Sep 11-17 2000

From merope@Radix.Net Mon Sep 11 14:05:11 2000

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:05:10 -0400 (EDT)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000911092822.29214A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Status: O

X-Status:

Never a dull day...its Your Daily Board Show!

*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!

Sunday 10 September 2000-Monday 11 September 2000:

Voting on Motion 00-28 continues; the count is now 10 yes votes and three

no votes. [This motion has passed]

===

Sign Right Up Corner: We hear that representative at large Holly Timm is

accepting volunteers for the new Election Study Committee. If you are

interested in volunteering, you can write to her at hollyft@bright.net.

Making Waves Corner: New Board member Richard Harrison has formed a

discussion list on the topic of designing a recall amendment that a 2/3

majority of the project can support. This list is open to all interested

members of the USGenWeb Project. Use these instructions to subscribe and

participate:

Go to http://www.coollist.com/subscribe.html

Where it says "List Name," enter "RECALL"

The address for posting is recall@coollist.com

All The News Thats Fit To Print Corner: The inaugural edition of the NW/P

News, a new newsletter for members of the Northwest/Plains region hit the

newstands yesterday evening. The newsletter is distinguished by

remarkable prescience; it announced the passage of Motion 00-28 about 12

hours before the deciding vote was cast. Richard also announced his new

discussion list, recall@coollist.com, in the newsletter, and Joy Fisher

provided an interesting discussion on land records.

Shamelessness Corner: Instead of crawling under a rock like one might

expect them to, the fine folks at FamilyDiscover.com are insteading

sending out solicitation letters, asking genealogists to join for low low

one time fee. The letter goes something like this:

"Greetings Fellow Genealogist:

We have taken a notice of your interest in genealogy as you have been

highly recommended to us by another genealogical publishing company. We

just wanted to let you know you are invited to organize a successful

search for your family with one of the easiest to use genealogical sites

on the Internet . http://www.familydiscovery.com/family

What FamilyDiscovery.com is:

What we have for you is an online genealogy service giving you access to

the #1 database of compiled genealogical information on the internet. The

Online service will help you find the family that you're looking for

faster and easier - without spending lots of time and money. We have taken

the time and organized thousands of online databases into categories into

a point and click atmosphere making it a snap for you to find exactly

what you are looking for in under a minute. No more searching for your

family and coming up with dead ends on the internet or on those expensive

CD-ROMS. We've done all the searching for you. What type of Information

will you find? FamilyDiscovery.com will give you all the information you

could possibly search in a lifetime as we do add more records daily

covering all 50 US States and Most Countries Overseas including but not

limited to: Immigration Records, Census Records, Land Records Church

Records Court House Records Cemetery Records Birth Records, Death &

Mortality Records, Marriage Records, Military Records, Wills of

Testament, Published Genealogies & Family Histories, Pedigrees , Vital

Records and Statistics. (Ex: Complete Mayflower Passenger List, Indian

-Cherokee 1851 Census, Virginia Tax Records, etc.. ) Since we know

you're into genealogy we're offering you access to this complete database

if you join by Wednesday 9/20/00 for a One Time Access fee of ONLY $49.95

with absolutely nothing to pay EVER again, Accept NO Substitutes! You'll

receive your user name and password almost immediately so you can start

searching for your family right away! So what are you waiting for? Stop

spending lots of time and money on dead ends let us lead you on your

journey. Join TODAY! To get the Special Rate go to:

http://www.FamilyDiscovery.com/family Enter This Special Code: SPCL4995

In the Comments Field

- Staff,

Email@familydiscovery.com

http://www.familydiscovery.com

PS: Now is your best time to join! Take this important first step and get

on the road to finding your family faster and easier."

Watch for it in your mailbox soon.

===

"Honesty may be the best policy, but it's important to remember that,

apparently, by elimination, dishonesty is the second best policy. Second

is not all that bad."

---George Carlin

This has been Your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Mon Sep 11 16:48:01 2000

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 16:48:00 -0400 (EDT)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>

Subject: Correction

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000911164704.26915A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Status: O

X-Status:

This message from Richard Harrison corrects subscription information for

the new Recall discussion list.

-Teresa

---------- Forwarded message ----------

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 13:43:44 -0700

From: Richard Harrison <ArtDept@compuserve.com>

Reply-To: USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org

To: USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com, *CC LIST <USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org>,

*SC List <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com>,

*USGenWeb ALL <USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com>,

*USGenWeb-NW-L <USGENWEB-NW-L@rootsweb.com>

Subject: USGW-CC-L: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] RECALL DISCUSSION GROUP

Richard Harrison wrote:

> (Please forward publically and privately to all who might be interested)

> While nearly everyone agrees that our bylaws should contain a method for

> recall of board members, coming up with the exact wording that a 2/3

> majority will agree to is a problem. Let's work on it. I've set up a

> mailing list for discussion of RECALL. Maybe we can come up with a

> proposal for an amendment that stands a chance of passing. Here's how to

> join the list:

> Go to http://www.coollist.com/subscribe.html

> Where it says "List Name," enter "RECALL"

> The address for posting is recall@coollist.com

> This list is open to everyone in The USGenWeb Project interested in

> working on this problem.

> -Richard

Sorry, Coollist requires all lower case letters to sign up for the list.

-Richard

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

From merope@Radix.Net Tue Sep 12 13:22:34 2000

Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 13:22:32 -0400 (EDT)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000912074138.9700A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Status: O

X-Status:

Don't that just beat all...its Your Daily Board Show!

*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!

Tuesday 12 September 2000:

Maggie Stewart forwards a long message under the heading "Thoughts On New

Beginnings", in which she discusses concerns of her constituents and ways

to make the USGenWeb Project "an even more fantastic free research tool

for the researchers and future generations." [It is repeated in its

entirety at the end of the newsletter.]

Tim Stowell posts the final results of the vote on Motion 00-28. Eleven

members voted "yes", 3 voted "no" and the motion is declared passed.

[Teri Pettit had to send her vote privately to Tim as she is not currently

subbed to Board-L and was unaware that a vote was proceeding.]

