--Boundary_(ID_kV7g5JnyXYritrzhorxqDQ) Content-type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-7882577D; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT At 03:07 PM 5/9/2003 -1000, David W. Morgan wrote: >Obviously, it was a total waste of the ECs time and everybody else's >time to get those voting lists updated, so the EC could conduct a >poll to see who the voters in the SE/MA region wanted for their CC >representative. It didn't matter who they wanted, as the AB made their >choice and to hell with the choice of the voters in the SEMA region. > >I don't understand how you can pass over the leading vote getter in the >poll. The AB has the right to appoint. They don't need a poll of the >people. So why have a poll if they are going to ignore it anyway? I hesitate to make a comment, since I'm kind of in the middle of things at this point, and to be honest, I'm not an authority on what the AB was thinking at the time -- after all, I wasn't on the board then and not privy to all of the discussion. But I believe that when the board tried to initially make the appointments, a number of objections were raised that no one had bothered to ask the CCs for their opinion. (Or perhaps it would be more precise to say when some individual board members tried to move ahead with the appointment process.) But because the by-laws specifically state that the AB is to appoint the replacement if an elected member of the board (other than the NC) cannot complete his/her term, a special election or binding vote would be improper. In a way, I kind of feel like the board was caught between a rock and a hard place -- the by-laws prohibit holding a special election, but public opinion (or some very vocal parts of it anyway) protested an appointment. Perhaps having the opinion poll was seen as a way of splitting the difference? Obviously not a successful one, though, considering the reaction! Would it have helped to be more specific right up-front that this was not, and could not (according to the by-laws), be an actual vote? Let everyone one that the AB was interested in the opinions (at least interested enough to go to the effort of taking the poll) of the reps in the SEMA region, but that the AB would not be bound by them, and would still make the appointments as they saw fit? Or would it have been better to have simply gone about the business of making appointments and ignored the complaints? I'm not simply asking rhetorical questions. I can't imagine that an AB member will never again resign, which means that the AB is likely to be faced with the same issues again, and absent a change in the by-laws, would be dealing with the same problems. Angie Rayfield NCGenWeb Project --Boundary_(ID_kV7g5JnyXYritrzhorxqDQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-7882577D Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.476 / Virus Database: 273 - Release Date: 4/24/2003 --Boundary_(ID_kV7g5JnyXYritrzhorxqDQ)--

Obviously, it was a total waste of the ECs time and everybody else's time to get those voting lists updated, so the EC could conduct a poll to see who the voters in the SE/MA region wanted for their CC representative. It didn't matter who they wanted, as the AB made their choice and to hell with the choice of the voters in the SEMA region. I don't understand how you can pass over the leading vote getter in the poll. The AB has the right to appoint. They don't need a poll of the people. So why have a poll if they are going to ignore it anyway? David On Fri, 9 May 2003, Richard (Isaiah) Harrison wrote: > With 9 members voting and 1 member not voting, the results are as follows: > > Bettie Wood 3 > Heather DeGeorge 8 > Angie Rayfield 6 > Abstain 1 > > Heather DeGeorge and Angie Rayfield are appointed to the Advisory Board to > fill the vacant SEMA Rep positions. > > Congratulations to them and thank you to all the candidates, to Larry > Stephens, to the Election Committee and to the members who participated in > the poll. > > -Isaiah > > > ==== BOARD Mailing List ==== > "No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent." > Abraham Lincoln (1809 - 1865) > David W. Morgan dmorgan@efn.org Honolulu Hawaii SC - TXGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~txgenweb/ FM - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/tx/txfiles.htm ** http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dmorgan/

As the result of continued negotiations with RootsWeb over the interpretation of some aspects of the document, I now have permission to provide project members who wish to view it with a copy of the Hosting Agreement. These copies may not be publicly posted, nor may they be shared with anyone not a member of the project. If you would like a copy (in Microsoft Word), please send me an email at IsaiahHarrison@cox.net with your name, address and project affiliation. -Isaiah

