The problem that has USGENWeb upset at this time appears to be the fact that rootsweb added a logo to the USGENWeb site. Also if you go to rootsweb now there also is an Ancestry logo on the main page. People are concerned that they might do this to all pages on rootsweb that are state or county sites too. To complicate the issue is the fact that USGENWeb appears to really wanting to move the main site page off rootsweb. This could upset the apple cart and possibly cause rootsweb to shut down all our sites (Could this be a move by Ancestry to cripple the whole project????). I offered my input because there was so much discussion going on that was off-base with the main topic. I don't particularly want to move to something else either. I mainly posted the comment because I think we may need to discuss this item amongst GAGENWeb and get a consensus of the CC's and maybe appoint one or two people to speak for the state. What do you all think???? Joe Borderieux Peach County Coordinator Virginia Crilley wrote: > Brenda, you stated this so well! > > I've yet to see any real (in contrast to alleged) abuse by Ancestry. > > They removed what had outraged many from USGenWeb -- so I'd like to give > them the benefit of the doubt. It could be their intent was to be helpful > to all researchers -- but it came out differently. But the important thing > is that they listened and made changes. > > Considering all their dependability, their free mailing lists, free > USGenWeb pages, free personal Genealogy pages that they have provided over > the years, I feel their "plus" elements far outweigh the few times they > have appeared to encroach on our materials. I've never known them to "ask > us" for contributions so we can continue to have our pages on their server. > > We in USGenWeb certainly have as our main goal to provide FREE research, > and that is what I plan to continue to do by working with all the > volunteers who submit information for our sites. > > I want to keep my pages with Rootsweb/Ancestry. > > At 08:09 PM 9/14/2007 -0400, you wrote: > >> I just wanted to step in (for what may be my only venture into this >> discussion) and respond to some of Joe B's comments and ideas, as well >> as bring up some of my own. >> >> Rootsweb's initial mission was exactly the same as the USGenWeb >> project- to keep internet genealogy free (and legal). This was prior >> to their being bought out in 2000, so obviously the rules have changed >> (and I'm sure MyFamily changed a lot of the wording once they got a >> hold of things). MyFamily.com has become a sort of a "Ma Bell" of the >> online genealogy community, and so it does warrant a close look at >> things to see if it might be time for us to cut our ties. If I'm not >> mistaken, all or nearly all of the county/state sites were up and >> active *before* the sellout/buyout of Rootsweb in 2000. Since they >> have been passed down from coordinator to coordinator, it has just >> been easier to refresh and maintain existing sites rather than remove >> them entirely and set them up on other hosting services. But there are >> some who have done this, so it's not impossible- but for the rest of >> us it would be a large undertaking on a grand scale. If we did this, >> would it be best to do it in phases? What problems might we encounter? >> Should we all jump ship to one single provider (like Google), or might >> it be better to scale down and offer a handful of possible providers >> (preferably non-genealogy related)? Would there be any chance of the >> same things occurring over again as far as user-submitted data and it >> being exploited for someone else's monetary gain? >> >> Wasn't there a similar issue with user-submitted family tree data and >> Ancestry initially charging for that (and then changing their policies >> to make it into a free-access family tree database)? Since the GenWeb >> project is, after all, essentially 100% user-submitted data (and >> design), do they have a right to create any kind of free access/search >> engine results to provide access to that data for anyone using their >> site? They probably do, and if that bothers us, we need to do >> something about it. >> >> If Rootsweb wants their logo on USGenWeb pages, it makes perfect sense >> that Ancestry will follow too (notice the Ancestry logo side-by-side >> with the Rootsweb logo at the top of Rootsweb pages already). Do we >> want to open ourselves up to that possibility? I'm not a big fan of >> that idea. Is Rootsweb expecting every free page they host >> (non-USGenWeb related) to incorporate their logo in a masthead? >> Probably not. Why? Maybe because *we* are such a huge force in online >> genealogy (at least I believe we are) that they want a piece of us. >> >> Something