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/

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

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 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

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

--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)--

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