Hi Peter, Peter Hendy-Ibbs wrote: > > Like many contributors I am disappointed by the ONS request, though > understand the FreeBMD stance in respecting their wishes and fostering > good relationships. However their is little justification for the ONS > request for exactly the reasons already stated: > 1) the information is in the public domain > 2) the information is widely available in libraries and FHCs > 3) the ONS have already encompassed 'modern' media by selling data on CDROMs > 4) the '100 year' limitation can hardly apply to deaths Points that we made at the meeting, I can assure you. > But one further, compelling issue is that the ONS is itself embarking on > an ambitious and expensive project to digitise all BMD records and make > them more readily available. The restriction on FreeBMD is therefore at > odds with this philosophy and suggests double standards. They were at pains, as they have to be, not to give anything away about the review that is due out. But, reading between the lines, I would be very surprised if recent records were included in whatever they might end up delivering. If they do decide to make recent records availble through the Internet or other sources then I think we will question them about our restriction once again. I will wait and see on this tho. > There may be some concern about the demands that our online service may > create for the ONS at Southport. The are themselves preparing to make > online ordering with credit card payment available in the near future. > If they want some idea of how much demand is generated by FreeBMD it > would be better that they agree to a link being established with FreeBMD > so that online ordering, or a downloaded order form, is available on the > FreeBMD site. We have been discussing this with the for the last two years and we hope they will allow us to link directly once a link is in place. At the moment, like so many things, it is a wish and not a reality. > Otherwise it will be quite impossible to get any idea of > the numbers of certificates ordered on the basis of FreeBMD searches > since most searchers will copy the on-screen information and then order > certificates separately. Perhaps it would be a much more positive step > for the ONS to help set up such a service and establish the links than > to restrict FreeBMD. We agreed that there is no way to capture all the requests but, at the moment, this is about the best we can do. Until they have some ability to accept online orders it's liekly to be only way unless you can tink of other ones. > As someone who processes a significant amount of post-1900 data for > FreeBMD am concerned that contributors, especially one-namers, may no > longer submit data if it is not to be made available. Yes, I am concerned as well and it would be a pity. However, at this stage the project focus is on the earlier records as it has always been. > Finally, may I also suggest that it would have been helpful to have been > informed of the change throguh these lists before its introduction > rather than to discover it afterwards. The purpose of the Discussion > list in particular is for a two way exchange. As Dave mentioned, we wanted to avoid a swamping of the server and so we didn't announce it. It is a two way exchange and we don't want to hide anything, but we need to be careful about the server. Hopefully it will not be too often that we surprise you with these things. Just a point, there are always changes in the pipline and Dave and Barry are frequently making mods that are required. These go into the system at regular intervals but we tend not to announce them unless they have a big impact. Cheers Graham > > Best wishes > > Peter Hendy-Ibbs > > -- > Researching: IBBS from Hunts/Beds and HENDY from Pembrokeshire > > Transcribing and reformatting for FreeBMD (http://freebmd.rootsweb.com) > > ============================== > Visit Ancestry's Library - The best collection of family history > learning and how-to articles on the Internet. > http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library