From: merope Date: Sun Dec 2, 2001 8:52 am Subject: Daily Board Show, weekly edition, 12/2/2001 Just a bowl of cherries...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Motion 01-36: No activity Motion 01-37: (to reinstate the RAL on the EC): The discussion on this motion continues, with very little new being said by either side. We are treated to the usual chorus of "all _my_ personal email is in favor/opposed", which of course is to be expected, since as Robert Bremer points out, most project members write to those Board members they feel comfortable with. Several Board members note that Teresa Lindquist's request to have the Election Committee mail forwarded to her is unacceptable, since the committee has voted to expel her from their meeting. Ron Eason points out [most likely following the lead of Roger Swafford on the -ALL list] that the bylaws and the EC guidelines do not give the EC any power to sanction its members, other than by petitioning the Board for a removal. He notes that according to parliamentary authority, "the committee has and can assume no more power than is granted to them by the Board that established them." [This conversation continues on the -ALL list and elsewhere; the Board appears inclined to ignore it] Ron has to once again ask Holly to address the rule of privilege mentioned above and makes a parliamentary inquiry regarding the ownership of the EC mailing list, the power of the EC to discipline its members, and the standing of Motion 01-37. Not surprisingly, Holly rules in favor of the status quo and voting on the call proceeds. Ron questions Holly's ruling and again points out that "The EC guidelines do not have in them an assumed authority or an assumed power to do anything, except petition the Board for the discipline or punishment they desire to place upon someone. Because the guidelines state specifically, "removal" does not mean that discipline, other than removal, is inherent. PA states, as Roger has stated on the all list, that the EC is in violation and does not have the right or authority to effect ANY type of discipline or punishment. Only to ask the Board to do so...I have read the sections on discipline and power and authority and PA agrees that it is not there. The Bylaws do not grant it. The EC guidelines do not grant it. So how is it that we can make up or assume that something exists when it does not." [Well, because that's how they want it to be. This is kind of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. If the ruling is that the EC has no authority to discipline its members, other than as stated in its guidelines, then there will be cries that the Board is meddling with the EC, which at least once upon a time was supposed to be above politics. On the other hand, a ruling that the EC does have this authority will be in violation of the bylaws, the EC guidelines, _and_ the parliamentary authority we just voted to accept as our guide, and this probably will not go unnoticed. And it doesn't really matter what happens in this instance. The damage is done, both to the Board and to the EC. I doubt that the EC will recover from the loss of credibility it has brought down on itself in its zeal to get rid of a member. And the Board, well... the Board has never exactly been in the forefront when it comes to doing the right thing. So, there's nothing to see here folks. Nothing new, at least.] Phyllis Rippee calls the question, Richard Harrison and Kathy Heidel second it, and the Board votes on whether to continue discussion. Thus far the voting stands at 10 Board members voting yes and two voting no. [The question has been called, and since Holly has declared Motion 01-37 in order, voting should proceed on it shortly. Teresa requested that the vote be put off until Monday due to connectivity problems and a number of Board members indicated a delay until then was acceptable.] Citing the bylaws, Ron Eason requests that the NC assume control of the Election Committee's mailing list, since she is its rightful listowner under the provisions of the bylaws. Tim Stowell notes that Linda most likely owns the list because she's probably the one that requested it from Root$web. Tim also points out some places where it appears that the EC has violated its guidelines, notably in failing to provide quarterly lists to the SCs, failing to elect a Publicist-Secretary, failing to involve the Board in decisions regarding voter eligibility, failing to allow multiple votes, failing to provide vote confirmation, failing to provide voter statistics, and failing to provide timely reports from the voter software working committee to the full EC. Tina Vickery encourages Teresa and Linda "to give this dilemma much thought," noting that is hard for her to believe that "that the intelligence and resourcefulness of each can't facilitate a compromise." [I tried. It didn't work out.] Ron Eason states that he will not be voting on Motion 01-37 in protest, since it is clearly not in order. He does not agree with Holly's ruling on this motion and notes "the EC does not have the Authority to do what they have done and this motion makes believe that they do. Voting on it is tantamount to agreeing, that the guidelines of the EC mean nothing, the Bylaws of this Project mean nothing and that the PA that we just voted into use, is of no regard...The EC is in error and this vote is in error. If you are all bent on ensuring that Teresa gets punished, and that no one else is held accountable, then get off your backside and find a way to do it properly and according to rule...I will not vote. And I will continue to protest. Wrong is wrong, even if you think it is for the right reasons." He forwards comments from Roger Swafford in support of his position. Teresa points out that the original intent of the Election Study Committee was to prevent _both_ the Board and the EC from being able to pick and choose individual EC members. --- In Executive Session: no activity Bylaws "starter" committee: discussion of proposal continues Guidelines "starter" committee: no activity === Now You See 'Em, Now You Don't Corner: Bowing to political pressure, Ancestry.com has removed the California and Texas birth indexes from both the Ancestry.com and Root$web.com websites. The explanation on the front page of Root$web reads: " The databases containing California and Texas birth records previously hosted at Rootsweb.com have been removed. In addition to our goal to provide outstanding genealogical resources to our users, Rootsweb.com is also committed to protecting the privacy of our customers." According to Root$web staffer "Joan" [reported from a chat on the APG-L list] the databases were removed "because of a newspaper article in CA complaining about it." Apparently, the topic first hit the newspapers on November 29, in the Mercury News [http://www0.mercurycenter.com/premium/local/docs/privacy29.htm]. In that article, the ease of acquiring personal information from the databases the state sold to Root$web was demonstrated to lawmakers, some of whom were _shocked_, just _shocked_ that this was going on. The rhetoric ratcheted up and a November 30 Mercury News [http://www0.mercurycenter.com/front/docs1/pri113001.htm], reported that Root$web had agreed to remove the information but only for people who ask. The next day, however, Root$web decided to remove the databases entirely "after a flood of complaints." [http://www0.mercurycenter.com/premium/local/docs/privacy01.htm] [Note the nifty tie-in with terrorism in these articles; apparently that is the parlor game du jour for politicians these days.] This action by Ancestry.com/Root$web.com represents about 40 million online records lost to genealogists. But the issue is far bigger and the outcome may be far worse than a low-rent profit-oriented company caving to political pressure and denying its customers access to records. Both articles indicate that the CA legislature will be reconsidering its laws on access to public records and this could be the start of a slide down a very slippery slope. === "The oppression of any people for opinion's sake has rarely had any other effect than to fix those opinions deeper and render them more important." ---Hosea Ballou This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Tue Dec 4 17:12:51 2001 Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 17:12:50 -0500 (EST) From: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Service Mark Progress report Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: This report was received by the Board on December 2, 2001; sorry for the messy formatting. -Teresa === >>From: "Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny" >>Subject: Report to AB >> >>Status Report on Filing for Collective Service Marks >>November 28, 2001 >> >>On August 9, 