(Please forward as appropriate) So far two applicants have expressed interest in the Northwest/Plains vacancies: Gail Meyer Kilgore and Sharyl Ferrall, both of IAGenWeb. Can we hear from some of the other states? There are two vacancies on the Advisory Board to replace the Northwest Plains County Coordinator Representatives who resigned. The persons selected to fill these vacancies will serve until the next regular election. Candidates must have at least one year (the twelve months immediately preceding appointment) of continuous service as a Local Coordinator within the NW/P region and current activity as a member in good standing, and eligibility to vote within The USGenWeb Project. Interested volunteers should submit a brief letter stating their qualifications and reasons for wanting to serve to the National Coordinator IsaiahH@cox.net. Applications will be accepted through Monday, May 12, 2003. At that time applications will be turned over to the Election Committee who will conduct a preference poll of the NW/P voters. Results of the poll will be turned over to the Advisory Board to aid them in the selection process. -Isaiah Richard "Isaiah" Harrison National Coordinator The USGenWeb Project

Isaiah, I think part of the problem is that a segment of the membership is not clear on exactly the type of agreement that was signed. Would you please correct me if I'm wrong on any of this? As I understand it, it's a domain hosting agreement of the sort that most providers would ask domain owners to sign, (though I'll bet that frequently domain owners don't bother to read the entire thing as it pops up on the screen.) Re the SCs and XXGenWeb states, my understanding is that an agreement will only be presented to those states that have their own domain, and only then if it is hosted by RW. State and county sites at the rootsweb.com URL will continue under the standard RW AUP we've been seeing for some time: http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/aup.html I can't help but have some concern, which perhaps you can address, relative to different segments of our Poject possibly operating under different Hosting RW agreements. But then I suppose if a state were to homestead on another server, there would be a different hosting agreement for that state anyway. Maybe I just answered my own question. <g> So in the end what we have is the NC, with the assistance and input of the AB, taking care of things national, which is as it should be and which I have advocated for a long time. I guess I only cringe when I see the AB injecting itself into states business. However, since this is our project, is it not possible to divulge the names of the two attorneys who advised and assisted you and the AB in the matter? It's not unusual that names of litigants and contractual details remain confidential, but never the attorneys, if only to avoid any misconception of conflict of interest. Thanks, Ellen SC MSGW

At 11:52 AM 5/6/03 -0700, Richard (Isaiah) Harrison wrote: >The details are confidential, but you and the other SCs will know them soon enough as RootsWeb intends to conclude the same agreement with those XXGenWeb sites that use RootsWeb. Hi Richard, Does this mean that XXGenWeb county sites hosted on Rootsweb will receive similar agreements to sign? Victoria

The agreement is for a limited term? Oh, dear. I can understand that from their point of view, but there was nothing "limited" about the verbal agreement. Susan Richard (Isaiah) Harrison wrote: > Copies of the Agreement will need to be passed on as new people take > office. But the agreement is for a limited term. > >> And, if MyFamily.com should be gobbled up by someone else, as they >> have bought others, will the agreement still be in effect? > > Yes.

Personally, I think this is great, but a few questions. Was the agreement signed by you? Anyone else? How will the XXGenWeb sites be handled? Will each SC be contacted, or will this again be handled at the top level? And, although I understand the reasoning of the confidentiality of the contracts, who will have copies and how will future National Coordinators or SC's be able to defend their right to the sites if necessary? And, if MyFamily.com should be gobbled up by someone else, as they have bought others, will the agreement still be in effect? Richard (Isaiah) Harrison wrote: > At 08:39 AM 5/6/2003 -1000, you wrote: > The details are confidential, but you and the other SCs will know them > soon enough as RootsWeb intends to conclude the same agreement with > those XXGenWeb sites that use RootsWeb. > >> The natonal web site is only a small part of this organization, >> and does not take that much disk space, at that. Why was a >> legally binding agreement necessary? > > RootsWeb intends to conclude or has already concluded similar agreements > with all of the sites they host. > >> Did all members of the advisory board vote to do this? What was >> the vote? > > The AB reviewed, discussed and advised but did not vote. > >> David > > -Isaiah Susan -- Coordinator Rhode Island USGenWeb ~ http://www.rootsweb.com/~rigenweb/