that should be looked at is Rootsweb's "Acceptable Use >> Policy" which can be found here: >> http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/aup.html >> >> Here are some choice segments from the Ters and Conditions that made >> me raise my eyebrows- wondering if it is really "safe" to continue >> with their service: >> >> "...Your use of the Service indicates that you are bound by this >> agreement with us. If you don't agree with any of these terms and >> conditions, don't use the Service. We may alter this agreement at our >> discretion and your continued use after any change indicates your >> acceptance of that change. If you don't want to be bound by a change, >> discontinue use of the Service. >> >> ...Limited Use LICENSE >> You are licensed to use the Content only for personal or professional >> family history research, and may download Content only as search >> results relevant to that research. The download of the whole or >> significant portions of any work or database is prohibited. Resale of >> a work or database or portion thereof, except as specific results >> relevant to specific research for an individual, is prohibited. On >> line or other republication of Content is prohibited except as unique >> data elements that are part of a unique family history or genealogy. >> Violation of this License may result in immediate termination of your >> membership and may result in legal action for injunction, damages or >> both. ... [Are they bound by this agreement as well??] >> >> ...User-Provided Content >> Portions of the Service will contain user-provided content, to which >> you may contribute appropriate content (the "Submitted Content") For >> this Content, the submitter is the owner, and RootsWeb.com is only a >> distributor. By submitting Submitted Content to RootsWeb.com, you >> grant MyFamily.com, Inc., the corporate host of the Service, a limited >> license to the Submitted Content to use, host, and distribute that >> Submitted Content and allow hosting and distribution on co-branded >> Services of that Submitted Content. You should submit only content >> which belongs to you and will not violate the property or other rights >> of other people or organizations. MyFamily.com, Inc. is sensitive to >> copyright and other intellectual property rights of others. For more >> information concerning copyright issues, view our corporate policy. >> Content submitted for the purpose of commercial use, advertising or >> fee for service is prohibited. ... >> >> ...Because some states/jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion or >> limitation of liability for consequential or incidental damages, this >> limitation may not apply in part to you. IF YOU ARE DISSATISFIED WITH >> ANY PORTION OF THIS WEB SERVICE, OR WITH ANY OF THESE TERMS OF USE, >> YOUR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS TO DISCONTINUE USING THIS WEB >> SERVICE...." >> >> >> I did not alter any of that- just copied and pasted it here. The note >> in brackets is mine. >> >> I currently have my own Google Pages that I use for family genealogy, >> and have been using Google's Page Creator to put it together. I don't >> know how that page creator will work for others- so just uploading the >> pages as-is might be best. But I would have a concern about how to >> establish all of the county/state/archives pages we would need to have >> without working out an arrangement with Google. If the usernames and >> passwords will be passed down to future coordinators, then a specific >> agreement might need to be worked out in order to do that. I think >> that might cut into a "misrepresentation/impersonation" conflict if >> the registration info no longer applies to a new coordinator (how >> could we create pages not tied to a person's name in any way?). >> >> >> I apologize for the length of this, but wanted to sort out my thoughts >> and see what others felt about all this. This is a potentially huge >> shift for the Projects, but maybe it will turn out to be a worthwhile >> undertaking. I come at this from the perspective of a long-time >> USGenWeb user as well as an Ancestry.com subscriber. USGenWeb is more >> personal than Ancestry and will only increase in value as time goes on >> (especially as the Census Project continues). I dream of the day when >> I won't need to subscribe to Ancestry.com, because all of the info >> they charge for will finally end up on the web for free (at USGenWeb >> and at other archival sources -like Universities- who don't/can't >> charge for their data). As we grow stronger, Ancestry might grow >> weaker, because if they can't legally monopolize documents and data >> then it is only a matter of time before someone else (like a >> volunteer) gets to it and provides access to the information for free. >> >> Thank you for your time on this, and for everyone coming out to voice >> their concerns and ideas. >> >> >> Belinda Slocumb >> Stewart and Webster CC, GAGenWeb >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> GAGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >> in the subject and the body of the message >> > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GAGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