2001, the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) requested >>additional information >>regarding The USGenWeb Project's applications for the Collective Service >>Marks "USGenWeb" and "The >>USGenWeb Project." The time allowed by the PTO for filing a response is >>six months (i.e., until >>February 9, 2002). >> >>For the "USGenWeb" application, additional information was requested on >>three items: >>1 - PRIOR PENDING APPLICATION. The PTO reported that there may be >>conflict between the mark >>applied for and a prior application (#7804784) for "The USGenWeb Census >>Project" service mark. >>2 - RECITATION OF SERVICES TOO BROAD. The PTO reported that the wording >>"providing genealogical >>data and assistance via a global computer network" is too broad. >>3 - STATE OF ASSOCIATION OMITTED. The PTO reported that the state of >>association of The USGenWeb >>Project must be included. >> >>The same three items were included for the application for "The USGenWeb >>Project" application, and >>there were also two additional items: >>4 - UNACCEPTABLE SPECIMEN - SERVICES. The PTO reported that specimen >>webpages submitted did not >>show adequate use of the mark "The USGenWeb Project." >>5 - DISCLAIMER. The PTO requested a disclaimer that no exclusive right >>to use "Project" is >>claimed apart from the mark as shown. >> >>A copy of these PTO papers can be found at >>http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/tm/usgw05.jpg >>http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/tm/usgw06.jpg >>http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/tm/usgw07.jpg >>http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/tm/usgwp05.jpg >>http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/tm/usgwp06.jpg >>http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/tm/usgwp07.jpg >>http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/tm/usgwp08.jpg >> >>Consultation by the Service Mark Filing Committee with both our filing >>attorney (Kent Meyerhoff of >>Fleeson, Gooing, Coulson & Kitch) and the PTO examining attorney >>(Patrick Jennings) clarified the >>nature of the additional information need for items 2 through 5, and the >>necessary documents on >>these four items have been ready to send to the PTO since October 9, >>2001. >>A copy of these documents can be found at >>http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/tm/usgwp09.jpg >>http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/tm/usgwp10.jpg >>(Note: these documents are intended for "The USGenWeb Project" >>application. A similar document, >>containing only Items 1-3 as identified above, will be prepared for the >>"USGenWeb" application.) >> >>On Item 1 (the prior application of The USGenWeb Census Project), the >>PTO examining attorney >>stated that a lawfully executed Consent Agreement between The USGenWeb >>Project and The USGenWeb >>Census Project, Inc., which states that the latter has no objections to >>the service mark >>applications by The USGenWeb Project, would satisfy the PTO on this >>item. >> >>A copy of the proposed Consent Agreement, prepared by our filing >>attorney, can be found at >>http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/tm/usgwp11.jpg >>http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/tm/usgwp12.jpg >> >>On November 11, 2001, Holly Timm (National Coordinator) contacted Wayne >>Duncan, President of the >>Board of Directors of The USGenWeb Census Project, Inc., who >>subsequently replied that in exchange >>for signing such a Consent Agreement, The USGenWeb Census Project, Inc. >>desires a reciprocal >>agreement from The USGenWeb Project (i.e. that The USGenWeb Project has >>no objection to the >>service mark application by The USGenWeb Census Project, Inc.) >> >>Clearly such an action would require the authorization by the USGenWeb >>Project Advisory Board. >>Hence, this status report is now submitted to the National Coordinator >>and all members of The >>USGenWeb Project Advisory Board for their consideration. >> >>The Filing Committee makes no recommendation as to whether or not such a >>reciprocal Consent >>Agreement should be authorized. >> >>In the absence of an Advisory Board action authorizing a reciprocal >>Consent Agreement by January >>1, 2002, the Filing Committee will substitute the following response on >>Item 1: >>"Since June 1996, The USGenWeb Project has used the marks 'USGenWeb' and >>'The USGenWeb Project' in >>connection with providing genealogical assistance via a global computer >>network. In July 1998, >>The USGenWeb Census Project began using the mark 'The USGenWeb Census >>Project.' Thus, The >>USGenWeb Project claims first use of the 'USGenWeb' and 'The USGenWeb >>Project' marks and objects >>to Service Mark Application Serial No. 78047841 ('The USGenWeb Census >>Project')." >> >>Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny, Chair >>USGenWeb Project Service Mark Filing Committee > To: dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com Subject: Daily Board Show, weekly edition, 12/9/2001 Always in good taste...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Sunday 2 December-Sunday 9 December 2001: Motion 01-36: Motion 01-37 (reinstate RAL to EC): The vote was called on December 2. Two Board members voted yes, 10 Board members voted no, and two Board members abstained. The motion failed [big surprise. Guess I've been made an example of. Bad, bad girl.] Nate Zipfel and Ron Eason expressed their disappointment with the majority opinion on this motion. Kathy Heidel suggested that the "EC needs to formulate "Basic Guidelines" have them ready and sent to the Board and accepted by the same by the 15th of February." She further suggested that the nascent Guidelines Committee [which, the way things are going, we will be lucky to have in place by February 2003] should be the one to "tweak" any proposed changes to the EC guidelines [at least, that's what I _think_ she said.] In the interim, Linda Haas Davenport, the Chair of EC, reminded the Board that the Guidelines under which the EC operates are suggestions, "not rules cast in stone...any deviation from the guidelines is not breaking any rules not does any deviation require AB approval." [Very convenient. Under this reasoning the EC can and probably will do anything it damn well pleases. I wonder what took her so long to point this out.] Under the umbrella of this reasoning, Linda proceeded to rebut each of Tim Stowell's suggestions that the EC is in violation of its guidelines. [With each passing day, I am beginning to realize just how far down the road to hell good intentions will take you.] Ron Eason pursued the approach that the EC's action was improper under it guidelines, the project bylaws, and parliamentary procedure. He was more or less ignored. Ron later apologized for his error in assuming the EC list to be a "national list" and thus properly under the control of the National Coordinator. New Business: Holly Timm forwarded a report from the the committee working on the service marks for the project. The report, which has already been forwarded to this venue, summarized the progress to date toward acquiring the service marks. Of interest, the report noted that Holly had communicated with Wayne Duncan, of the USGenWeb Census Project and he has indicated that the CP will be willing to sign a consent agreement that they do not object to our use of the USGenWeb name, provided we will do the same for them. Pursuant to this section of the report, Teresa moved "that the USGenWeb Advisory Board authorize Holly Timm (National Coordinator) to sign a consent agreement on behalf of the Advisory Board indicating that the USGenWeb Project has no objection to the service mark application by The USGenWeb Census Project, Inc." Phyllis Rippee seconded this motion. It was given Motion number 01-38 and discussion proceeded. Motion 01-38 (consent agreement): The Board discussed the pros and cons of signing a consent agreement with the USGenWeb Census Project, Inc. Kathy Heidel feared signing such a motion would be unfair to Maggie Stewart's splinter census project. Following some commentary by Phyllis and Teresa she decided to vote for the motion, but was easily persuaded to change her mind, following some "pro and con" points by John Schunk, particularly the contention that signing the reciprocal consent agreement would effectively reinstate the USGenWeb Census Project, Inc. as USGW's official census project. Both Phyllis Rippee and Teresa Lindquist pointed out that the motion confers no special status on the USGW CP, Inc. and would not affect the standing of Maggie's group with USGW; Richard Harrison agreed with their points. Richard and Teresa asked Holly to obtain further information from the Census Project regarding the status of its application