I second the motion Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Garnett JJoe Zsedeny <jzsed@slic.com> To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2000 8:46 PM Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Motion 00-30 Grievance Committee [Amendment] > I move to amend Motion 00-30 as follows. > > Amend Paragraph 1 FROM: > > [The committee shall be composed of at least one CC from each > region and one SC selected by the representative at large. The > committee chair shall be chosen from candidates put forth during > the discussion period and an amendment made to this motion > reflecting that choice. The NC will sit on the committee as > provided for in the Bylaws.] > > TO: > > The committee shall be composed of at least one CC from each > region and one SC selected by the Representative at Large. But in > any event an odd number of committee members shall be appointed > so as to prevent tie votes. Richard Harrison will serve as the > committee chairman. The Chairman will select a co-chairman from > among the committee members. The NC will sit on the committee as > provided for in the Bylaws. > > > Amend Paragraph 2 FROM: > > [The committee once seated will number each grievance, research > the background of each and make a recommendation to the Board for > a fair resolution of each complaint within 10 days with ten day > extensions granted at the request of the committee chair. The > committee must keep in mind the limited authority granted the > Board in the Bylaws to resolve grievances.] > > TO: > > The committee once seated will number each grievance, research > the background of each and make a recommendation to the Board for > a fair resolution of each complaint within 10 days with ten day > extensions granted at the request of the committee chair. Any > committee member(s), except the NC, named in a complaint will be > excused from hearing and voting on that complaint and an > alternate(s) will be selected by the chairman or his co-chairman > to insure an odd number of votes. The committee must be mindful > of the limited authority granted the Board in the Bylaws to > resolve grievances. > > THE FINAL VERSION THEN READS: > > The committee shall be composed of at least one CC from each > region and one SC selected by the Representative at Large. But in > any event an odd number of committee members shall be appointed > so as to prevent tie votes. Richard Harrison will serve as the > committee chairman. The Chairman will select a co-chairman from > among the committee members. The NC will sit on the committee as > provided for in the Bylaws. > > The committee once seated will number each grievance, research > the background of each and make a recommendation to the Board for > a fair resolution of each complaint within 10 days with ten day > extensions granted at the request of the committee chair. Any > committee member(s), except the NC, named in a complaint will be > excused from hearing and voting on that complaint and an > alternate(s) will be selected by the chairman or his co-chairman > to insure an odd number of votes. The committee must be mindful > of the limited authority granted the Board in the Bylaws to > resolve grievances. > > 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 move to amend Motion 00-30 as follows. Amend Paragraph 1 FROM: [The committee shall be composed of at least one CC from each region and one SC selected by the representative at large. The committee chair shall be chosen from candidates put forth during the discussion period and an amendment made to this motion reflecting that choice. The NC will sit on the committee as provided for in the Bylaws.] TO: The committee shall be composed of at least one CC from each region and one SC selected by the Representative at Large. But in any event an odd number of committee members shall be appointed so as to prevent tie votes. Richard Harrison will serve as the committee chairman. The Chairman will select a co-chairman from among the committee members. The NC will sit on the committee as provided for in the Bylaws. Amend Paragraph 2 FROM: [The committee once seated will number each grievance, research the background of each and make a recommendation to the Board for a fair resolution of each complaint within 10 days with ten day extensions granted at the request of the committee chair. The committee must keep in mind the limited authority granted the Board in the Bylaws to resolve grievances.] TO: The committee once seated will number each grievance, research the background of each and make a recommendation to the Board for a fair resolution of each complaint within 10 days with ten day extensions granted at the request of the committee chair. Any committee member(s), except the NC, named in a complaint will be excused from hearing and voting on that complaint and an alternate(s) will be selected by the chairman or his co-chairman to insure an odd number of votes. The committee must be mindful of the limited authority granted the Board in the Bylaws to resolve grievances. THE FINAL VERSION THEN READS: The committee shall be composed of at least one CC from each region and one SC selected by the Representative at Large. But in any event an odd number of committee members shall be appointed so as to prevent tie votes. Richard Harrison will serve as the committee chairman. The Chairman will select a co-chairman from among the committee members. The NC will sit on the committee as provided for in the Bylaws. The committee once seated will number each grievance, research the background of each and make a recommendation to the Board for a fair resolution of each complaint within 10 days with ten day extensions granted at the request of the committee chair. Any committee member(s), except the NC, named in a complaint will be excused from hearing and voting on that complaint and an alternate(s) will be selected by the chairman or his co-chairman to insure an odd number of votes. The committee must be mindful of the limited authority granted the Board in the Bylaws to resolve grievances. 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