Joe, I appreciate your bringing up these points. I think that many of us do not stay tuned to all that goes on at the National Level. Some people do belong to the National lists but even they may not take the time to study the situation. Could you help us all out with some specifics -- urls which illustrate the Mastheads, etc. I had thought they had been removed. I certainly do like your idea of having a couple of people investigate this matter and report back to GAGenWeb with their findings. Because you already seem to be updated on the situation, would you consider doing this? Maybe someone else would volunteer to explore it with you. I'm saying this simply as a CC -- do not mean in any way to speak for Ed or Vivian....nor to create any "official" group for GAGenWeb. I'm grateful that you, Joe, as a concerned CC are bringing this to our attention. At 09:46 PM 9/15/2007 -0400, you wrote: >The problem that has USGENWeb upset at this time appears to be the fact >that rootsweb added >a logo to the USGENWeb site. Also if you go to rootsweb now there also >is an Ancestry logo >on the main page. People are concerned that they might do this to all >pages on rootsweb that >are state or county sites too. To complicate the issue is the fact that >USGENWeb appears to >really wanting to move the main site page off rootsweb. This could >upset the apple cart and >possibly cause rootsweb to shut down all our sites (Could this be a move >by Ancestry to >cripple the whole project????). I offered my input because there was so >much discussion >going on that was off-base with the main topic. I don't particularly >want to move to something >else either. I mainly posted the comment because I think we may need to >discuss this item >amongst GAGENWeb and get a consensus of the CC's and maybe appoint one >or two >people to speak for the state. What do you all think???? > >Joe Borderieux >Peach County Coordinator

For those who have not kept up with the discussion and/or do not know the background... First, this only concerns Web sites that are hosted on RootsWeb or RootsWeb Freepages. As you know, RW hosts many genealogy sites, including our GAGenWeb state page and many of our county sites. RW provides unlimited server space free of charge. Most sites hosted by RootsWeb already carry a small RW logo and link, usually at the bottom of the page, with no mention of Ancestry. RootsWeb is owned by The Generations Network (TGN), which also owns Ancestry.com. Without any announcement or consultation with site-holders, RootWeb began several weeks ago to place a banner (you also may hear these referred to as mastheads) atop every site hosted by RW. (Since RW is the host server, it has access to all sites regardless of whether they are password protected.) The banner includes the words "an Ancestry.com community" and links to both RootsWeb and Ancestry. This initiative began with the FreePages accounts. If you wish to see what one looks like, here is a site (chosen at random): http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lorrie/ You will note that the Ancestry logo includes a link directly to the commercial site. Some USGenWeb state pages carried the banners briefly in the last couple of days, but they were quickly removed. I believe the National Coordinator has at least persuaded TGN to hold off on putting the banner on USGW sites. There are several concerns. 1. The banner size and placement commands too much attention, drawing the eye away from the sites (marketing and branding is the intent). 2. The inclusion of the reference and link to Ancestry indicatess that USGenWeb is part of a commercial genealogy site. You may have, as I have, encountered researchers who are confused about whether USGW is a free or paid resource. In addition, potential contributors are hesitant to loan their data to a GAGenWeb site because of the fear that it will end up on Ancestry. When RootsWeb first began to host USGenWeb sites, RW agreed to avoid any appearance of commercialism on USGW sites. That was before TGN bought RW. The dilemma, of course, is that servers cost money. It has been suggested that the national project move to a server that would accommodate the national site as well as all project sites or one that would only house the national