with the US Patent and Trademark Office. Kathy asked Teresa to amend her motion to include a statement to the effect that "this reciprocal agreement will not in anyway acknowledge, or indicate that Ron's USGW CP will be recognized as the Official Census Project of the USGW Project? That this motion will not affect the fact that both census projects will remain linked from the main page on equal basis." Teresa was opposed to such an amendment, but asked for input from the remainder of the Board. Phyllis, Richard, Kathy, Betsy Mills, and Vicki Shaffer indicated they were in favor of such an amendment. Ron Eason was not concerned about an amendment; Robert Bremer and Nate Zipfel didn't think it is necessary. Phyllis withdrew her second to Motion 01-38, citing her concerns that "If their application is accepted and if we have agreed there is no problem with their obtaining their mark, they will control all usage of the name USGenWeb." [She claims she got this idea from the USPTO webpage, but I'll be damned if I can find anything that says any such thing.] Robert Bremer noted that Linda Lewis is far more likely to obtain a service mark than either the CP or us and, using Phyllis' logic would thus end up controlling the USGenWeb name. He noted "we're filing for both "USGenWeb" and "The USGenWeb Project" and the agreement would be reciprocal between the project and the census project. We would end up with "USGenWeb." He seconded Motion 01-38. Ron Eason asked the Board to stop referring to the Census Project as "Ron's project." He noted "The USGenWeb Census Project was started, to be a part of the USGenWeb Project and despite the problems and people that have tried to alienate them for some distorted reason, they have always remained faithful, honest and above reproach in dealing with the public and members of the Project. And they have continued to display and promote the USGenWeb Project without shame or reproach, which cannot be claimed by all." John Schunk, member of the Service Mark Committee, forwarded the following message to the Board: "The PTO examining attorney for the two USGenWeb Project mark applications stated that if the CP Inc. consents to our registration of the marks "USGenWeb" and "The USGenWeb Project" through a valid legal document (Consent Agreement), that would remove the potential conflict between the CP Inc.'s prior application and ours." Phyllis and Kathy, however, were still worried that the unamended motion would somehow give control of the word "USGenWeb" to whoever gets a mark first and that the motion would reinstate the Census Project. Ron pointed out that given the current status of the various applications, the Archives is the only one most likely to end up approved, and of course no offer to sign mutual consent agreements has been forthcoming from them. John Schunk again notes "Whoever registers a mark successfully controls the use of the mark. If the CP Inc. successfully registers the mark "The USGenWeb Census Project," any future users of that mark would have to have their okay. If The USGenWeb Project successfully registers "USGenWeb," any future uses of that mark will have to have the okay of The USGenWeb Project (and same thing for the mark "The USGenWeb Project")." Ron assured the Board that the CP has "no desire to control anything other than their name as used in it's full content" and reiterated that it would only have control of the full mark, not the individual word "USGenWeb". Neither John's nor Ron's answers suited Phyllis, who noted "I am just trying to figure out who will control what and so far, my question has not been answered....I am concerned about the term "USGenWeb". No disclaimers have been filed regarding the claim to exclusive use of that term...If we are granted the service mark "USGenWeb", does that mean that anyone who comes along cannot include that in their mark without our permission?...I know what we stand to gain with a reciprocal agreement (amended)......I want to know what we might lose by it." Joe Zsedeny, chair of the Service Mark Committee, sent a message to the Board indicating that signing a consent agreement will assist the USGenWeb in obtaining its mark, but that a consent agreement may not help the Census Project obtain its mark [their application is suspended for reasons unrelated to the USGenWeb applications]. He also noted that USGenWeb will only be able to control the use of its name by those entities that file after the date of the USGenWeb filings, and then only if USGenWeb is succesful in securing its mark. Gentech 2002: Holly forwards a notice from Lorraine Newsome outlining USGenWeb's plans for the January 2002 Gentech meeting to be held in Boston, MA. Whoever is handling the USGW attendance at the meeting is soliciting help from the project members with booth attendance, presentations and brochures. [Apparently the USGW presence at the meeting this year is not being coordinated by anyone on the Board]. There will be a meeting on "Monday" [presumably December 10; no specific date is given] at irc.rootsweb.com, #gentech or you may write to gentech2002@earthlink.net for further information. --- In Executive Session no activity Bylaws "starter" committee: a final proposal is prepared; particular items of discussion include the process of obtaining five state sponsors and disciplinary actions Guidelines "starter" committee: no activity === Deja Vu All Over Again Corner: Sometimes the Board members are so predictable its depressing. I could probably tell you right now, without any further information, how nearly everyone on the Board will vote on this motion. Apparently in most actions we take, a simple formula is applied ["CP=bad" in this case] and we then manipulate whatever is at hand into a discussion of that topic, form opinions accordingly and hold them regardless of whatever principle or policy is at issue [well, except for Kathy Heidel; she changes her mind from email to email.] Failure to see things our way immediately is considered stonewalling or worse. I for example have not yet amended Motion 01-38 although a grand total of five people out of 15 have indicated they will not vote for it unless it is amended [6 is the magic number, remember] and four have said they either don't care or don't see a need for it. I first was accused of a "reluctance" to amend it when all of one person had requested it. One opinion does not a majority make, and it certainly does not make something a good idea or a desirable approach to the issue. [And of course, I am not the only person who can amend the motion; anyone on the Board can do that.] Apparently asking for opinions and actually waiting to receive them from more than a handful of people is evidence of some sort of conspiracy or bad intention. Of course, this is the _Census Project_, and nothing can be simple or straightforward when so many things can be said and said again until we lose all sight of the original topic. The topic at hand seems simple enough. The Census Project beat us to the wire with their application. The USPTO has indicated that our application would be greatly helped if they signed a consent agreement indicating that they don't object to our use of the name. They will happily sign such a consent agreement if we also sign one indicating that we don't object to their use of the name. Note however, that they do not _need_ our consent agreement and could have refused out of hand to sign one and it would not affect their application. The option available to us is to not sign a consent agreement, have them refuse to sign one as well, and then have to contest their application. Two members of the SM Committee have indicated that our signing a consent form will not materially harm the project or hinder its rights to its name and that doing so to obtain a consent agreement from the CP will substantially accelerate the process [and save money, no doubt]. So, what's the problem? I could understand if anyone would just come out and say "hell yes, I object to their use of the USGenWeb name!", but no one has done that. Kathy harps continually on an unnecessary amendment and Phyllis reads everything everyone sends her and says it isn't good enough. I despair sometimes, I really do. I would venture to say right now that even if a disclaimer is added, this motion will not pass. God forbid we actually do something nice and collegial instead of nasty and unforgiving. Even if doing so costs us thousands of dollars _and_ our marks. The Grinch That Stole Christmas Corner: Well, it looks like Root$web has finally hit the big time, publicity-wise. Unfortunately its all bad. Because some legislator with nothing better to do noticed that they were posting some 40 million birth death records from the states of California and Texas and threw a fit in open