Ginger Hayes responds to Maggie's message, noting that she too has

received a lot of email from constituents who have concerns about

protecting their work from those within USGenWeb "who seem to feel they

have a license to do what they want with someone else's work." She asks

Maggie if she agrees that "Stripping someone's name off their files,

instead of removing them when asked to, and leaving the files in place is

very unethical... Especially when someone else's name appears as

transcriber for those same files within a very short period of time and

upon comparison the files are essentially identical." She also notes that

"belittling the original transcriber's work" when questioned is even more

shameful and "gives a bad name to the entire USGenWeb Project and

certainly does nothing to encourage folks to contribute to our efforts."

She asks Maggie how she would handle this sort of thing in her project

[the Archives Census Project].

Ellen Pack moves "that the USGenWeb Advisory Board immediately instruct

Linda Lewis to withdraw her application for personal ownership of the Word

Mark "USGENWEB ARCHIVES," filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademarks Office

(PTO) on 1 May, 2000, Serial Number 78006402, said withdrawal to occur

within five (5) business days of receipt of instruction. Ms. Lewis will be

further instructed to furnish the USGenWeb Advisory Board with a bona fide

copy of her withdrawal of said application. Failure to comply with

Advisory Board instructions, within the time specified, will result in

further action by the Advisory Board." This motion is seconded by Holly

Timm.

Ken Short inquires whether they will be making the same motion against Ron

Eason for incorporating the USGenWeb Census Project. Ellen tells him he

is welcome to file his own motion if he likes.

===

USGW Wants You Corner: Holly Timm has sent the following message out to

the project mailing lists:

"The USGenWeb Advisory Board has approved the Election Study Committee, to

study and make recommendations about the election process within the

USGenWeb Project. This committee is to discuss and make recommendations to

the Board on:

a. Eligibility for voting including, but not limited to, eligible

positions, definition of good standing, cutoff dates;

b. Standing Election Committee;

c. Voting mechanism including location and method;

d. Any and all other election issues brought up by the committee members

or brought to their attention by others.

To fill out the committee we need to select 5 State Coordinators and 10

County Coordinators and thus we are asking for volunteers interested in

serving the project by participating on this Election Study Committee.

If you are interested in being on the committee, please email Holly Timm

at hollyft@bright.net Include your full name, email, and USGenWeb position

(CC, SC with county/state) and any additional comments you would like to

make."

Please disseminate widely; they are on a tight time frame.

Our Man In Havana Corner: The Man In the Street who attended the

Federation of Genealogical Societies conference in Salt Lake City over the

weekend tells us some interesting things from the convention. Rootsweb

had a small table exhibit (10' x 10') with lower level people a couple of

tables away from Ancestry's house exhibit (20' x 40'). Dashing man about

town Charles Merrin was walking around wearing name tags that identified

him as "Executive Producer" of Rootsweb.com, not "General Manager" as

originally reported; this means he works for Andre Brummer, Ancestry.com's

General Manager, rather than being his organizational equivalent. It also

means that Root$web falls under Ancestry.com, rather than being a sister

component of MyFamily.com. Chuck appeared to spend most of his time at

the Ancestry exhibit. Soren Rasmussen, late of genealogy.com and a

former subordinate of Merrin before May 1999, was wearing a tag

identifying him as being in product management at Rootsweb.com [meaning

he's working for his old boss again]. He also seemed to prefer the

amenities over at the luxe Ancestry exhibit. At least three big and one

little companies were showing online census images. Helm's

genealogytoolbox.com has 1790 for free and plans to do eventually provide

more scans for free. Genealogy.com/FamilyTreeMaker had 1900 at a steep

price. Ancestry had sample greyscale images and

HeitageQuest/genealogydatabase.com had edited black and white images

similar to what is on the CDs they sell.

Good Riddance Corner: Looks like FamilyDiscovery.com has either bit the

dust or is at least seriously disabled. Joy Fisher reports that if one

visited their website yesterday [http://www.familydiscovery.com] one would

get the following message "Sorry! This site is temporarily unavailable

because it has reached its average traffic limit or lots of data was

downloaded from it in a short period of time. If problem persists, please

advise the webmaster to get more bandwidth." Their email was also

bouncing due to a full inbox. Today, if you visit the site, you get this

message "This page cannot be found on our server." Hopefully, they are

gone for good, and we are sure this is due in no small part to the efforts

of Joy and other USGW volunteers.

===

"I hear many condemn these men because they were so few. When were the

good and the brave ever in a majority?"

---Henry David Thoreau

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Tue Sep 12 13:38:07 2000

Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 13:38:06 -0400 (EDT)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>

Subject: Maggie's message

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000912133710.16597C-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Status: O

X-Status:

As a number of my loyal readers have already pointed out, I forgot to

attach Maggie's post to the end of the DBS. So here it is!

===

From: "Maggie Stewart" <maggieohio@columbus.rr.com>

Reply-To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com

To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com

Subject: [BOARD-L] Thoughts on New Beginnings

Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:39:08 -0400

The County Coordinators are the heart and soul of the USGenWeb

Project. All share a desire to promote the USGenWeb Project as the

number one place to visit for free genealogy research on the Internet.

Every single person that gives of their own unique skills that they bring

to our project, is very much appreciated. The thing to remember

is that we are a team. No person is an island and if we all pull together

we will make the USGenWeb Project an even more fantastic free research

tool for the researchers and future generations.

The purpose of a team is to utilize all the team members unique skills in

order to utilize these strengths for the betterment of the project. We are

all here to help the researcher find that missing link or to break down that

brick wall.

Communication amongst the team is of prime importance and very difficult

in the electronic medium. When I communicate with email or in the online

environment I always try to remember one important thing.

"People will forget what you said.

And people will forget what you did,

but people will never forget how you made them feel."

Since you can't see that person's body language and facial expressions or

hear the tone of their voice, one needs to always ask for clarification if

needed.

There are many issues facing the USGenWeb Project this year. In the last

week I have received many letters from the CCs in the NW/Plains region.

I wanted to share what they are asking be addressed in the coming year.

All of them think that the Trademark issue is the most important.

a) The USGenWeb Project Name needs to be protected.

b) Do the identifying graphics and logos that go with it need separate

protection.

c) Does Each State Need to have their own or does the one cover all.

