 made by Ken, seconded by Maggie, stated below: I move that Previously Adopted Motion 99-25 be amended to read: "That the Board Secretary not be currently serving as a Board member. The appointee must either be knowledgeable in parliamentary procedure or be willing to learn proper procedure using Roberts Rules and be well versed in the Project Bylaws. Duties of the appointee shall be those assigned by the Chair (NC). The NC shall insure that the secretary be subscribed to all appropriate mailing lists. As a minimum these lists would be the USGENWEB-ALL-L, STATE-COORD-L, ARCHIVES-L, the Board-Exec-L and the Board-L."

Ken, What alternative suggestions do you think should be instituted? Maggie ----- Original Message ----- From: kshort <kshort@kroo.com> To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 12:37 AM Subject: [BOARD-L] Revised Motion 00-30 - Amendment Why does the chair have to be elected by the AB? Seems to me, we are micro managing again. Ken

At Ellen's request I am forwarding her vote. No Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 1:30 AM Subject: [BOARD-L] Motion 00-31 - vote > Please cast your vote on Motion 00-31 made by Ken, seconded by Maggie, > stated below: > > I move that Previously Adopted Motion 99-25 be amended to read: > > "That the Board Secretary not be currently serving as a Board member. > > The appointee must either be knowledgeable in parliamentary procedure or be > willing to learn proper procedure using Roberts Rules and be well versed in > the Project Bylaws. Duties of the appointee shall be those assigned by the > Chair (NC). The NC shall insure that the secretary be subscribed to all > appropriate mailing lists. As a minimum these lists would be the > USGENWEB-ALL-L, STATE-COORD-L, ARCHIVES-L, the Board-Exec-L and the Board-L." >

Yes Tim I was. I don't like the idea of telling someone to do something without telling them where the money is suppose to come from. There is also the problem of where the money will come from next year and the year after? It would be nice for future Boards to know where the moneys are to be raised both for Service Mark and Domains? Are we going to have a Treasurer? A bank account? Is the NC suppose to pay for this out of their pocket? Is a collection to be taken up of AB Members? I really think there is much to be decided before we just direct the NC to apply for the Service Mark. I believe that it was also mentioned that we should just apply for "USGenWeb"? And not "The USGenWeb Project"? Richard... Tim Stowell wrote: > > At 01:19 AM 10/13/00 -0500, you wrote: > >Tim I would like answers to my questions before voting on this motion. > >Richard... > > > >Tim Stowell wrote: > >> > >> 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 > > Richard, > > Are you refering to this note from you? > > Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 22:12:53 -0500 > From: ILGenWeb State Coordinator <richpump@wf.net> > Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] > To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com > > Ken may I inquire where the NC is supposed to get the money for this > filing? What address is to be used? From what I have been reading. We > would only be filing for "USGenWeb"? Maybe we would be better off > applying for "WasUSGenWeb"? Richard... > ----------- > Tim -- 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

At 01:19 AM 10/13/00 -0500, you wrote: >Tim I would like answers to my questions before voting on this motion. >Richard... > >Tim Stowell wrote: >> >> 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 Richard, Are you refering to this note from you? Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 22:12:53 -0500 From: ILGenWeb State Coordinator <richpump@wf.net> Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com Ken may I inquire where the NC is supposed to get the money for this filing? What address is to be used? From what I have been reading. We would only be filing for "USGenWeb"? Maybe we would be better off applying for "WasUSGenWeb"? Richard... ----------- Tim

Tim I would like answers to my questions before voting on this motion. Richard... Tim Stowell wrote: > > 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

Tim I would like answers to my questions before voting on this motion. Richard... Tim Stowell wrote: > > 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

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."

No >----- Original Message ----- >From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> >To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 2:30 AM >Subject: [BOARD-L] Motion 00-31 - vote > > > > Please cast your vote on Motion 00-31 made by Ken, seconded by Maggie, > > stated below: > > > > I move that Previously Adopted Motion 99-25 be amended to read: > > > > "That the Board Secretary not be currently serving as a Board member. > > > > The appointee must either be knowledgeable in parliamentary procedure > or be > > willing to learn proper procedure using Roberts Rules and be well > versed in > > the Project Bylaws. Duties of the appointee shall be those assigned by the > > Chair (NC). The NC shall insure that the secretary be subscribed to all > > appropriate mailing lists. As a minimum these lists would be the > > USGENWEB-ALL-L, STATE-COORD-L, ARCHIVES-L, the Board-Exec-L and the > Board-L."