session, not only has Root$web been forced to remove all the records, but CA Governor Gray Davis has suspended the sale of CA birth and death records to any private companies while the state explores the issue further. Citing a fear that unscrupulous persons might use the records [which the state has sold for many years and which are public by law], Davis noted "A person's birth and death records should not be bought and traded like baseball cards." The Governor's action does not hinder the access of family members or government agencies with legitimate needs to the records to obtain them. Root$web, of course, has already purchased the records and the suspension order does not prevent them from displaying them, but the company has removed them in an apparent attempt to stem the tide of bad publicity. [Hey, at least Root$web is finally famous for something. Perhaps not surprisingly, we've heard that Root$web employee Betsy Mills turned down a request for a "freepage" on Root$web from someone who wanted to document this situation.] The San Francisco, Sacramento, and San Jose newspapers have reported extensively on the matter [see below]. Perusal of the online Houston, Dallas, and Austin papers finds little mention of the topic other than a November 11 article in the Austin American-Statesman that I can't access because its more than seven days old. [The headline of this article, which was pulled using the search term "rootsweb" is "State unlikely to restore its online birth records; Security concerns prompted removal of data about Texans"; if anyone has a copy and can share it, I'd love to know what it says.] According to some info posted at http://www.tdh.state.tx.us/bvs/registra/bdindx.htm [URL provided by Diane Russell], all the Texas birth and death records have been permanently removed from online access at the TX Department of Health as of December 6. [Heh, we always _knew_ Texas just followed along behind California like a puppy ] The CA records are still available at VitalSearch http://www.vitalsearch-ca.com/]; the operator of that free site indicates no plans to remove them. Items of interest: CA executive order: http://www.governor.ca.gov/state/govsite/gov_htmldisplay.jsp?BV_SessionID=@@@@0297808436.1007814470@@@@&BV_EngineID=gadccjjmggghbemgcfkmchchi.0&sCatTitle=Exec+Order&sFilePath=/govsite/executive_orders/20011205_d_50_01_privacy.html&sTitle=Executive+Order+D-50-01&iOID=26529 [its not the longest URL I've ever seen, but wow...] News articles: http://www.siliconvalley.com/docs/news/svfront/037140.htm http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/Business/ap20011130_29.html http://www0.mercurycenter.com/premium/opinion/edit/065310.htm http://www0.mercurycenter.com/premium/front/docs/privacy30.htm http://www0.mercurycenter.com/premium/local/docs/privacy06.htm http://www0.mercurycenter.com/premium/local/docs/032293.htm http://www0.mercurycenter.com/premium/front/docs/privacy29.htm http://www0.mercurycenter.com/premium/front/docs/privacy08.htm http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/1241717p-1310214c.html http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/story/1242073p-1310506c.html http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/business/story/1246980p-1315454c.html [last item] http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/story/1246956p-1315431c.html http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/story/1271919p-1340461c.html http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/1276350p-1344851c.html http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2001/12/05/financial2006EST0142.DTL http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/12/06/MN159666.DTL Diane Russells' web page: http://www.polbox.com/g/genpol/index.htm Piling It On Corner: December 6 was a bad day for online genealogy. As if the CA/TX vital records flap isn't enough, a federal judge ordered the Department of the Interior to remove itself from the Internet entirely on December 6th, because its database on Indian trust fund accounts was found to be vulnerable to hackers. Judge Royth Lambert ordered DOI to "immediately disconnect from the Internet all information technology systems that house or provide access to individual Indian trust data." He also ordered the shutdown of "all computers within the custody and control of the Department of the Interior, its employees and contractors that have access to the individual Indian trust data." This is bad enough for Interior employees, who can't even use their email now. And for folks who rely on the USGS weather data or its earthquake information or people wanting to use the National Parks Service site. Us poor genealogists no longer have access to its Geographical Name Server or to the Bureau of Land Management land records. Indefinitely. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10955-2001Dec7.html === "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room." ---President Merkin Muffley ["Dr. Strangelove"] This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. X-eGroups-Return: sentto-3565136-96-1008252342-merope=radix.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com X-eGroups-Return: merope@radix.net X-eGroups-Approved-By: merope3 via web; 13 Dec 2001 14:05:41 -0000 X-Sender: merope@radix.net X-Apparently-To: dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com X-Sender: merope@radix.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com From: merope X-Yahoo-Profile: merope3 Mailing-List: list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com; contact dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com List-Unsubscribe: Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 09:12:07 -0500 Subject: [DBS] Fwd: [BOARD-L] Bylaws Formation Committee Report Reply-To: dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com This is the proposal for the Bylaws Revision Committee forwarded to the Board. Please address any comments to either myself, Holly Timm, or to your regional Board representative. -Teresa merope@radix.net >Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 12:36:23 -0700 >X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Wed Dec 12 12:36:22 2001 >From: "Phyllis Rippee" >Old-To: >Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 13:33:29 -0600 >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 >Subject: [BOARD-L] Bylaws Formation Committee Report >To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com >Resent-From: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com >Reply-To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com >X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7323 >X-Loop: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com >Resent-Sender: BOARD-L-request@rootsweb.com > >Confirmation received that this report is ready to be presented to the Board >for consideration. Committee members: Diane, Mary Ann, Nate, Phyllis, Ron, >Teresa, Tim and Vicki. > >NOTE: This is just a report. It is not a motion. I will try to answer any >questions that you have. Please read and study carefully to see if there >are any changes that you would like for the AB to consider before a motion >is made to approve it. (Acknowledging there is a more pressing matter >before the AB at this time.) > >Phyllis >_________________ > >The name of the committee shall be the Bylaws Revision Committee. > >The purpose of the Bylaws Revision Committee shall be to study the current >USGenWeb Project Bylaws to determine which portions need revising. > >The Committee shall then propose for revision: > >1) Deletion of unnecessary sections; > >2) Clarification or strengthening sections; > >3) New Articles that may be deemed necessary. > >The Committee shall be composed of the following: > >1) Four (4) Advisory Board members; > >2) Four (4) State or Assistant State Coordinators > >3) Two (2) members from Special Projects > >4) Eleven (11) County Coordinators > >5) One (1) ex officio....the NC > >The four (4) Advisory Board members shall be selected by nominations from >the Advisory Board in the same manner as Mediation Panel members are >selected. > >This committee shall then call for volunteers from the general >membership and shall complete the selection of the committee. If there are >not enough "first call" volunteers to fill the allocated seats, another call >will be made. > >If the ASC/SC or SP seats are still not filled, they will be filled by CCs. >In the event there is still not a total of 22 members, the committee shall >consist of those who have been selected. The slate of candidates will then >be presented to the AB for approval in its entirety. If it is rejected, >revised slates will be presented until one is approved. > >The Bylaws Revision Committee will be charged with: > >1) Soliciting and considering