site. That would cost money the project does not have. A few ideas have been kicked around, like dues or incorporation as a non-profit in order to raise money, but nothing has come of these proposals to date. The National Coordinator currently is in discussions with TGN to resolve this issue. Perhaps they will devise some manner of recognition for RW/Ancestry that will be less intrusive and non-commercial. While we certainly can discuss this issue on the GAGenWeb list, it cannot be resolved here. Please let your representatives on the Advisory Board know your feelings. Your county coordinator representatives are Suzanne Shepherd and Linda Blum-Barton, who is a member of the GAGenWeb Project. Suzanne: <mailto:syshephard@charter.net>syshephard@charter.net Linda: <mailto:lblumb@gmail.com>lblumb@gmail.com If you have questions, please let me know. Vivian Price Saffold ASC At 10:24 AM 9/16/2007, you wrote: >Joe, >I appreciate your bringing up these points. > >I think that many of us do not stay tuned to all that goes on at the >National Level. Some people do belong to the National lists but even they >may not take the time to study the situation. > >Could you help us all out with some specifics -- urls which illustrate the >Mastheads, etc. I had thought they had been removed. > >I certainly do like your idea of having a couple of people investigate this >matter and report back to GAGenWeb with their findings. > >Because you already seem to be updated on the situation, would you consider >doing this? Maybe someone else would volunteer to explore it with you. > >I'm saying this simply as a CC -- do not mean in any way to speak for Ed or >Vivian....nor to create any "official" group for GAGenWeb. I'm grateful >that you, Joe, as a concerned CC are bringing this to our attention. > >At 09:46 PM 9/15/2007 -0400, you wrote: > >The problem that has USGENWeb upset at this time appears to be the fact > >that rootsweb added > >a logo to the USGENWeb site. Also if you go to rootsweb now there also > >is an Ancestry logo > >on the main page. People are concerned that they might do this to all > >pages on rootsweb that > >are state or county sites too. To complicate the issue is the fact that > >USGENWeb appears to > >really wanting to move the main site page off rootsweb. This could > >upset the apple cart and > >possibly cause rootsweb to shut down all our sites (Could this be a move > >by Ancestry to > >cripple the whole project????). I offered my input because there was so > >much discussion > >going on that was off-base with the main topic. I don't particularly > >want to move to something > >else either. I mainly posted the comment because I think we may need to > >discuss this item > >amongst GAGENWeb and get a consensus of the CC's and maybe appoint one > >or two > >people to speak for the state. What do you all think???? > > > >Joe Borderieux > >Peach County Coordinator > > > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >GAGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Joe and everyone, Please be assured that Ed and I can and do speak for the Georgia project, when necessary and appropriate, as we were elected to do. However, that does not mean that each individual CC should not express his/her own opinion to the national governing body, as you and others have done quite eloquently already, both privately and via the national mailing lists. County coordinators, of course, are allowed to house their sites wherever they choose. Perhaps at some point we may need to decide if the state page will remain at RootsWeb. Until we see what the National Coordinator is able to negotiate with RW, it is premature to make a decision. By the way, Joe, kudos for thinking outside the box and suggesting Google as a potential project host. Vivian At 09:46 PM 9/15/2007, you wrote: >The problem that has USGENWeb upset at this time appears to be the fact >that rootsweb added >a logo to the USGENWeb site. Also if you go to rootsweb now there also >is an Ancestry logo >on the main page. People are concerned that they might do this to all >pages on rootsweb that >are state or county sites too. To complicate the issue is the fact that >USGENWeb appears to >really wanting to move the main site page off rootsweb. This could >upset the apple cart and >possibly cause rootsweb to shut down all our sites (Could this be a move >by Ancestry to >cripple the whole project????). I offered my input because there was so >much discussion >going on that was off-base with the main topic. I don't particularly >want to move to something >else either. I mainly posted the comment because I think we may need to >discuss this item >amongst GAGENWeb and get a consensus of the CC's and maybe appoint one >or two >people to speak for the