At 11:36 AM 10/7/00 -0700, you wrote: >Pam Reid wrote: > > > > > Many of us feel that filing for "The USGenWeb Project" leaves the door > > wide open for other people to file for service marks that include > > USGenWeb in the name. It appears from what I have read on this issue, > > filing for and obtaining the mark "USGenWeb" would close that door. > > > > John Schunk wrote a great message explaining this to the Discuss List > > and I have asked his permission to forward that message here. > > > > It just seems that this avenue would give us more protection against > > improper use of our name for other projects, sites, etc. > > > > Pam > >Ken- > >Did the Trademark Committee discuss this? What is their feeling? > >-Isaiah Yes we did discuss this. The majority felt we should go with "The USGenWeb Project", as I reported. However, the feeling is as long as we get a service mark that will protect and restrict the use of the term "USGenWeb xxx", it will be ok. From the ton of reading I did on TM, SM etc, I personally feel that just using "USGenWeb" will work for everything. I reported on board exec and in my motion on board-l, the recommendation of the committee, remember that is ONLY a recommendation. It is now up to the board to decide the best way to go. I have no problem, and I am sure the rest of the committee has no problem, in the motion being amended however the board wants it to read, as long as it gets done, one way or the other. Just a side note. Based on my research it will prob take a minimum of 6 months, more than likely 8-12 months to get the final approval/disapproval on whatever we do. Ken

Exactly Joe. Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Garnett JJoe Zsedeny <jzsed@slic.com> To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2000 3:48 PM Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Motion to amend 99-25 > This cuts both ways. The NC should certainly have someone he/she > feels comfortable with but so should the Board. Like most > parliamentary bodies the chairman nominates and the Board > confirms. That way both the NC and the Board are comfortable. > > Joe > > Tim Stowell wrote: > > > > Now that Ken's motion has been seconded by Maggie, > > it is given the number 00-31) and the floor is > > open for discussion. The motion reads as: > > > > I move to Amend Previously Adopted Motion 99-25. > > > > Issue: Motion to Appoint a Secretary > > Date: 12 September 1999 > > Motion #99-25:I move that Motion 99-2 be rescinded and that the Board > > appoint a secretary for the one year term of Board II or until dismissed by > > Board II or a succeeding Board. Further, > > That the secretary nominee be selected from among the volunteer membership > > of the USGenWeb Project. > > That the nominee to this position not be currently serving as a Board member. > > That the nominee be nominated by the National Coordinator and appointed by > > a majority vote of a quorum of the Board. Rejection of a nominee will > > require the NC to forward another name. > > 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. > > *************************************************************************** > > 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. > > **************************************************************************** ** > > Since the duties and responsibilities of the Board Secretary are defined by > > the NC, as stated in the original motion, the NC should have the > > prerogative of selecting someone he/she feels comfortable with. > > -- > 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 agree with Pam. Shari Handley shari@tyaskin.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Harrison <ArtDept@compuserve.com> To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2000 1:37 PM Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Service Mark > Pam Reid wrote: > > > > > I think that we should apply for the Service Mark "USGenWeb" rather than > > "The USGenWeb Project" for the reasons that others have already stated > > so well. Acquiring the rights to "USGenWeb" would hopefully prevent > > others from using "USGenWeb" in any part of another application (ex. > > "The USGenWeb Comic Book Pages"). > > > > Pam > > How do others feel about this? I would certainly be willing to revise my motion if > there is a consensus. > -Isaiah > > > > -- > Richard Harrison/Encinitas, San Diego, California > USGenWeb Northwest/Plains County Coordinator Rep > IAGenWeb Immediate Past State Coordinator > Jones Co. IAGenWeb Coord.: http://www.rootsweb.com/~iajones/index.htm > Jones Co. List Owner: IAJONES-L@rootsweb.com > IOWA-L List Owner: IOWA-L@rootsweb.com > Richard's Genealogy: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard >

Amend Joe. Would even be nice if the members that NC & AB represent could be comfortable. Richard... "Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny" wrote: > > This cuts both ways. The NC should certainly have someone he/she > feels comfortable with but so should the Board. Like most > parliamentary bodies the chairman nominates and the Board > confirms. That way both the NC and the Board are comfortable. > > Joe > > Tim Stowell wrote: > > > > Now that Ken's motion has been seconded by Maggie, > > it is given the number 00-31) and the floor is > > open for discussion. The motion reads as: 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

This cuts both ways. The NC should certainly have someone he/she feels comfortable with but so should the Board. Like most parliamentary bodies the chairman nominates and the Board confirms. That way both the NC and the Board are comfortable. Joe Tim Stowell wrote: > > Now that Ken's motion has been seconded by Maggie, > it is given the number 00-31) and the floor is > open for discussion. The motion reads as: > > I move to Amend Previously Adopted Motion 99-25. > > Issue: Motion to Appoint a Secretary > Date: 12 September 1999 > Motion #99-25:I move that Motion 99-2 be rescinded and that the Board > appoint a secretary for the one year term of Board II or until dismissed by > Board II or a succeeding Board. Further, > That the secretary nominee be selected from among the volunteer membership > of the USGenWeb Project. > That the nominee to this position not be currently serving as a Board member. > That the nominee be nominated by the National Coordinator and appointed by > a majority vote of a quorum of the Board. Rejection of a nominee will > require the NC to forward another name. > 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. > *************************************************************************** > 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. > ****************************************************************************** > Since the duties and responsibilities of the Board Secretary are defined by > the NC, as stated in the original motion, the NC should have the > prerogative of selecting someone he/she feels comfortable with. -- 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

Here is John's message: <snip> "I would like to speak in favor of the motion (copied and pasted below) which is currently before the USGenWeb Advisory Board (Motion 00-29A). I believe it will best allow USGenWeb to trademark, and thus legally protect, our name. Why? Because I believe that "USGenWeb" (rather than "The USGenWeb Project") is what the Board should seek to trademark in the Project's name. The alternative course of action appears to be to accept the trademarking of "USGenWeb Archives" by one or more members of the Project in the hopes that the Advisory Board can still trademark "The USGenWeb Project" in the name of the Project. One problem with this approach, it seems to me, is that this makes "USGenWeb" a non-unique mark, and thus opens up the possibility for other individuals or groups to trademark any other combinations of words which include "USGenWeb" -- for example, "The USGenWeb Census Project" or "The Non-Profit USGenWeb Project" or "The USGenWeb Internet Genealogical Society" or "The USGenWeb Local History Network" or....well, you get the idea. (Not that I'm saying that anyone would attempt to trademark any of these names; they are merely illustrative of a myriad of possibilities.) If the Advisory Board is able to trademark "USGenWeb" in the Project's name as a unique mark, however, that will give the Project control over "USGenWeb-anything" (Archives, Census Project, Advisory Board, Tombstone Project, etc.) Thus, I encourage the Board to adopt the motion currently on the floor." <snip>

At 01:18 AM 10/6/00 -0400, you wrote: >Please vote on Motion 00-29A as follows by sending along >your vote equivalent of yes, no, abstain. Thanks, Tim > Yes Betsy

Now that Richard's motion has received a second from Shari, it is numbered (00-33) and the floor is open for discussion. His motion reads: 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. -Isaiah

Now that Ken's motion based on the recommendation of the Trademark Committee has been seconded by Maggie, it is numbered (00-32) and the floor is open for discussion. That motion and reasoning behind it is stated below: 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 need to 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. Ken Short Chairman TM Committee **************************************************************************** ******* I move that the Board direct the NC to apply for the Service Mark "The USGenWeb Project" as soon as possible.

Now that Ken's motion has been seconded by Maggie, it is given the number 00-31) and the floor is open for discussion. The motion reads as: I move to Amend Previously Adopted Motion 99-25. Issue: Motion to Appoint a Secretary Date: 12 September 1999 Motion #99-25:I move that Motion 99-2 be rescinded and that the Board appoint a secretary for the one year term of Board II or until dismissed by Board II or a succeeding Board. Further, That the secretary nominee be selected from among the volunteer membership of the USGenWeb Project. That the nominee to this position not be currently serving as a Board member. That the nominee be nominated by the National Coordinator and appointed by a majority vote of a quorum of the Board. Rejection of a nominee will require the NC to forward another name. 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. *************************************************************************** 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. ****************************************************************************** Since the duties and responsibilities of the Board Secretary are defined by the NC, as stated in the original motion, the NC should have the prerogative of selecting someone he/she feels comfortable with.