suggestions from the USGW P general > membership; > >2) Summarizing and posting these suggestions on a website. (URL to > be posted to all national and regional lists.) > >3) Posting the current bylaws and suggested revisions on the website > in a manner showing the changes through the use of colored text. > >4) Making monthly progress reports to the AB, which will be forwarded > to the national and regional lists by the Advisory Board Secretary. > >5) Filing its final report no later than May 15, 2002. This report > will include the proposed set of revised bylaws, if ready. Upon > receipt, the Board Secretary shall forward same to all SCs in order > to obtain approval of five (5) States to place on the ballot for > Election 2002. The Board Secretary shall also inform the SCs that > their approval will be needed by July 1, 2002. > >The Bylaws Revision Committee will be responsible for organizing itself, but >any disciplinary problems that arise will be turned over to the Advisory >Board. > >The committee will determine the best way to proceed with the revision >process. If the committee decides that an Article it will propose should be >put in place prior to voting on the complete set of Bylaws, it may petition >the Advisory Board to invoke the "emergency amendment procedure." > >In the event the committee is unable to complete its work in time to present >the revised set of bylaws for approval by the general membership during >Election 2002, the committee will be dissolved and its work will be turned >over to the new Advisory Board on September 1, 2002. X-eGroups-Return: sentto-3565136-97-1008370128-merope=radix.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com X-eGroups-Return: merope@radix.net X-eGroups-Approved-By: merope3 via web; 14 Dec 2001 22:48:44 -0000 X-Sender: merope@radix.net X-Apparently-To: dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com X-Sender: merope@radix.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com, dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com From: merope X-Yahoo-Profile: merope3 Mailing-List: list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com; contact dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com List-Unsubscribe: Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 17:55:09 -0500 Subject: [DBS] Fwd: Closing Land Patents website Reply-To: dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com A constituent has been kind enough to send me a bunch of information on the Department of the Interior court order; I am forwarding it here for your information. -Teresa >To: merope@radix.net (Teresa Lindquist) >Subject: Closing Land Patents website > >The U.S. Department of the Interior, has been directed by court order to >disconnect all databases that allow access to "individual Indian trust >data". Since the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is under the directive >of the DOI, it has been disconnected, along with some other vital >databases. > >You can read the DOI memos concerning the court orders at: > > http://www.doi.gov/ > >Below are more links if you are interested in the latest news about the >court order disconnecting the DOI's databases, including our favorite >Land Patent Search at the Bureau of Land Management. > >Briefly, the databases that seem to be affected are: > >Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) >Bureau of Land Management (BLM) >Bureau of Reclamations (BOR) >Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) >Minerals Management Services (MMS) >National Parks Service (NPS) another favorite! >Office of Surface Mining (OSM) > >http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/internet/12/11/interior.reut/index.html > >http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,48980,00.html > >Official US Executive Websites and their acronyms: >http://www.loc.gov/global/executive/fed.html >-- X-eGroups-Return: sentto-3565136-98-1008514023-merope=radix.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com X-eGroups-Return: merope@radix.net X-eGroups-Approved-By: merope3 via web; 16 Dec 2001 14:47:02 -0000 X-Sender: merope@radix.net X-Apparently-To: dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com X-Sender: merope@radix.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com From: merope X-Yahoo-Profile: merope3 Mailing-List: list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com; contact dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com List-Unsubscribe: Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 09:53:29 -0500 Subject: [DBS] Daily Board Show, weekly edition Reply-To: dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Knowledge is power...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Sunday December 9-Sunday December 16 2001: Motion 01-36 (Publicity/Promotion committee): No activity Motion 01-38 (Consent Agreement): Robert Bremer moves to amend the motion by adding the sentence "This motion does not change the status of the various census projects associated or affiliated with the USGenWeb Project." This amendment is seconded by Nate Zipfel. Teresa Lindquist points out that there are _no_ census projects associate or affiliated with USGenWeb, since USGW "currently link[s] to two independent projects that collect census transcriptions." Phyllis Rippee agrees that the wording to the amendment is incorrect and thanks Ron Eason for his explanation of the Census Project's filing for various disclaimers on words in its mark. She is not opposed to the CP obtaining a mark but was concerned that it was trying to obtain exclusive use of the word "USGenWeb". Holly Timm forwards a message from Joe Zsedeny, who informs the Board that he tried to get more specific answers from the USPTO on some questions he forwarded last week, but was unsuccessful. Joe recommends that "we should get a signed statement from the CPI and forward it to the PTO by the January deadline. This needs to be done as quickly as possible as it takes time to get signed, notarized statements from and to all parties concerned." Following this recommendation, Teresa calls the question on the amendment to Motion 01-38. Phyllis notes "Based on the information and explanations that have been given, this motion should be passed...There is also no need to amend this motion. There is nothing in the wording to indicate that the official position of the USGW P in regard to any census project has changed." All her questions apparently being answered satisfactorially, Phyllis indicates she is no longer opposed to motion 01-38. Robert Bremer withdraws his amendment, citing his observation that "views on the need to amend motion 01-38 with some sort of disclaimer have apparently changed." Holly mistakenly calls for a vote on Motion 01-38, later corrects herself and notes that discussion will continue on the motion. Holly forwards a long message from Wayne Duncan, President of the Board of Directors, USGenWeb Census Project, Inc., and Sue Soden, USGenWeb Census Project Coordinator, to the Board. Wayne lays out the sequence of events regarding Holly's initial request to them regarding the consent agreement. He has also placed a webpage including various pertinent documents relating to the Census Project's service mark application, correspondence and the consent agreement [http://www.us-census.org/cphome/documents/] to serve as a public record of these transactions. The USGenWeb Census Project also requests that USGenWeb cease refering to it as "Ron's project". They remind USGW of the Census Project's status as a non-profit public benefit corporation. They also point out that they did not initiate the request for a consent agreement and note "The Board of Directors of the USGenWeb Census Project simply requested a reciprocal agreement to ensure The USGenWeb Census Project Service Mark application would not be challenged by any member of the USGenWeb Advisory Board or the USGenWeb Advisory Board as a whole. Any and all implied comments that the USGenWeb Census Project is attempting to use the Reciprocal Agreement as a bargaining tool to gain "official recognition" are not valid." They also note "If any reciprocal agreement is agreed to, it will be agreed to by the entire USGenWeb Advisory Board and the USGenWeb Census Project Board of Directors and will be publicly displayed on both organizations' respective websites." They stress that their application "is for the use of the name, The USGenWeb Census Project, in its entirety and only in that context." Tim Stowell and Teresa both note that the apparent requirement in Wayne and Sue's letter for unanimous agreement by the USGW Advisory Board is problematic. Tim calls it "blackmail"; Teresa notes that it is unlikely that the Board will unanimously agree to this proposal and thinks it would be