At http://www.nameprotect.com/tm_search.html there is no trademark for the

"USGenWeb Project" when you search.

Many are commenting on the following:

a) "We need to improve our public image"

b) "We need to all work together"

c) "The Project members need to treat each other with respect"

All complaints/grievances need to be handled in a proper and timely manner.

a) "We need to determine some guidelines"

b) "Some guidelines need to be enacted to clarify who can file a

grievance."

c) "Someone needs to determine what a really consititues a grievance"

d) "People need to learn how to submit a grievance"

e) "The Board Members need to a let the person know that their message

has been received in a reasonable amount of time."

f) "I want to suggest the formation of an actual grievance committee

who would be held accountable to answer grievances within a specified time

frame."

g) "I'd like to see a letter to all SC's and CC's after a grievance is

settled, not discussing the specifics, but at least talking about what the

grievance was and how it was settled."

The Election Process needs modification.

a) "CC and SC names and emails need to be updated on an ongoing

basis."

b) "A Set Cutoff Date for qualification to vote needs to be set."

c) "How the Vote is done needs to be set up well ahead of time."

d) "Who can vote for what position needs to be determined."

Feelings about the Incorporation of the Project.

a) Incorporation vs. loose network.

b) Which would cover our submitters the best?

c) Which would be best for the project as a whole?

As an Advisory Board, we can facilitate growth of the USGenWeb project with

communication and respect towards each other and toward each and every

volunteer. That is the beginning, we need each and every volunteer to

step up and help us with that goal. Working together, we will make this

happen.

Maggie Stewart-Zimmerman

NW/Plains CC Representative

[Permission To Forward the Entire Message Granted]

===

From merope@Radix.Net Wed Sep 13 08:41:07 2000

Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 08:41:06 -0400 (EDT)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000912202029.636B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Status: O

X-Status:

The bull in the china shop...its Your Daily Board Show!

*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!

Tuesday 12 September 2000:

[Linda Lewis heats things up again...]

Teri Pettit points out that she has no objections to any state or special

project incorporating itself as a non-profit, so long as they are not

registered to an individual. She notes the precedent set by KSGEnWeb and

TNGenWeb, which both incorporated as nonprofits [although not without a

lot of threats and grief]. She thinks Linda Lewis should withdraw her

trademark application because "because it is flat out not true that "Linda

Lewis" is a volunteer organization with sole and exclusive right to the

mark "USGenWeb Archives", as the application swears to. The USGenWeb

Archives Project has the right to the mark, regardless of who its

coordinator at any time is, but only as long as it is a subproject of The

USGenWeb Project." Teri thinks "Linda's intent was for the USGenWeb

Archives Project to be the owner of the trademark, since she filled out

the form saying that the "applicant" was a volunteer organization

registered in Virginia. Linda, of course, is not a volunteer

organizationn...She has also stated that if The USGenWeb Project were

incorporated or otherwise registered with the government, that she would

withdraw her application in favor of The USGenWeb Project. Both these

facts suggest that she intended The USGenWeb Archives Project to be the

applicant entity." Teri puts this "mistake" down to the structure of the

online form.

Rich Howland says it doesn't matter whether something is profit or

nonprofit, or how many members it has, "The name USGenWeb belongs to

all of members," and "The only official spokes body for the USGenWeb is

the Advisory Board, and National Coordinator." He is ambivalent about

incorporating but notes "a majority agree that the USGenWeb Project should

protect it's name."

Joy Fisher lists some things about Ellen's motion that bother her: "1.

There have been amendments made to this application -- not done by any of

the persons on the original application. [she is mistaken about this;

Linda filed an amendment on July 31] Until we find out who made these

amendments, the application cannot be withdrawn without the permission of

these amendment attachers. 2. The Feds have never done anything within 5

business days...3. You cannot leave a motion open ended on the punishment

part -- there must be a specific punishment spelled out." Joy would

prefer that the Board spend its time "creating a Policy Statement

regarding any and all incorporations and/or trademark/servicemark

applications."

Ginger Hayes asks Joy if they should wait to close the barn door after the

horse has gone.

In response to Joy, Teri Pettit notes that she has heard nothing about any

amendments and asks what they are and how Joy knows about them. She

points out that the motion doesn't require that the withdrawal has to be

process in five days, only that it must be submitted within 5 days; Teri

would prefer 10. She notes that any "further action" taken by the

Board would not likely be punitive but that the Board "will pursue some

other means of preserving the right of the USGenWeb Project to continue to

use the phrase "USGenWeb Archives" to refer to a service provided by our

organization." This would most likely take the form of a letter to

the US Patent and Trademark Office. Teri hopes "that Linda has sufficient

recognition of the USGenWeb Project's right to use the term "USGenWeb

Archives" that she will voluntarily wish to spare everybody the trouble of

dealing with conflicting applications." Teri reminds the Board that

failure to protect the trademark can result in its loss, and she

particularly reminds Joy that she is a signatory to the application. She

asks Joy "Do you REALLY want to swear under penalty of fine or

imprisonment that the USGenWeb Project has NO RIGHT to use the term

USGenWeb Archives to refer to any of our genealogical services, because

you know Linda R. Lewis, a volunteer group organized under the state of

Virginia, to have the sole legal right to use that mark?"

Joy says they are trying to find out what the amendments are. She also

[incorrectly] says that USGW has lost "the right to inc as USGenWeb since

the Census group has that one sewn up too." _And_ she states " have

already gone on record that I *WILL* sign over any right or priviladge I

may have to the At-Large AB member - not a named person, but the

position. Therefore as long as there is a USGenWeb, the AB will be at

least 1/4 owner of it. If the other 2 AB members listed on the application

concur with this, it will be 3/4 under AB control."