state. What do you all think???? > >Joe Borderieux >Peach County Coordinator > >Virginia Crilley wrote: > > Brenda, you stated this so well! > > > > I've yet to see any real (in contrast to alleged) abuse by Ancestry. > > > > They removed what had outraged many from USGenWeb -- so I'd like to give > > them the benefit of the doubt. It could be their intent was to be helpful > > to all researchers -- but it came out differently. But the > important thing > > is that they listened and made changes. > > > > Considering all their dependability, their free mailing lists, free > > USGenWeb pages, free personal Genealogy pages that they have provided over > > the years, I feel their "plus" elements far outweigh the few times they > > have appeared to encroach on our materials. I've never known them to "ask > > us" for contributions so we can continue to have our pages on their server. > > > > We in USGenWeb certainly have as our main goal to provide FREE research, > > and that is what I plan to continue to do by working with all the > > volunteers who submit information for our sites. > > > > I want to keep my pages with Rootsweb/Ancestry. > > > > At 08:09 PM 9/14/2007 -0400, you wrote: > > > >> I just wanted to step in (for what may be my only venture into this > >> discussion) and respond to some of Joe B's comments and ideas, as well > >> as bring up some of my own. > >> > >> Rootsweb's initial mission was exactly the same as the USGenWeb > >> project- to keep internet genealogy free (and legal). This was prior > >> to their being bought out in 2000, so obviously the rules have changed > >> (and I'm sure MyFamily changed a lot of the wording once they got a > >> hold of things). MyFamily.com has become a sort of a "Ma Bell" of the > >> online genealogy community, and so it does warrant a close look at > >> things to see if it might be time for us to cut our ties. If I'm not > >> mistaken, all or nearly all of the county/state sites were up and > >> active *before* the sellout/buyout of Rootsweb in 2000. Since they > >> have been passed down from coordinator to coordinator, it has just > >> been easier to refresh and maintain existing sites rather than remove > >> them entirely and set them up on other hosting services. But there are > >> some who have done this, so it's not impossible- but for the rest of > >> us it would be a large undertaking on a grand scale. If we did this, > >> would it be best to do it in phases? What problems might we encounter? > >> Should we all jump ship to one single provider (like Google), or might > >> it be better to scale down and offer a handful of possible providers > >> (preferably non-genealogy related)? Would there be any chance of the > >> same things occurring over again as far as user-submitted data and it > >> being exploited for someone else's monetary gain? > >> > >> Wasn't there a similar issue with user-submitted family tree data and > >> Ancestry initially charging for that (and then changing their policies > >> to make it into a free-access family tree database)? Since the GenWeb > >> project is, after all, essentially 100% user-submitted data (and > >> design), do they have a right to create any kind of free access/search > >> engine results to provide access to that data for anyone using their > >> site? They probably do, and if that bothers us, we need to do > >> something about it. > >> > >> If Rootsweb wants their logo on USGenWeb pages, it makes perfect sense > >> that Ancestry will follow too (notice the Ancestry logo side-by-side > >> with the Rootsweb logo at the top of Rootsweb pages already). Do we > >> want to open ourselves up to that possibility? I'm not a big fan of > >> that idea. Is Rootsweb expecting every free page they host > >> (non-USGenWeb related) to incorporate their logo in a masthead? > >> Probably not. Why? Maybe because *we* are such a huge force in online > >> genealogy (at least I believe we are) that they want a piece of us. > >> > >> Something that should be looked at is Rootsweb's "Acceptable Use > >> Policy" which can be found here: > >> http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/aup.html > >> > >> Here are some choice segments from the Ters and Conditions that made > >> me raise my eyebrows- wondering if it is really "safe" to continue > >> with their service: > >> > >> "...Your use of the Service indicates that you are bound by this > >> agreement with us. If you don't agree with any of these terms and > >> conditions, don't use the Service. We may alter this agreement at our > >> discretion and your continued use after any change indicates your > >> acceptance of that change. If you don't want to be bound by a change, > >> discontinue use of the Service. > >> > >> ...Limited Use LICENSE > >> You