At 07:53 PM 5/6/2003 -0400, you wrote: >At 11:52 AM 5/6/03 -0700, Richard (Isaiah) Harrison wrote: > > >The details are confidential, but you and the other SCs will know them > soon enough as RootsWeb intends to conclude the same agreement with those > XXGenWeb sites that use RootsWeb. > >Hi Richard, > >Does this mean that XXGenWeb county sites hosted on Rootsweb will receive >similar agreements to sign? > >Victoria As far as I know the individual websites won't be. -Isaiah

At 07:05 PM 5/6/2003 -0400, you wrote: >The agreement is for a limited term? Oh, dear. I can understand that from >their point of view, but there was nothing "limited" about the verbal >agreement. > >Susan Good point. I want to look into this one a bit more and I'll get back to you. -Isaiah

At 06:01 PM 5/6/2003 -0400, you wrote: >Personally, I think this is great, but a few questions. > >Was the agreement signed by you? Anyone else? Hi Susan- The agreement was signed by me as National Coordinator. >How will the XXGenWeb sites be handled? Will each SC be contacted, or will >this again be handled at the top level? I don't know exactly how RootsWeb is going to do it, but the contracts will be negotiated with the SCs. It should be soon. Tera was going to provide me with some additional information to pass on to the SCs today, but she didn't get it finished in time. >And, although I understand the reasoning of the confidentiality of the >contracts, who will have copies and how will future National Coordinators >or SC's be able to defend their right to the sites if necessary? Copies of the Agreement will need to be passed on as new people take office. But the agreement is for a limited term. >And, if MyFamily.com should be gobbled up by someone else, as they have >bought others, will the agreement still be in effect? Yes. >Susan >-- >Coordinator Rhode Island USGenWeb ~ http://www.rootsweb.com/~rigenweb/ -Isaiah

--Boundary_(ID_paYvn0TkiCEtilUcnq1KoQ) Content-type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-1F35D79; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT At 08:39 AM 5/6/2003 -1000, you wrote: >The natonal web site is only a small part of this organization, >and does not take that much disk space, at that. Why was a >legally binding agreement necessary? Without a binding agreement, anyone at Ancestry or Rootsweb could decide to shut down the site at any time, for any reason. Or for no reason. It doesn't matter how small a part of the organization it is, or how much disk space it takes, the site has to be hosted *somewhere*, after all. >What is positive about secret negotiations? I don't see anything surprising about secret negotiations. It's certainly not unusual for businesses to keep the details of contracts and negotiations confidential. It may sound sinister, but it's not that big a deal. And to be honest, in this case, Rootsweb holds the trump card. They have something we need -- server space. If keeping the details confidential makes it possible to get what *we* need, well, then, such is life. And my personal opinion -- the last thing that would have been useful would have been to have thousands of USGWP volunteers thinking that they needed to be intimately involved in the negotiations & sticking their 2-cents worth in. I shudder to think of the chaos <G>. Angie Rayfield NCGenWeb Project --Boundary_(ID_paYvn0TkiCEtilUcnq1KoQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-1F35D79 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.476 / Virus Database: 273 - Release Date: 4/24/2003 --Boundary_(ID_paYvn0TkiCEtilUcnq1KoQ)--