Teri Pettit asks if the investigation is something that the whole Board

should be involved. She also explains how we can lose rights to our

trademark by failing to protect it. She also points out the the project

may still incorporate as "The USGenWeb Project" regardless of what the CP

has done. Regarding Joy's statement that she will sign over her rights to

the trademark to the at-large representative, Teri notes "unless the

application is withdrawn, or Linda's name is removed as the applicant

name, it doesn't say that stuff above. What it swears to is that to the

best of your knowledge, NO ENTITY EXCEPT the one named "Linda R. Lewis"

has any right to the use of the term "USGenWeb Archives" or any term

sufficiently similar as to cause confusion when used to refer to a service

of the same type. There is nothing for you to "sign over" -- the

application doesn't give you any rights at all to the trademark, your

signature just lists you as swearing to your belief that Linda R. Lewis is

the sole owner. So the document you are listed as supposedly "signing"

would would not PERMIT you to knowingly allow any Board member, or the

project's national web pages, or anyone except Linda R. Lewis to use the

trademark, at risk of falsifying your sworn statement...Joy, if I were

you, Maggie or Barbara, I would be very concerned about that application,

because you are the ones listed as supposedly signing under pain of fine

or imprisonment a declaration that would be very hard to support against

the evidence."

Maggie Stewart asks Ellen what gives her the right "to demand that Ms

Lewis surrender her "right" to apply for a trademark/tradename or to

submit any application as a citizen of the United States of America." She

characterizes the motion as "nothing more than a blatant attack upon

another member and is not only out of order but illegal. Neither the AB

nor even the United States Congress can make such demands without due

process." She calls for the NC to "declare this motion out of order and

to instruct both members that any other motions relative to the subject

shall also be considered out of order, and that both members be warned to

maintain decorum." She states that the motion is out of order since the

AB has no authority to ask a member to surrender any right not granted by

the Project and states " We need to stop the personal attacks on our

members and work together for the good of the project." [So much for the

kinder and gentler USGW]

Ginger asks Maggie to cite her sources for why the motion is illegal.

Ken Short also asks to know what authority the Board intends to use to

force Linda to withdraw the application. He believes the motion is

illegal and "the NC should declare it so." He also says "If I were Ms

Lewis, I would tell the board to stuff it." [She already has, hon, she

already has.]

Richard Harrison believes the motion "is little more than a hollow

threat." It fails to resolve the problem, and given the limited power of

the Board to do anything but negotiate, "It is bad strategy to drive away

the very people you need to negotiate with."

Wednesday 13 September 2000:

Maggie responds to Ginger by noting "The AB can open themselves to be sued

if they meddle in trying to impune in any manner Linda's legal right to

make that application." [ooo...threatening to sue by proxy. Smooth move,

Linda!] She states that RRoO states "that no motion can be untaken which

in contrary to local, state, federal laws." [It is of course debatable

whether or not Linda had the legal right to make that application.]

Caving to pressure from the "Archives lobby" Tim Stowell declares Ellen's

motion out of order, stating "This motion is not only out of order but as

it threatens or intimidates Linda it is unlawful under federal/state/local

law and is not allowable according to RRO. Furthermore - any new motions

of this nature shall call into effect action spoken of in RRO with regards

to breaking order by members during a meeting. Which means that the

motioner would be subject to the discipline of their peers." [Tim is

doing his absolutely best to hand that trademakr to Linda.]

Rich asks Maggie whether or not she represents the members of the NW/P

region and notes that the Board members who protest Linda actions are

doing so as part of their duties as representatives. He also notes that

the name "USGenWeb" is reserved in the bylaws and Linda "is NOT laying

claim to "Archives". She IS laying claim to "USGenWeb"." He points out

that in negotiations "we have ask nicely. We have tried letting her

friends negotiate with Ms. Lewis. We are now asking that the majority of

the AB make it clear that we will not stand by and allow someone to

declare themselves the owner of the name USGenWeb. There is no attack by

the Board. The attack is on the "USGenWeb" name." He notes that Maggie

was a signatory to the application and points out the conflict of interest

this engenders. He says "The only thing I see clearly is that someone is

clearly claiming the name of this Project. And many don't want to address

that fact. If you don't like this motion then lets find another wording

that you do like. Because clearly we must do something? Or are you

planing on changing the name of our project?"

Rich asks "What local, state, & Federal laws say that you can TM or SM a

Name already being used. And claimed by another party."

===

A Fine Kettle of Fish Corner: As usual, mention of Linda Lewis has

stirred up the USGW pot quite a bit. We hear from Teri Pettit that the

Board has been negotiating with Linda over the domain name for five weeks

now, and to no avail. Linda is apparently pulling a "Doc Schneider" on us

and declining to relinquish the trademark application until the USGenWeb

Project incorporates [something it cannot do under its current

guidelines]. And really, why should she? Say what you will about Linda's

apparent lack of a moral compass, she is not entirely stupid. She has

something of value, and something that gives her personal and permanent

control over a very large swath of the project. We do recall, however,

Joe Zsedeny telling the Board that Linda had agreed to amend the

application to change the applicant name to "USGenWeb Project".

In her usual insightful way, Teri has pointed out a number of issues in

Linda's trademark application that make it invalid:

"Linda's application is invalid on several grounds: 1. It identifies

"Linda Lewis" as the name of a "volunteer group" organized under the state

of Virginia. Linda Lewis is a person, not a volunteer group. 2. The

Application Declaration declares under penalty of perjury that "no other

person, firm, corporation or association has the right to use the mark in

commerce, either in the identical form thereof or in such near resemblance

thereto as to be likely ... to cause confusion." This declaration would

deny to the USGenWeb Project...the right to use the phrase "USGenWeb

Archives"...the declaration would also deny to our project the right to

use those terms in a public context, such as on our web pages or mailing

lists...since The USGenWeb Archives Project is not equal to Linda Lewis,

taken literally even the Archives Project would lose the right to refer to

itself as the USGenWeb Archives!...3. The Application Declaration also

states that "the undersigned" believe "the applicant to be the owner of

the trademark/service mark sought to be registered."...The "undersigned"

include...Joy Fisher, Margaret Stewart, and Barbara Yancey Dore. All of

them have stated that while they told Linda they would be willing to share

the cost of registering the trademark, they were not aware that they were

signatories" to the application. I daresay they would not wish to swear

under penalty of fine or imprisonment that no entity or association except

Linda Lewis has the right to use the term "USGenWeb Archives" to refer to

genealogical services!"