inappropriate "if one person could derail something so important to the Project." Teresa and Phyllis ask Holly to obtain a copy of the reciprocal agreement and also to clarify the issue of requiring a unanimous vote. Holly copies the Board on her request for these items to Wayne Duncan. Jana Black [who apparently did not read the documentation provided by the CP] asks repeatedly for information on the suspension of the CP's application. John Schunk replies to her that according to the USPTO's rules, "a suspension really says nothing about the likelihood of an application being granted or denied." Joe Zsedeny urges the Board to authorize the consent agreement with the CP before January 1, as the USPTO does not allow extensions for responding to the suspension letter. On December 15, Wayne Duncan forwards a message to Holly indicating that 1) the Census Project had originally tried to exclude the word USGenWeb in its application but was told by USPTO that it could not, and 2) that the Census Project never intended to claim ownership of the term "USGenWeb". The Census Project offers to sign a document agreeing to to contest USGenWeb's applications and will not require a reciprocal agreement from USGenWeb, although they will accept one if it is offered. They request that their status as a Michigan non-profit corporation be noted and any agreement presented to the Census Project will be approved using the USGenWeb Board's standard voting requirements. Any agreements signed will be displayed on both projects' websites. Tim Stowell then attempts to table Motion 01-38 until the Census Project produces requested documents so that the Board can move on to other business. Phyllis suggests amending the motion "to authorizing Holly to make the changes, sign the agreement and get it to the TMC" or that it be withdrawn and restated. Teresa notes that there is no need to amend or restate the motion, since it does not refer to any specific wording or document previously approved. Teresa calls the question on Motion 01-38. Phyllis moves "to authorize Holly Timm to make the changes requested by The USGenWeb Census Project, Inc. and proceed with getting the document back to the TMC." She also asks that this motion be moved to "emergency status" and handled as soon as possible. The motion is seconded by Vicki Shaffer. Based on Holly's previous rulings, Teresa notes that this motion is out of order. Phyllis withdraws her motion after speaking to Linda Lewis and finding out that Linda has agreed to sign a letter indicating she will not contest the USGenWeb application. However, Phyllis requests a ruling on her motion [now withdrawn] being out of order. Richard notes that Motion 01-38 is no longer necessary "Since the request for a reciprocal agreement has been withdrawn, and The USGenWeb Census Project will sign a document agreeing not to contest the USGenWeb Project's service mark application." He suggests that motions to thank both the Census Project and Linda Lewis are in order. [Some private correspondence ensues between John Schunk, of the Service Mark Committee, and the Board. Some of it is forwarded to the Board and some is not. He first recommends that the Board "Board swiftly and decisively approve the signing of the proposed Consent Agreement http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/tm/usgwp11.jpg and http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/tm/usgwp12.jpg) -- with the one wording change, as requested by The USGenWeb Census Project." He later suggests that the motion is unnecessary because "The proposed Consent Agreement requires nothing of The USGenWeb Project" and should either be "swiftly voted down" or withdrawn entirely. He later informs the Board that the motion is irrelevant and that Service Mark Committee can proceed with its business whether it passes or not.] Other Business: Election Committee: Linda Haas Davenport, Chair of the Election Committee, posts a call for a single volunteer for the EC. The sole open position is for the SE region and will be for two years. Teresa forwards the message to the Board list, asking if there shouldn't be six positions open. Betsy Mills points out that the EC's guidelines allow the first set of members whose terms were only one year long in order to stagger the terms to re-enlist for another full two year term. Teresa indicates that the EC should still submit its full slate of 6 members for a vote by the Board. [After all, we are stuck with these people for another two years; the project has a right to know who they are and the Board has a right to approve the selection.] Linda fowards a message to the Board through Holly noting that "the Guidelines [allow] for the one-year members of this first committee to volunteer for the following year. The current 1 year EC members have volunteered for another term. Therefore the only open seat is Keith Giddeon's who resigned." [Shortly after this, Linda posted a call for volunteers for all 7 open seats, after the EC belatedly realized that its guidelines require such a solicitation.] Teresa then asks for a list of all EC members and when their current terms expire and asks the NC to explain why the EC has suddenly reversed itself and issued a call for more volunteers. Tim Stowell forwards a list he received from Linda of the current members and their term expiration dates. Holly notes that EC volunteers "already in place may volunteer again and be re-selected... from amongst available volunteers...neither the guidelines nor the intent of the ESC when writing the guidelines give them first rights or pre-selection." Bylaws Revision Committee: The Bylaws "starter" committee proposal is forwarded to the Board for its consideration. [It has already been forwarded to this list]. Phyllis posts some information clarifying that the committee is not a "standing committee" and that because some BRC members' terms may expire on August 31, 2002, the work of the committee should be turned over to the Board at that time. Kathy Heidel moves that "the Advisory Board adopts the Bylaws Formation Committee Report submitted by the Bylaws Starter Committee." Richard seconds this motion. Citing Sturgis, Holly stops action on this motion. Domain registration: Tim informs the Board that Teresa has refused to send her contact information to him to include in the changes to contact information in the domain registrations and asks the Board who should be included as a contact in her place. He later suggests that the webmaster [currently Pam Reid] be used as the billing contact for the domains, noting "Since the webmaster seems to change less frequently than the NC or RAL, perhaps this would provide some stability to the registration." Kathy suggests leaving Tim and Holly as the contacts. Service Mark issues: As a sideline to Motion 01-38, Vicki Shaffer forwards a comment from Linda Lewis indicating that she will be challenging the Census Project application. [The rapid aligning of sides this engenders is quite comical. And of course, as planned, it diverted the Board for some time from the issue at hand.] Teresa notes that apparently Linda will be reserving for herself the right to determine who may use the USGenWeb, regardless of what the Board decides in this issue. Ron notes that "This has not been happenstance. Even in her letter, she clearly has outlined her intent which was not a spur of the moment decision. She has never done anything in this project without a calculated plan... Will the Project and it's Board have it's rights and ability to decide the Projects friends, or will the Archives Project become the new seat of power for the USGenWeb Census [sic] Project?" Because the Census Projects are not officially part of USGenWeb at this time and because Linda has indicated she will fight their applications but not ours, Richard thinks "the better course would be to join with The USGenWeb Archives in their opposition to the granting of the census project's application." He also notes, "I think it would be a mistake to voluntarily relinquish our exclusive claim to our name to one or the other of them. The value of the name, and of our claim, is diminished if we in essence give permission to an unaffiliated project to use it." Phyllis supports Richard, noting "what is best for the company is always the way to go. When it appeared that the only choice for us was a reciprocal agreement in order to obtain what we wanted, I was in favor of that...Now, we have a different choice. I'll go with Linda Lewis." Noting that although it is "gracious and benevolent" of Linda to allow us to continue using our own name, Teresa suggests that "a better course of action in this circumstance is for USGenWeb to vigorously oppose the Archives' application in order to preserve our right to determine who may use our name." Jana