At 02:33 PM 5/6/2003 -0500, you wrote: >--Boundary_(ID_paYvn0TkiCEtilUcnq1KoQ) >Content-type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-1F35D79; charset=us-ascii; > format=flowed >Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > >At 08:39 AM 5/6/2003 -1000, you wrote: > >The natonal web site is only a small part of this organization, > >and does not take that much disk space, at that. Why was a > >legally binding agreement necessary? > >Without a binding agreement, anyone at Ancestry or Rootsweb could decide to >shut down the site at any time, for any reason. Or for no reason. It >doesn't matter how small a part of the organization it is, or how much disk >space it takes, the site has to be hosted *somewhere*, after all. > > >What is positive about secret negotiations? > >I don't see anything surprising about secret negotiations. It's certainly >not unusual for businesses to keep the details of contracts and >negotiations confidential. It may sound sinister, but it's not that big a >deal. And to be honest, in this case, Rootsweb holds the trump card. They >have something we need -- server space. If keeping the details >confidential makes it possible to get what *we* need, well, then, such is >life. > >And my personal opinion -- the last thing that would have been useful would >have been to have thousands of USGWP volunteers thinking that they needed >to be intimately involved in the negotiations & sticking their 2-cents >worth in. I shudder to think of the chaos <G>. > >Angie Rayfield >NCGenWeb Project Excellent points! -Isaiah

At 08:39 AM 5/6/2003 -1000, you wrote: >What is positive about secret negotiations? Se my response to Patricia. >What are we commited to, from our side, and what is Rootsweb >committed to? The details are confidential, but you and the other SCs will know them soon enough as RootsWeb intends to conclude the same agreement with those XXGenWeb sites that use RootsWeb. >The natonal web site is only a small part of this organization, >and does not take that much disk space, at that. Why was a >legally binding agreement necessary? RootsWeb intends to conclude or has already concluded similar agreements with all of the sites they host. >Did all members of the advisory board vote to do this? What was >the vote? The AB reviewed, discussed and advised but did not vote. >David -Isaiah

At 11:25 AM 5/6/2003 -0700, you wrote: >Congratulation Isaiah, but one question: > >Why is the agreement confidential? > >Patricia Scott Because attorneys are involved? ; -} Actually, I think it is because RootsWeb.com and MyFamily.com sign many different agreements with many different organizations for many different purposes. They figure it is in their best interest not to have people comparing apples and oranges. -Isaiah

Congratulation Isaiah, but one question: Why is the agreement confidential? Patricia Scott ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard (Isaiah) Harrison" <IsaiahH@cox.net> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 11:23 AM Subject: [STATE-COORD-L] Re: Hosting Agreement Communication > I am very happy to announce I have signed a Hosting Agreement with > Rootsweb.com for our National website. > > Over the past few months, the Advisory Board and I have been working > extensively with Tera Phomsopha, a RootsWeb.com Account Manager, to > establish a legally binding agreement for the hosting of The USGenWeb > Project national organization home page. The AB has endeavored to examine > every aspect of the agreement, two attorneys volunteered their time to > advise us, and RootsWeb.com has worked with the AB to formulate an > agreement that is fair and beneficial to both parties. > > This confidential agreement was completed to make official, and lay out in > writing, the verbal arrangements that had previously been made between the > two organizations. The contract applies only to the National website, and > will not affect any functionality of the website or organization. The > contract does not apply to XXGenWeb sites, to Special Projects or to County > pages. > > Recently, there has been some discussion among some USGenWeb members > regarding these contract negotiations. While the sense that "something was > going on" was correct, much of what has been said exists only in the > imaginations of the authors. Please realize that I was unable to publicly > inform you of the negotiations prior to now for legal purposes. I apologize > for any confusion this may have caused. > > Thanks to all those who made the effort to raise questions, massage > language and explain fine points during this effort. I believe we can all > look forward to a continuing positive relationship with RootsWeb.com. > > -Isaiah > > > Richard "Isaiah" Harrison > National Coordinator > The USGenWeb Project > > (Please forward to all appropriate lists.) > >