But of course, discussion of the issue is more or less moot. Tim has

forbidden Board members to make motions on the topic and threatened them

with sanctions if they do so. Time is running out on this; The

application was handed to an examining attorney on September 8. We

recommend that, since the Board's hands have been tied, individual members

of the project write directly to the USPTO and protest the application.

Teri's points above are an excellent starting point.

On The Block Corner: The ncgenweb.org domain that has been the cause of

such despair in NCGenWEb the last couple of weeks is for sale

[http://www.ncgenweb.org, if you are interested]. Sharon Williamson,

SC of NCGW, has been trying to tell the domain owner how he may market

his property, even down to telling him how he may word his web page and

what metatags he may use in his coding. Yesterday, she fired him, stating

"I am asking you to please remove ANY and ALL references to the USGENWEB

and NCGENWEB Projects and pages from your Scotland and Richmond county

pages. We will rebuild those pages with a new County Coordinator. Your

current sites will be de-linked and will no longer be official pages for

the NCGENWEB project. I regret that things have come to this, but your

actions and words have not been lining up for a long time." This makes 6

counties and one special project that Sharon has whacked in her brief

tenure as NC.

The _other_ domain that's been giving Sharon headaches lately is still

going strong, dancing cows and all [http:www.ncgenweb.com]. Sharon has

apparently sent some strongly worded letters to AcmeCity trying to find

out who owns the domain name; she seems to basing her claims of

"misrepresentation" on the use of the words "genealogy" and "North

Carolina" on the same page [oh, horrors].

Now You See It, Now You Don't Corner: We are receiving scattered reports

that FamilyDiscovery.com is back in business at a new IP address. I can't

pull it up myself, but several people have reported that as of this

morning it is up and running. On a related note, Brad Cook, who has

registered familydiscover.com has also registered genealogyfinders.com, a

site that until recently was quite extensive and included many CDs and

books for sale. That site is now bare.

Behind the Times Corner: The recent instructions for submission to the

Roots Surname List, sent out yesterday by Karen Isaacson, include the

following information "if you happen to be one of the people who have

voluntarily donated $$s to RootsWeb, one of the services available to

people who have contributed at the Sponsor Level is the Personalized

Mailing List, accessible at http://PML.rootsweb.com. People eligible for

this service register their surnames of interest, and then are e-mailed

immediately when someone adds to the RSL a new listing for only those

surnames. (They also are notified when a message about that surname is

posted to a RootsWeb mailing list, or to a GenConnect message board.) To

become a RootsWeb sponsor, just send a check for $24 to RootsWeb.com,

Inc., 1001 Tower Way, Suite 110, Bakersfield, CA 93309."

===

"But seriously your right the AB/NC should apply for trademark.Then after

that is said and done we can complain over who has stolen what and all of

the creative ways we can lynch them."

---Kelly Courtney Blizzard, who ought to know by now who in this

project REALLY steals stuff [USGENWEBALL, 12 Sep 2000]

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Thu Sep 14 16:13:14 2000

Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 16:13:13 -0400 (EDT)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000914065208.5564A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Status: O

X-Status:

From California to the New York islands...its Your Daily Board Show!

*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!

Wednesday 13 September 2000:

Holly Timm asks Tim Stowell why the trademark motion is out of order and

notes "Although...one can read a threat into the words "further action by

the Advisory Board" there is nothing inherently threatening about them

against Linda [Lewis] personally. Further action could be filing a letter

of protest with the trademark office, filing separately for the USGenWeb

name... and other actions that are not a threat..." She asks Tim to

specify what constitutes "motions of this nature" so that " one may not

unknowingly be subjected to the discipline of one's peers." She also asks

for specific citations from RRoO to back up Tim's assertions.

Ginger Hayes again asks Maggie Stewart to cite her sources for the several

statements she has made regarding the trademark motion.

Joe Zsedeny notes the importance of the USGenWeb name, noting "This is the

one thing that has always bothered me about Linda's filing, whether or not

it precludes the AB from filing successfully for trade mark registeration

of USGenWeb. Here is what I am talking about." He is concerned that if

Linda gets the trademark for "USGenWeb Archives" the USGenWeb Project

itself may be denied its application for a trademark based on similarity

of the names. He says "...the possible unintended consequences are too

grave for this Board to ignore. The very least we should do is file a

protest letter with the PTO so that if what I have described is fact then

Linda's filing will be denied. If, on the other hand, her filing is

approved after a protest we can assume that we can register "USGenWeb"

with some assurance that we will be successful...We certainly have first

use of USGenWeb but we don't have the money to prove it in court if it

should ever come to that. It seems more prudent to me to head off such a

possibility by simply filing a protest letter."

Ginger asks Tim to explain how Linda is "threatened" by the trademark

motion and to cite his sources completely.

Rich Howland says "...this sure sounds like a threat to me. So it is ok

for you to threaten AB members? But it is not ok for AB members to

instruct a USGenWeb Member? Does this Censorship, also include the three

AB members that are shown also as signing away the "USGenWeb" name? Or are

we still able to advise them?"

Teri Pettit notes that the trademark motion does not threaten Linda but

instead uses the word "instruct" and Linda is always free to ignore the

Board's instruction [hey, she's done it in the past]. Teri thinks the

most likely course of action in the event Linda does not withdraw the

application is "to send a letter to the Patent Office informing them that

the trademark "USGenWeb Archives" has been in use by the USGenWeb Project

for 4 years, on our web pages and email lists, to refer to both the

USGenWeb Project Archives (a service of our organization) and the USGenWeb

Archives Project (a subset of the members of our organization), and that

while Linda Lewis was the founder of the USGenWeb Archives Project and has

been its coordinator since its inception, the trademark belongs to the

project, not to the coordinator or any other individual." She also notes

that if this motion is illegal than so are any motions in the past that

have instructed individuals. She asks Ken why he would tell the Board to

"stuff it" if he were Linda since her application declares under penalty

of law "that Linda Lewis is the NAME of a volunteer organization, and that

only the volunteer organization so named has the right to use the

trademarked term to refer to genealogical services. Literally, this means

even the USGenWeb Archives Project can't use the term, because they aren't

named Linda Lewis. I can't believe that she intended that sworn

declaration. I don't understand why Linda and the other signatories aren't

eager to withdraw or correct an application in which they swear to

something that isn't what they meant."