says she will support this opposition if Teresa is willing to pay for it. Robert Bremer disagrees with Phyllis and Richard, noting "Why should we support Linda Lewis' application for the Archives service mark as her personal property? We've seen what can happen when perspectives change and an individual decides to sell us a domain name they were holding for us...service marks and domain names ought to be held by our respective groups not individuals. This reciprocal agreement motion was such a simple request that has been turned into yet another effort to punish a group that is not in favor with some Advisory Board members. It would certainly be ironic if this motion fails and we subsequently fail to obtain our own service marks due to a conflict with the CP's application when it could have all been avoided." Betsy wonders why the Board is "castigated" for trusting Linda Lewis and Doc Schneider but also castigated for not trusting the Census Project. She also notes [incorrectly] that Linda Lewis already has been granted her service mark. Archives Consent Agreement: Vicki forwards a consent agreement from Linda Lewis to the Board, indicating that Linda is willing to sign an agreement that she will not challenge either USGW's service mark applications or its rights to use its marks. Phyllis notes that whatever we do with regard to the Census Project, "we are still going to have to "deal" with Linda Lewis," and moves that "Holly Timm be approved to sign the agreement proposed to The USGenWeb Project by Linda Lewis." Jana and Richard second this motion. Citing Sturgis, Holly stops action on this motion. Teresa, Jana, and Holly point out that the consent agreement is incorrectly worded in that it refers to the owner/applicant of the "USGenWeb Archives" service mark as the "USGenWeb Archives" instead of Linda Lewis. Jana asks Vicki to find out if Linda is willing to change her application to show the Archives as the owner of the mark [we've been down this road before]. Robert Bremer points out that, "If Linda Lewis thinks that is a good thing to do, and hopefully she does anyway, she shouldn't need our approval to go ahead and let USPTO know that there is no objection. In this agreement we would only be saying that it is okay for Linda Lewis to say okay." Betsy and Teresa agree with his statement. Procedural Issues: Both Richard and Jana challenge Holly's adherence to the Board's recently adopted parliamentary authority, citing precedent. Richard asks Holly when it will be acceptable for members to make new motions and how she will queue motions once they have been made. He also notes that using the Sturgis book does not preclude the Board from making its own special procedural rules. Noting the importance of Motion 01-38, Teresa thanks Holly for making the ruling on the other two motions. Holly later reiterates that new main motions may not be introduced while a main motion is active. --- In Executive Session: no activity Bylaws "starter" committee: voting proceeds on the committee's final draft proposal; the proposal is submitted to the Board Guigelines "starter" committee: no activity === Snake in the Grass Corner: After many months of quiet, Linda Lewis has reared her head and once again thrown the project into turmoil. Her latest pronouncement is that she will be fighting the Census Project's application regardless of the Project's own feelings on the matter. The usual suspects lined up to support her, and the usual logical contortions and hypocrisies necessary to make any kind of sense of that support were dusted off and trotted out. I do believe that if Linda just announced that she was selling the Archives lock, stock and barrel to Ancestry, these folks would find some way to justify it and commend her for it. As has been noted elsewhere [most notably on the ALL list], Linda may need to fight the Census Project's application because she will be starting up another census project and needs the name free. But the real reason is fairly obvious. Linda neither forgives nor forgets. Ever. This particular tempest in a teapot was also notable for the revelation that upon her death Linda's family apparently will be inheriting the Archives and its many valuable assets. She apparently trusts them to manage them with the same fervor she has shown over these last five years, but we have all of us seen what happens when anything of value is at stake in a will and how little inheritors can be trusted to follow the wishes of the deceased. Of course, one has to wonder why the Project is not ever going to have control of its own Archives or why something that is supposedly part of USGenWeb can even be given to anyone else under any circumstances. But I do have to admit, this latest decree has produced one of the funniest things I have ever seen _anyone_ say in this Project, and it was only made funnier by the fact that she was apparently sincere. Linda's original reply to the question of what would happen to the Archives when she dies is this: "There are plenty of volunteers that will carry on the Archives following the guidelines we set in place in June 1996, and have followed since then. My family (children) know my passion for the Archives and know they are to continue as is." Now, this seems pretty straightforward; Linda's children will ultimately be responsible for the continuance of the Archives, although current staff will handle the actual details. Serious questions were raised about this, and rightly so. Jana Black [who apparently drinks a little too deeply of the heady elixir of silliness] went to great pains to explain away Linda's comment: "I suspect you are picking up on the word "they" in Linda's last sentence. My read would be that "they" refers to the Archives. Your read apparently is that "they" refers to Linda's children. Dunno if you have kids, but if her children are anything like mine, rest assured Linda means the Archives Volunteers she mentions in the first sentence as "they" and NOT her children....my kids would gladly quickly relieve themselves ASAP of *all* my passed-down passions (which none of them share) to the first legit taker... ROTFL...." More than one person noted that Jana is apparently nuts. As a side note, we are pleased to report that USGenWeb has been fighting over Linda Lewis for well in excess of five years now. In that five years, she has worked diligently to support and benefit [sometimes financially] 1) Brian Leverich [sold us out], 2) Dale Schneider [sold us out], and 3) herself [sold us out]. See the pattern? === "When they make a desolation they call it peace." ---Tacitus [of the Romans] This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. X-eGroups-Return: sentto-3565136-99-1009111064-merope=radix.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com X-eGroups-Return: merope@radix.net X-eGroups-Approved-By: merope3 via web; 23 Dec 2001 12:37:42 -0000 X-Sender: merope@radix.net X-Apparently-To: dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com X-Sender: merope@radix.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com From: merope X-Yahoo-Profile: merope3 Mailing-List: list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com; contact dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com List-Unsubscribe: Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 07:44:11 -0500 Subject: [DBS] Daily Board Show, weekly edition Reply-To: dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Have a holly jolly Christmas...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! 