Pam Reid wrote: > > Many of us feel that filing for "The USGenWeb Project" leaves the door > wide open for other people to file for service marks that include > USGenWeb in the name. It appears from what I have read on this issue, > filing for and obtaining the mark "USGenWeb" would close that door. > > John Schunk wrote a great message explaining this to the Discuss List > and I have asked his permission to forward that message here. > > It just seems that this avenue would give us more protection against > improper use of our name for other projects, sites, etc. > > Pam Ken- Did the Trademark Committee discuss this? What is their feeling? -Isaiah -- Richard Harrison/Encinitas, San Diego, California USGenWeb Northwest/Plains County Coordinator Rep IAGenWeb Immediate Past State Coordinator Jones Co. IAGenWeb Coord.: http://www.rootsweb.com/~iajones/index.htm Jones Co. List Owner: IAJONES-L@rootsweb.com IOWA-L List Owner: IOWA-L@rootsweb.com Richard's Genealogy: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard

Abstain Tim Stowell wrote: > > Please vote on Motion 00-29A as follows by sending along > your vote equivalent of yes, no, abstain. Thanks, Tim > > Motion 00-29A reads: > > Whereas, the mark "USGenWeb" has been in public use since June 1996 as > a Collective Membership mark[*] for the USGenWeb Project, a non-profit > volunteer group providing free online genealogical services, and the > derivative mark 'USGenWeb Archives' has been in public use since August > 1996 as a service mark for the USGenWeb Project's archival services, > and the derivative mark 'USGenWeb Archives Project' has been in use > since that date as a Collective Membership mark for that subset of the > Project's volunteers who manage and maintain that archival service, it > is the finding of the USGenWeb Advisory Board that the USGenWeb Project > as a group is the rightful holder of 'USGenWeb', 'USGenWeb Archives', > and all derivative marks. > > Whereas the USGenWeb Archive's Project's current Coordinator, Linda Lewis, > filed[**] with the U.S. Patent and Trademarks Office (PTO) on 1 May, 2000, > an application (Serial Number 78006402) in which "Linda Lewis" is listed > as the name of the applicant, and "volunteer group" as the applicant > entity type, that application containing the declaration that "no other > person, firm, corporation or association has the right to use the mark", > such an application, if granted, could deny to the USGenWeb Project the > lawful right to use the marks by which it has identified the Project's > member web sites for over four years. > > Therefore, the USGenWeb Project Advisory Board officially requests that > Linda Lewis withdraw her application as soon as possible, and that she > furnish the Advisory Board with a bona fide copy or proof of her > withdrawal of said application. > > The Advisory Board further advises Linda Lewis that it is the Project's > intention to retain the legal right to the USGenWeb Archives mark, and > that if proof of withdrawal is not received by the Advisory Board within > ten (10) business days of the passage of this motion, the Advisory Board > will assume that withdrawal is not forthcoming and will proceed with > other measures to protect the Project's right to the mark. > > Recognizing that Linda's goal in making her application was to protect > the USGenWeb Archives mark from unauthorized use by those not representing > the USGenWeb Project, the Advisory Board assures Linda Lewis that if > her application is withdrawn, the Advisory Board will act as expeditiously > as possible to register the USGenWeb Project's legal right to the mark. > > Recognizing that the authority for determining membership in the > USGenWeb Archives Project lies with the Coordinator of the USGenWeb > Archives Project, the Advisory Board further assures Linda Lewis > that if her application is withdrawn, authority for granting or > removing authorization to use the USGenWeb Archives mark to identify > web sites as part of the USGenWeb Archives Project will be assigned by > the USGenWeb Project to Linda Lewis as long as she is a member of the > USGenWeb Project and holds the office of Coordinator of the USGenWeb > Archives Project.