Teri notes "The application declares that the 4 signatories believe to the

best of their knowledge that Linda Lewis is a volunteer group organized in

Virginia, and that NO person, association, or group other than the named

applicant, Linda Lewis, has the right to use the term "USGenWeb Archives"

to refer to a service that provides genealogical records. That includes

us!" She points out that although Linda may have a legal right to apply

for such a trademark, the Board has a legal right to contest it and

"Asking her to withdraw her application so that we don't HAVE to formally

contest it benefits her as much as it does us."

Thursday 14 September 2000:

Maggie Stewart notes "The AB does not have the authority to even request

that a member surrender any lawfully protected right as a US citizen,

either in whole or in part. To do so and to demand compliance or further

action is a thinly veiled threat." She says the proper way to contest

Linda's action is by writing the USPTO and notes "Even if your fears are

true, Ms. Lewis has agreed not to object to the project obtaining the

"USGenWeb" name." [Oh my, isn't that big of her?] Maggie also states

"the project or any designated member authorized by the AB may apply for a

trademark for "USGenWeb". Any motions which interfere with the

application by Ms. Lewis are not allowed." Maggie suggests the proper

course of action is for the Board to pass a motion to apply for its own

trademark and that make a motion to adopt a formal resolution of formal

objection, which "carries no weight, does not influence Ms. Lewis, but

does make your concerns part of the minutes." Maggie [who just yesterday

threatened the Board members with legal action] says "I feel it would be

more productive to get the name "USGenWeb" or "USGenWeb Project"

trademarked than making personal attacks on our project members."

Tim Stowell asks the Board if they wish to use RRoO only when convenient

and cites relevant sources for his recent actions regarding the trademark

motion. He says the Board needs to tell him when they would like to use

RRoO and when they would not.

Tim Stowell posts an advertisement for the Board Secretary position:

Position: "Duties / Qualifications: Must have working knowledge of RRO, PP

and the Bylaws. Advise NC and/or Board with regards to procedures

acceptable under the above guidelines. Forward news of motions, vote

results to various Project lists. Any other duties that may be assigned

as time goes by. Thick hide. Salary: Long hours, little sleep, tons of

criticism." If you are interested, contact your representative or the NC

with a short bio describing your qualifications.

Ginger asks Maggie to quote the applicable law that prohibits the Board

from moving to protect the USGenWeb name. She also asks Maggie to cite

the source of her statement that the Board cannot make motions regarding

the trademark application filed by Linda Lewis, noting that Maggie appears

to feel that "we do not have the right to move to protect our name from

this attempt to privatize USGenWeb."

Ginger notes that Tim Stowell has stonewalled her request for him to cite

his sources for the statements he has made regarding the trademark

application and asks "Are you contending that discussing the attempt to

trademark our name (USGenWeb), by a private individual, is an irrelevant

matter?"

Ellen Pack notes that she personally wishes "to use some type of

parliamentary procedure as a procedural guide for the fair and orderly

processing of business and discussion, as pp is intended." She points out

that whether or not certain actions are in violation of the law is at best

a lay person's theory and there was no threat inherent in the motion. She

believes that "this Board *must* be allowed to present issues and motions,

to openly discuss those issues and motions, consider all sides, and

follow the discussions to a fair and just conclusion . This is

especially true if we are discussing a minority opinion. Anything less

is censoring." She notes that the RRoO passage cited by Tim that deals

with "breaches of order" by members who "repeatedly question the motives

of other members" must also apply to "anyone who accuses me, or anyone

else, of a personal attack on Linda Lewis, an accusation already on

public record on this Board." She states for the record "I am for the

best interests of the Project, and feel we have a duty and responsibility

to protect the Project assets. Our name is a valued asset."

Richard Harrison reminds Tim that "that motions that contain threats are

illegal and unacceptable", Tim has failed to state his reasons for

declaring the motion out of order. He asks "Are "motions of this nature"

those that contain threats or were you thinking of something else."

===

While You Were Sleeping Corner: Turns out that Sharon "The Axe"

Williamson fired Horace Peele while he was away on vacation and without

discussing her latest concerns about his metatags with him. In a letter

to Sharon making the rounds, he states positively that he did work with

her on all the issues she raised with him, but is guilty of using an old

page template to make his "for sale" page and yes, it did contain some

metatags referencing North Carolina and genealogy. He was however unaware

of her concerns on this matter until he got back from vacation to find

himself fired.

Spy vs Spy Corner: We hear that Babs "Rootslady" Dore is encouraging her

cronies to visit other online genealogy projects and take careful note of

who is a member. Guess she's working up another one of her blacklists.

Empty Threats Corner: Our Once and Future King Tim has been threatening

the members of TNGenWeb by reminding them that the Board has the option

"of ending TNGenNet's sponsorship of TNGenWeb." [So this is what the

kinder and gentler USGW looks like!] Incidentally, Our Leader is

currently highlighting on his own site the former Giles county TNGenWeb

site. This site, although no longer part of TNGenWeb, is still flying an

official USGW logo and its manager calls herself the county coordinator.

Amazingly enough, the Defender of the USGW logo is not disturbed by this.

On the Lighter Side Corner: http://www.rootswebsux.com

[we hear King Tim visited the site last night and left this url:

http://www.mccallie.org/tstowell/usgenweb/index.htm]

===

"Power may be justly compared to a great river; while kept within its

bounds it is both beautiful and useful, but when it overflows its banks,

it is then too impetuous to be stemmed; it bears down all before it, and

brings destruction and desolation wherever it goes."

---Andrew Hamilton

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Fri Sep 15 16:11:57 2000

Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 16:11:56 -0400 (EDT)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000915073106.7491A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Status: O

X-Status:

Brother, can you spare a dime?...its Your Daily Board Show!

*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!