16 December - 23 December 2001: Motion 01-34 (Amend EC Guidelines): Tabled Motion 01-36 (Publicity/Promotion committee): This motion is withdrawn by general consensus on December 20. [Interestingly enough, Holly ruled this motion withdrawn after only 7 members indicated they had no objection and only after a very brief period of time. Not only is this not all the Board members, it is not a quorum, it is not a 2/3 majority, it is not even a _regular_ majority, although the addition of an extra vote after she withdrew it made it so. In the future, better get those objections in quick folks if you have 'em!] Motion 01-38 (Consent Agreement): Phyllis notes that the agreement by the Census Project to sign the consent agreement contains the stipulation that the Board must "approve the presenting of the document (which means we have to approve the changes) to The USGenWeb Census Project, Inc., "using the standard voting requirements of the USGenWeb Project Advisory Board." It most particularly refers to the requested wording changes. [John Schunk privately suggests that the National Coordinator get clarification on this matter and that doing so will speed up the process.] Phyllis also suggests that Holly can obtain a "general consent" from the Board to "to make changes on the form required by the USPTO, (changes) per the request of The USGenWeb Census Project, Inc., secure the necessary signature(s) and send the form to the TMC." Richard Harrison agrees with this approach so long as "it refers to the letter from the census project and not to any reciprocal agreement the Board may authorize in the future." Holly asks Tim Stowell to withdraw his motion to table [he later notes it is not only dead already, but could have been considered withdrawn once we received the information from the CP] and Teresa Lindquist to withdraw her call of the question but Teresa refuses to do so. Holly suggests that Motion 01-38 can then be amended to read "I move that the USGenWeb Advisory Board authorize Holly Timm (National Coordinator) to sign the agreement on behalf of the Advisory Board indicating that the The USGenWeb Census Project, Inc. has no objection to the service mark application by The USGenWeb Project." On December 19, Holly declares both the attempt to table Motion 01-38 and the attempt to call the question on it dead for lack of seconds. When Holly says she does not understand why Teresa finds it "more urgent...to promise The USGenWeb Census Project that we have no objection to their filing than it is to acquire the necessary paperwork to try to move our application along," Teresa points out that the Board appears to want to continue debate on it, since no one seconded the motion to end debate. On December 19, Kathy Heidel moves "that the USGenWeb Advisory Board authorize Holly Timm (National Coordinator) to sign the agreement on behalf of the Advisory Board indicating that the The USGenWeb Census Project, Inc. has no objection to the service mark application by The USGenWeb Project, secure the necessary other signatures and send the form to the TMC." She then withdraws it in favor of Phyllis Rippee's similar motion made on December 15. [This motion would be out of order, given Holly' previous rulings.] Phyllis makes a point of noting that one person is holding up action on the Census Project consent agreement [yeah, I never could figure out why Holly didn't just call the vote on it. *shrug*] There is some pressure on Teresa to allow the amendment of Motion 01-38 to allow the Board to finish up its business so the members can head out for the holidays. Sadly, it takes Tim Stowell to point out that the requested amendment would change the meaning of the motion entirely. New Business: On December 20, Kathy Heidel calls a Question of Privilege and moves "to authorize Holly Timm to make the changes requested by The USGenWeb Census Project, Inc. and proceed with getting the document back to the TMC." Phyllis then asks other Board members to show a support of Kathy's action by agreeing to the statement "I have no objection to Holly ruling this a question of privilege because I would have voted "yes" on this motion." [As if having nine members agree would make a difference if Sturgis required otherwise.]. Holly called a vote on this motion after 7 Board members indicated they would have no problem with it. 12 Board members vote yes on the motion. Kathy Heidel moves to recess the meeting "beginning Dec 21, 12 Midnight EST until after the Christmas Holiday, beginning this meeting again on Dec. 26th. 12 Midnight EST." This motion is seconded by Phyllis Rippee. Holly restates this motion to a "recess until midnight EST (11PM CST, 10PM MST, 9PM MST [sic]) Dec 26th" and asks if there any objections. Thus far, 6 Board members have indicated that they have no objection to recessing. Other business: Procedural issues: The Board discusses procedural issues further. There is some talk of making a webpage containing agenda items and active motions and Sundee Maynez says she will get one put up and notify the Board when it is ready. Phyllis suggests motions be numbered when they are made and seconded, even if they are determined to be "agenda items" due to another motion being already active on the floor. Ron Eason suggests that a parliamentarian is needed to advise the Chair. After a request for a ruling, Holly ruled that proxy voting is not allowed under Sturgis. She also ruled that Kathy's question of privilege [see above] required a vote. GenTech2001: An organizational meeting for GenTech2001 was announced via the Board list. The meeting was held Wednesday Dec 19. Holiday Greetings: Several Board members extend holidays greetings and good wishes to their colleagues and the project membership. As a parting holiday wish, Jana Black asks God to visit personal bodily harm on those people that don't love her. ---- In Executive Session: --Tim Stowell posts a message. Bylaws "starter" committee: --no activity Guidelines "starter" committee: --no activity === "It was always said of him, that he knew how to keep Christmas well, if any man alive possessed the knowledge. May that be truly said of us, and all of us! And so, as Tiny Tim observed, "God Bless Us, Every One!"" ---Charles Dickens This has been your Daily Board Show. Merry Christmas, y'all! -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. X-eGroups-Return: sentto-3565136-100-1009716828-merope=radix.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com X-eGroups-Return: merope@radix.net X-eGroups-Approved-By: merope3 via web; 30 Dec 2001 12:53:47 -0000 X-Sender: merope@radix.net X-Apparently-To: dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com X-Sender: merope@radix.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com From: merope X-Yahoo-Profile: merope3 Mailing-List: list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com; contact dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com List-Unsubscribe: Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 08:00:20 -0500 Subject: [DBS] Daily Board Show, weekly edition Reply-To: dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com Out with the old, in with the new...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! 23 December to 30 December 2001: Motion 01-38: No activity New Business: The Election Committee forwards the list of "new" volunteers for the open slots on the committee. All slates are filled by their current occupants, with the exception of Marge Reid [NW/Plains region, one year term] and Diane Parsons [SE/MA region, one year term]. [This is indeed the same Diane Parsons who also currently sits on the Advisory Board; our "apolitical" EC gets more political with every vacancy.] Other Business: Recess: Although only a handful of Board members even responded to the call for objections and a recess was never formally called, the Board was apparently on recess from Dec 24 through Dec 26. Procedural issues: Tim Stowell asks why the precedent of allowing proxy voting was not followed, noting "Proxy voting has before not been a problem with this Board and was an accepted procedure for members who knew beforehand they were going to be absent during a vote. It was called professional courtesy." [I actually do not recall proxy voting _ever_ occuring on a vote, but I could be wrong. I know its been discussed previously, but IIRC it was never actually used by anyone.] Service Mark: On Dec 27, Holly Timm notified the Board that she had received signed and notarized copies of the consent agreement from the Census Project. She has signed them and forwarded them to Tim Stowell for his signature. She says she will post them when her scanner is working. The Board discusses broken computer peripherals and spam for a short time. --- In Executive Session no activity Bylaws "starter" committee: no activity Guidelines "starter" committee: no activity === Out of the Penalty Box Corner: Thought you'd all like to know that Linda Haas Davenport has let me back into the Secret Sandbox and I was resubbed to the EC list a few days ago. Anyone taking bets on how long I last? ;) === "Now is the accepted time to make your regular annual good resolutions. Next week you can begin paving hell with them as usual. Yesterday, everybody smoked his last cigar, took his last drink, and swore his last oath. Today, we are a pious and exemplary community. Thirty days from now, we shall have cast our reformation to the winds and gone to cutting our ancient shortcomings considerably shorter than ever. We shall also reflect pleasantly upon how we did the same old thing last year about this time. However, go in, community. New Year's is a harmless annual institution, of no particular use to anybody save as a scapegoat for promiscuous drunks, and friendly calls, and humbug resolutions, and we wish you to enjoy it with a looseness suited to the greatness of the occasion." ---Mark Twain (Letter to Virginia City Territorial Enterprise, Jan. 1863) This has been your Daily Board Show. See ya next year! -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.