Many of us feel that filing for "The USGenWeb Project" leaves the door wide open for other people to file for service marks that include USGenWeb in the name. It appears from what I have read on this issue, filing for and obtaining the mark "USGenWeb" would close that door. John Schunk wrote a great message explaining this to the Discuss List and I have asked his permission to forward that message here. It just seems that this avenue would give us more protection against improper use of our name for other projects, sites, etc. Pam Richard Harrison wrote: > > Pam Reid wrote: > > > > > I think that we should apply for the Service Mark "USGenWeb" rather than > > "The USGenWeb Project" for the reasons that others have already stated > > so well. Acquiring the rights to "USGenWeb" would hopefully prevent > > others from using "USGenWeb" in any part of another application (ex. > > "The USGenWeb Comic Book Pages"). > > > > Pam > > How do others feel about this? I would certainly be willing to revise my motion if > there is a consensus. > -Isaiah > > -- > Richard Harrison/Encinitas, San Diego, California > USGenWeb Northwest/Plains County Coordinator Rep > IAGenWeb Immediate Past State Coordinator > Jones Co. IAGenWeb Coord.: http://www.rootsweb.com/~iajones/index.htm > Jones Co. List Owner: IAJONES-L@rootsweb.com > IOWA-L List Owner: IOWA-L@rootsweb.com > Richard's Genealogy: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard

In my opinion we should file for "USGenWeb" which would serve as the umbrella under which all subsequent deriviative marks could be assigned. Joe Richard Harrison wrote: > > Pam Reid wrote: > > > > > I think that we should apply for the Service Mark "USGenWeb" rather than > > "The USGenWeb Project" for the reasons that others have already stated > > so well. Acquiring the rights to "USGenWeb" would hopefully prevent > > others from using "USGenWeb" in any part of another application (ex. > > "The USGenWeb Comic Book Pages"). > > > > Pam > > How do others feel about this? I would certainly be willing to revise my motion if > there is a consensus. > -Isaiah > > -- > Richard Harrison/Encinitas, San Diego, California > USGenWeb Northwest/Plains County Coordinator Rep > IAGenWeb Immediate Past State Coordinator > Jones Co. IAGenWeb Coord.: http://www.rootsweb.com/~iajones/index.htm > Jones Co. List Owner: IAJONES-L@rootsweb.com > IOWA-L List Owner: IOWA-L@rootsweb.com > Richard's Genealogy: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard -- 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

Pam Reid wrote: > > I think that we should apply for the Service Mark "USGenWeb" rather than > "The USGenWeb Project" for the reasons that others have already stated > so well. Acquiring the rights to "USGenWeb" would hopefully prevent > others from using "USGenWeb" in any part of another application (ex. > "The USGenWeb Comic Book Pages"). > > Pam How do others feel about this? I would certainly be willing to revise my motion if there is a consensus. -Isaiah -- Richard Harrison/Encinitas, San Diego, California USGenWeb Northwest/Plains County Coordinator Rep IAGenWeb Immediate Past State Coordinator Jones Co. IAGenWeb Coord.: http://www.rootsweb.com/~iajones/index.htm Jones Co. List Owner: IAJONES-L@rootsweb.com IOWA-L List Owner: IOWA-L@rootsweb.com Richard's Genealogy: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard

NAY RootsLady (aka) Barbara Yancey Dore ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Stowell" <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 12:18 AM Subject: [BOARD-L] Motion 00-29A Vote > Please vote on Motion 00-29A as follows by sending along > your vote equivalent of yes, no, abstain. Thanks, Tim > > Motion 00-29A reads: > > Whereas, the mark "USGenWeb" has been in public use since June 1996 as > a Collective Membership mark[*] for the USGenWeb Project, a non-profit > volunteer group providing free online genealogical services, and the > derivative mark 'USGenWeb Archives' has been in public use since August > 1996 as a service mark for the USGenWeb Project's archival services, > and the derivative mark 'USGenWeb Archives Project' has been in use > since that date as a Collective Membership mark for that subset of the > Project's volunteers who manage and maintain that archival service, it > is the finding of the USGenWeb Advisory Board that the USGenWeb Project > as a group is the rightful holder of 'USGenWeb', 'USGenWeb Archives', > and all derivative marks. > > Whereas the USGenWeb Archive's Project's current Coordinator, Linda Lewis, > filed[**] with the U.S. Patent and Trademarks Office (PTO) on 1 May, 2000, > an application (Serial Number 78006402) in which "Linda Lewis" is listed > as the name of the applicant, and "volunteer group" as the applicant > entity type, that application containing the declaration that "no other > person, firm, corporation or association has the right to use the mark", > such an application, if granted, could deny to the USGenWeb Project the > lawful right to use the marks by which it has identified the Project's > member web sites for over four years. > > Therefore, the USGenWeb Project Advisory Board officially requests that > Linda Lewis withdraw her application as soon as possible, and that she > furnish the Advisory Board with a bona fide copy or proof of her > withdrawal of said application. > > The Advisory Board further advises Linda Lewis that it is the Project's > intention to retain the legal right to the USGenWeb Archives mark, and > that if proof of withdrawal is not received by the Advisory Board within > ten (10) business days of the passage of this motion, the Advisory Board > will assume that withdrawal is not forthcoming and will proceed with > other measures to protect the Project's right to the mark. > > Recognizing that Linda's goal in making her application was to protect > the USGenWeb Archives mark from unauthorized use by those not representing > the USGenWeb Project, the Advisory Board assures Linda Lewis that if > her application is withdrawn, the Advisory Board will act as expeditiously > as possible to register the USGenWeb Project's legal right to the mark. > > Recognizing that the authority for determining membership in the > USGenWeb Archives Project lies with the Coordinator of the USGenWeb > Archives Project, the Advisory Board further assures Linda Lewis > that if her application is withdrawn, authority for granting or > removing authorization to use the USGenWeb Archives mark to identify > web sites as part of the USGenWeb Archives Project will be assigned by > the USGenWeb Project to Linda Lewis as long as she is a member of the > USGenWeb Project and holds the office of Coordinator of the USGenWeb > Archives Project. > > > >