Thursday 14 September 2000:

Teri Pettit points out that "the ONLY people who've been repeatedly

questioning the motives of other members here have been some of those

who've OBJECTED to Ellen's motion." She notes "The motion makes not a

single threat...The idea that the further action would be threatening is

entirely in the imagination of some readers...it is highly unlikely that

2/3 of the Board would agree to any punitive action, and the makers of the

motion must know this. It follows that any action the Board would take

would merely be some attempt to protect our trademark that doesn't

require Linda's cooperation. It also makes not a single attack, personal

or otherwise....It doesn't speak of force, it doesn't threaten any

punishment....I remember motions that have instructed Tim to send letters,

and Pam to make changes to the national web pages. There is no more threat

or hostility involved in this latest instruction than in any of those

others....A motion instructing a member to do something merely means that

the action being instructed is one that is within the power of

the recipient to physically do, and within the realm of matters that the

Board has responsibility for....It is therefore an unwarranted impugnment

of the motives of Ellen, Holly, Ginger, Richard, Joe and myself to

repeatedly speak of threats and attacks that do NOT EXIST anywhere in the

motion nor in any of the supporting messages that have been sent."

Joe Zsedney says "...we are at another impasse where nothing gets done. As

in every dispute there is some merit to both sides of this argument. I

for one did not see a threat to Linda personally but perhaps a threat to

take more action...The motion should have been allowed ot come to vote...a

resolution against Linda's filing would show the will of the Board...But

the more important point is to protect our name by registering it rather

than having to protect it thru litigation...It makes more sense from a

monetary standpoint to just file for protection because to protest costs

$300 and to file costs $325....Over on the ALL List discussion has

centered on allowing the CCs to take up a collection to cover the filing

cost. I think that is a good idea. Ideally 325 CCs tossing in a dollar

each would do much to draw us toward a common goal and get us off this

crazy self annihilation we seem hell bent on pursuing. I will certainly

pledge a minimum of a dollar and a maximum of $50 if we fall short."

Ginger Hayes appeals the decision from the chair, in regards to the motion

by Ellen Pack on the trademark issue [which Tim declared out of order].

Rich Howland seconds Ginger's appeal.

Friday 15 September 2000:

Tim Stowell notes that "if the motion were to be modified to remove the

threating tone then I see no reason why it can't go back to the floor."

Maggie Stewart moves "that Mr. Tim Stowell, National Coordinator and Ms.

Holly Timm, County Coordinator Representative At Large apply on behalf of

the USGenWeb Project for a trademark. 1. Determine specifics of exactly

what is to be filed ie. "USGenWeb" or "USGenWeb Project". 2. Create an

application for federal trademark 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 trademark) 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. Trademark 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."

She also notes that a "modification" to the bylaws will need to be made to

specify that control of the trademark will pass to the National

Coordinator and the At-Large representative with each new election.

Tina Vickery seconds Maggie's motion.

Joe tells them that the issue needs more discussion before motions are

made, since "Tim is working up a committee which can iron out many

questions. John Shrunk has kicked off a pledge drive which has so far

garnered $900 in pledges." He asks them to withdraw the motion for the

time being.

Ginger Hayes says "I found nothing in the motion to be threatening, unlike

your threat against AB members in your unwarranted dismissal of the

motion. If you found anything threatening, in the motion then it is

something you read into it...You also never specified exactly what you

perceived that threat to be, which would be a necessary part of your

ruling...in the interest of the moving the issue along, I will agree to

withdraw that part of my appeal which would pertain to the motion itself,

if the motion is placed back on the floor and opened for discussion. At

which time any amendment(s) to the motion may be proposed during the

discussion period. That portion of my appeal pertaining to the spurious

attack on, and attempted muzzling of, members of this Advisory Board must

stand and be addressed."

Holly Timm says ""...I would not have seconded a motion containing

threatening language and in spite of what others have decided to read

between the lines on the motion, there is no threat against Linda Lewis in

the motion...This *further action* sentence at issue could well have been

modified or deleted in discussion on the motion but it is not cause for an

out-of-order ruling nor cause to muzzle board members. The motion

instructed Linda to perform a legal act as it is certainly not illegal for

her to withdraw her application. If she chose not to do so, there was a

direction to the board to pursue further action on the matter as outlined

above. Muzzling any board members because some perceived an unspoken

threat is an error in judgement and the out of order ruling and attending

*muzzling* should be withdrawn, permitting the board to amend or modify

the motion if they so desire and then vote upon it. If I read my RRO

correctly, this appeal must be acted upon and takes precedence over

anything else on the floor."

===

Taking Action Corner: We hear the following grievance has been filed with

the Board. Although the submitter -specifically- asked that it be

forwarded to Board-L, the NC has refused permission to post it there and

has once again threatened his colleagues with vague and unspecified

sanctions if they do so. So, for your reading pleasure, here it is:

"Please forward the following to Board-L to be entered into the official

record of The USGenWeb Project Advisory Board. I hereby file a grievance

against National Coordinator, Timothy Stowell. The USGenWeb Advisory Board

is legally charged with the responsibility of protecting the assets of The

USGenWeb Project. Mr. Stowell's unsubstantiated dismissal of the Motion

made by Ellen Pack and his subsequent threats to Advisory Board members

regarding discussion of the issue have not only impeded the legislative

process but have forced Advisory Board members to fail in the performance

of their legal obligations, a failure which could result in punitive

damages being assessed against said Advisory Board members. Mr. Stowell's

actions are clearly unprofessional and not in the best interest of The

USGenWeb Project, as the Bylaws require of our National Coordinator. I

request that Mr. Stowell be found in non-compliance with the Bylaws and

Guidelines of The USGenWeb Project as well as failing to comply with the

responsibilities of a chairperson under accepted parliamentary procedures,

and that he be subsequently removed from office."

This grievance follows hot on the heels of Carole Hammet's petition for

"Representative-at-Large Holly Timm to assume the emergency position of

Acting NC effective immediately," and several other grievances against Our

Beloved Leader.

Your Money Where Your Mouth Is Corner: John Schunk picked on Joe's

suggestion [which Joe says he got from the -ALL list, hmmmm...] that CCs

each put in a dollar toward the registration fee [$325], noting "If 325

CC's were to contribute a buck each, that would cover the cost of one

filing. And it would show that action on this issue is widely supported.