are licensed to use the Content only for personal or professional > >> family history research, and may download Content only as search > >> results relevant to that research. The download of the whole or > >> significant portions of any work or database is prohibited. Resale of > >> a work or database or portion thereof, except as specific results > >> relevant to specific research for an individual, is prohibited. On > >> line or other republication of Content is prohibited except as unique > >> data elements that are part of a unique family history or genealogy. > >> Violation of this License may result in immediate termination of your > >> membership and may result in legal action for injunction, damages or > >> both. ... [Are they bound by this agreement as well??] > >> > >> ...User-Provided Content > >> Portions of the Service will contain user-provided content, to which > >> you may contribute appropriate content (the "Submitted Content") For > >> this Content, the submitter is the owner, and RootsWeb.com is only a > >> distributor. By submitting Submitted Content to RootsWeb.com, you > >> grant MyFamily.com, Inc., the corporate host of the Service, a limited > >> license to the Submitted Content to use, host, and distribute that > >> Submitted Content and allow hosting and distribution on co-branded > >> Services of that Submitted Content. You should submit only content > >> which belongs to you and will not violate the property or other rights > >> of other people or organizations. MyFamily.com, Inc. is sensitive to > >> copyright and other intellectual property rights of others. For more > >> information concerning copyright issues, view our corporate policy. > >> Content submitted for the purpose of commercial use, advertising or > >> fee for service is prohibited. ... > >> > >> ...Because some states/jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion or > >> limitation of liability for consequential or incidental damages, this > >> limitation may not apply in part to you. IF YOU ARE DISSATISFIED WITH > >> ANY PORTION OF THIS WEB SERVICE, OR WITH ANY OF THESE TERMS OF USE, > >> YOUR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS TO DISCONTINUE USING THIS WEB > >> SERVICE...." > >> > >> > >> I did not alter any of that- just copied and pasted it here. The note > >> in brackets is mine. > >> > >> I currently have my own Google Pages that I use for family genealogy, > >> and have been using Google's Page Creator to put it together. I don't > >> know how that page creator will work for others- so just uploading the > >> pages as-is might be best. But I would have a concern about how to > >> establish all of the county/state/archives pages we would need to have > >> without working out an arrangement with Google. If the usernames and > >> passwords will be passed down to future coordinators, then a specific > >> agreement might need to be worked out in order to do that. I think > >> that might cut into a "misrepresentation/impersonation" conflict if > >> the registration info no longer applies to a new coordinator (how > >> could we create pages not tied to a person's name in any way?). > >> > >> > >> I apologize for the length of this, but wanted to sort out my thoughts > >> and see what others felt about all this. This is a potentially huge > >> shift for the Projects, but maybe it will turn out to be a worthwhile > >> undertaking. I come at this from the perspective of a long-time > >> USGenWeb user as well as an Ancestry.com subscriber. USGenWeb is more > >> personal than Ancestry and will only increase in value as time goes on > >> (especially as the Census Project continues). I dream of the day when > >> I won't need to subscribe to Ancestry.com, because all of the info > >> they charge for will finally end up on the web for free (at USGenWeb > >> and at other archival sources -like Universities- who don't/can't > >> charge for their data). As we grow stronger, Ancestry might grow > >> weaker, because if they can't legally monopolize documents and data > >> then it is only a matter of time before someone else (like a > >> volunteer) gets to it and provides access to the information for free. > >> > >> Thank you for your time on this, and for everyone coming out to voice > >> their concerns and ideas. > >> > >> > >> Belinda Slocumb > >> Stewart and Webster CC, GAGenWeb > >> > >> ------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > >> GAGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > >> in the subject and the body of the message > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GAGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >GAGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >quotes in the subject and the body of the message