I am very happy to announce I have signed a Hosting Agreement with Rootsweb.com for our National website. Over the past few months, the Advisory Board and I have been working extensively with Tera Phomsopha, a RootsWeb.com Account Manager, to establish a legally binding agreement for the hosting of The USGenWeb Project national organization home page. The AB has endeavored to examine every aspect of the agreement, two attorneys volunteered their time to advise us, and RootsWeb.com has worked with the AB to formulate an agreement that is fair and beneficial to both parties. This confidential agreement was completed to make official, and lay out in writing, the verbal arrangements that had previously been made between the two organizations. The contract applies only to the National website, and will not affect any functionality of the website or organization. The contract does not apply to XXGenWeb sites, to Special Projects or to County pages. Recently, there has been some discussion among some USGenWeb members regarding these contract negotiations. While the sense that "something was going on" was correct, much of what has been said exists only in the imaginations of the authors. Please realize that I was unable to publicly inform you of the negotiations prior to now for legal purposes. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused. Thanks to all those who made the effort to raise questions, massage language and explain fine points during this effort. I believe we can all look forward to a continuing positive relationship with RootsWeb.com. -Isaiah Richard "Isaiah" Harrison National Coordinator The USGenWeb Project (Please forward to all appropriate lists.)

What is positive about secret negotiations? What are we commited to, from our side, and what is Rootsweb committed to? The natonal web site is only a small part of this organization, and does not take that much disk space, at that. Why was a legally binding agreement necessary? Did all members of the advisory board vote to do this? What was the vote? David On Tue, 6 May 2003, Richard (Isaiah) Harrison wrote: > I am very happy to announce I have signed a Hosting Agreement with > Rootsweb.com for our National website. > > Over the past few months, the Advisory Board and I have been working > extensively with Tera Phomsopha, a RootsWeb.com Account Manager, to > establish a legally binding agreement for the hosting of The USGenWeb > Project national organization home page. The AB has endeavored to examine > every aspect of the agreement, two attorneys volunteered their time to > advise us, and RootsWeb.com has worked with the AB to formulate an > agreement that is fair and beneficial to both parties. > > This confidential agreement was completed to make official, and lay out in > writing, the verbal arrangements that had previously been made between the > two organizations. The contract applies only to the National website, and > will not affect any functionality of the website or organization. The > contract does not apply to XXGenWeb sites, to Special Projects or to County > pages. > > Recently, there has been some discussion among some USGenWeb members > regarding these contract negotiations. While the sense that "something was > going on" was correct, much of what has been said exists only in the > imaginations of the authors. Please realize that I was unable to publicly > inform you of the negotiations prior to now for legal purposes. I apologize > for any confusion this may have caused. > > Thanks to all those who made the effort to raise questions, massage > language and explain fine points during this effort. I believe we can all > look forward to a continuing positive relationship with RootsWeb.com. > > -Isaiah > > > Richard "Isaiah" Harrison > National Coordinator > The USGenWeb Project > > (Please forward to all appropriate lists.) > David W. Morgan damorgan@nyx.net Honolulu Hawaii SC - TXGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~txgenweb/ FM - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/tx/txfiles.htm ** http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dmorgan/

(Please forward as appropriate) There are two vacancies on the Advisory Board to replace the Northwest Plains County Coordinator Representatives who resigned. The persons selected to fill these vacancies will serve until the next regular election. Candidates must have at least one year (the twelve months immediately preceding appointment) of continuous service as a Local Coordinator within the NW/P region and current activity as a member in good standing, and eligibility to vote within The USGenWeb Project. Interested volunteers should submit a brief letter stating their qualifications and reasons for wanting to serve to the National Coordinator IsaiahH@cox.net. Applications will be accepted through Monday, May 12, 2003. At that time applications will be turned over to the Election Committee who will conduct a preference poll of the NW/P voters. Results of the poll will be turned over o the Advisory Board to aid them in the selection process. -Isaiah Richard "Isaiah" Harrison National Coordinator The USGenWeb Project

Effective immediately, I am resigning my position as NCGenWeb State Coordinator. Please remove my name from appropriate state and national lists and any commitee assignments I may hold. I will remain CC for Catawba and Burke Co. NCGWP sites. Wishing you all well, Derick S. Hartshorn, III