He himself matched Joe's pledge of $1 and up to $50 if there is a

shortfall, and invites "any other Project members who would like to make a

pledge (for whatever amount) to send their pledges to this list." [well,

that leaves me out. <g>] Monies would be tracked by Joe and if the Board

gets any action done whatsoever on a registration application, pledgers

would be instructed where to send their dollars. Seems simple enough

[although I do wonder if RW approves of their lists being used to collect

money], and a number of pledges have already rolled in. In fact, with the

"up to $50" pledges, they already have plenty to the application. Despite

some vocal opposition from David Samuelsen, the proposal seems well

received. I suppose if you want to participate, you need to sub to -ALL.

Why She Does What She Does Corner: "My intention is to project the

USGenWeb Archives from those that are building, claiming and incorporating

the variations of "USGenWeb" and clone projects. Nothing is changing. We

still operate under the same guidlines that we have since June 1996. As

far as "turning it over to" anyone, that would depend on the situation and

the proposal. I really feel that as long as The USGenWeb Project is a

loosely-connected set of websites and projects, it's up to the individuals

to protect their part. It is the AB's job to make sure that each project

and website associated with The USGenWeb Project is following the

guidelines. Before the by-laws were written, we only had one person, a

national coordinator, with that lone responsibility. Adding to that, I

have no intention of ever making the USGenWeb Archives a commercial

venture. I've stated over and over again that the agreement with the

submitters totally prevents that, and it also goes against the very

principle and reason I started the Archives."

---Linda Lewis, via David Samuelsen, USGENWEB-ALL, 14 Sep 2000

Trademark Frenzy Corner: Sharon Williamson, SC of NCGenWeb, has notified

her project members that she is applying for a trademark for "NCGenWeb",

since someone has told her it is the only way to prevent the myriad

unsettling events of late. She's wrong, of course, since anyone who wants

to mock her and/or the NCGW has merely to clearly label their pages as

satire and/or parody. [She has been succesful in getting the dancing cows

muzzled for the second time, but we hear it won't last for long.]

On a related topic, an anonymous researcher tells us that it may be a very

long time indeed before anything happens with Linda's trademark

application. According to his research, the application by AGLL for the

trademark Heritage Quest took 22 months after the application was received

before it was published in the Federal Register for opposition and a total

of over 2 years before it was granted. Ancestry filed for the trademark

MyFamily in Sept 1998, it was published for opposition in January 2000,

and still hasn't been granted.

===

"There are questions of real power and then there are questions of phony

authority. You have to break through the phony authority to begin to fight

the real questions of power."

---Karen Nussbaum

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Sat Sep 16 08:43:19 2000

Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 08:43:18 -0400 (EDT)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000916073619.8078A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Status: O

X-Status:

Until the cows come home...its Your Daily Board Show!

*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!

Friday 15 September 2000:

Teri Pettit notes that Maggie's motion is "exactly the kind of "further

action" that was anticipated in Ellen's motion, except with respect to the

trademark "USGenWeb Archives". The study committee that Tim is working on

is also in the same class of action." She asks "If it is OK to make such

a motion now (and I think it is fine), then why do you feel it is

"illegal" to make a motion that states we have the intent of making a

motion of this type later?"

In response to Tim Stowell, Teri Pettit says she doesn't think there is a

threatening tone in Ellen's motion, "so it is hard to guess what kind of

modifications you would feel necessary." She asks if he finds the phrase

"take further action" threatening and wonders if a more specific listing

of the action would be perceived by Tim as less threatening. She wonders

perhaps if it is the word "instruct" he finds threatening, and asks if he

may find the words "officially request" or ""inform that it is the

majority will of the Advisory Board that she" less threatening. She

reiterates that she does not see any threat in the original motion and

reminds him that "many previous motions have used similar phrasing and not

been perceived as hostile to the recipients of the instructions, but since

the revised wording would have the same meaning as the intended meaning of

the original wording anyway, I guess it is fine to make the changes." She

asks "Perhaps, however, it is some other phrase that you find threatening.

Can you give us some more guidance on what you have in mind?"

Shari Handley suggests resubmitting the motion with language that

specifies what further action would be taken if Linda fails to withdraw

her application. She notes "This would take away the "threatening" flavor

of the motion, I think, and maybe we could start discussing this issue

instead of everyone sniping at each other."

Tim Stowell announces the formation of the Trademark Committee "which

shall be charged with seeking information

concerning all these issues and report same to the Board not later than 30

days from this date." The committee members are: Ken Short for the AB, CC

for the Southwest/Southcentral Region as Chair, Phyllis Rippee - CC

Missouri, Lesley Shockey - SC West Virginia, David Morgan - CC Alabama and

other places, and Marceline Beem - CC Florida and South Carolina. The TC

is to address the following issues: " Should the Board send the Trademark

Office a request that the Trademark Office not honor the request by Linda

Lewis under the name USGenWeb Project Archives? Should we further relate

to the Trademark Office that use of such name, as outlined in our Bylaws,

has prior use by our group? How is prior or first use defined? Should the

Board, request Linda Lewis instead turn over the Trademark to the USGenWeb

Project, if/when she receives said Trademark? Should the Board, instead

seek official Trademark status for the USGenWeb Project? What would

Trademark of the name USGenWeb Project give the Project? What would

Trademark of the name USGenWeb Project NOT give the Project? Would a

Trademark cover all sub-projects or lateral projects?"

Pam Reid lets the group know she is back.

===

Deep Pockets Corner: Anyone who wants to make pledges to help support the

effort to apply for a trademark for "USGenWeb Project" can send email to

Joe Zsedeny [jzsed@slic.com]. Thus far, over $900 in maximum pledges have

been received. Most folks are pledging "$1 minimum to $50 maximum", with

the idea that the total $325 cost of an application will be split up among

the total number of pledgers. The last time a count was given, 29 people

had pledged so far; Linda Lewis was one of them.

Doin's Down South Corner: Looks like someone let those darn cows out of

the barn again. Check out http://www.ncgenweb.com and

http://www.ncgenweb.net. The new sites now promise North Carolina

genealogy-related webrings; the first one prominently features Sharon's

axe. BTW, Someone has written to let us know that the real reason that

AcmeCity asked that the site be removed from their service is that it does

not have to do with Warner Bros. cartoons.

===

Today's quote was shamelessly lifted from another mailing list:

"What you cannot enforce,/ Do not command."

---Sophocles

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------