Tim Stowell wrote: > > Please vote on Motion 00-29A as follows by sending along > your vote equivalent of yes, no, abstain. Thanks, Tim NO -Isaiah -- Richard Harrison/Encinitas, San Diego, California USGenWeb Northwest/Plains County Coordinator Rep IAGenWeb Immediate Past State Coordinator Jones Co. IAGenWeb Coord.: http://www.rootsweb.com/~iajones/index.htm Jones Co. List Owner: IAJONES-L@rootsweb.com IOWA-L List Owner: IOWA-L@rootsweb.com Richard's Genealogy: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard

I think that we should apply for the Service Mark "USGenWeb" rather than "The USGenWeb Project" for the reasons that others have already stated so well. Acquiring the rights to "USGenWeb" would hopefully prevent others from using "USGenWeb" in any part of another application (ex. "The USGenWeb Comic Book Pages"). Pam Maggie Stewart wrote: > > I move that the Board direct the NC to apply for the Service Mark "The > USGenWeb Project" as soon as possible. > > Ken > > I move to amend the above motion to read: > > I move that Mr. Tim Stowell, National Coordinator and Ms. Holly Timm, County > Coordinator Representative At Large apply on behalf of the USGenWeb Project > for a Service Mark. > > 1. Apply for the Service Mark "The USGenWeb Project". > > 2. Create an application for federal Service Mark registration. This > includes: name, citizenship, address and telephone number of the trademark > owner and the owner's entity type. > > 3. Submit application, example of use (for applications where you are > already using the Service Mark) and application fee (currently $325) to the > United States Patent and Trademark Office. (PTO) > > a. The monies for this will need to be collected and someone appointed > by the AB to "handle" the monies. (Suggestion: Someone with a scanner to > post copies of receipts etc. ought to be selected or else find two persons > in close enough proximity to jointly establish a bank account for the > project with dual signatures required to disburse funds.) > > 4. Service Mark is published in the PTO's "Official Gazette" at which time > anyone that feels damaged by your application has 30 days to contest your > application. > > a. Request that Linda Lewis write a letter stating she has no objection > to > this application and submit it with the application and/or directly to the > PTO. > > The Bylaws will also need a modification. The "control" of the Service > Mark, > should we be able to get it needs to pass with each election to the > positions of National Coordinator and County Coordinator Representative at > Large. (Suggestion: Set up a committee to draft the needed changes > to the bylaws.) > > Maggie > NW/Plains CC Representative > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: kshort <kshort@kroo.com> > To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 10:20 PM > Subject: [BOARD-L] > > I posted the following to Board-Exec a while back hoping someone would > discuss it and take the bull by the horns and make a motion on it. Well > that hasn't happened Therefore: > > 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 > need to 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. > > Ken Short > Chairman > TM Committee > **************************************************************************** > ******* > I move that the Board direct the NC to apply for the Service Mark "The > USGenWeb Project" as soon as possible. > > Ken