Beginning March 2nd, 2020 the Mailing Lists functionality on RootsWeb will be discontinued. Users will no longer be able to send outgoing emails or accept incoming emails. Additionally, administration tools will no longer be available to list administrators and mailing lists will be put into an archival state.
Administrators may save the emails in their list prior to March 2nd. After that, mailing list archives will remain available and searchable on RootsWeb
Elizabeth and list,
I am sorry if I have offended you, Sandy or Sharon. I knew you were all subbed to
the discuss list and I felt you wouldn't want multiple emails. It was intentional
on my part to exclude you from the email list, but not to omit you from the
discussion, that is why I sent it to the discuss list too. I also sent emails to
people that I thought were still cc's.....no harm intended, I assure you. I don't
have an up to date list. That might be something that Sharon could post
periodically on the L-list. I just wanted them to be informed in case they weren't
subbed to the discuss list. I did not intend this to be an open the season on bash
Terria again, I assure you. I feel I have our NCGenWeb as my first priority and I
feel that this would be good for us. However, it is the majority who rules and if
they don't want to have ownership of their domain and would rather have to go
through another name to get to our state pages, well that is up to the majority. I
can't understand why everyone wouldn't want to own our domain name. As far as the
other county pages, I have no problem with them being wherever they are and I never
insinuated that I thought they should move....goodness that would be a pain!
I would like to say one thing that I see as a researcher. I have a problem with
trying to find all of these state and county pages. I would find it so much easier
to go to the www.xxgenweb.org and get to the counties that way. It is so much
easier than going to www.rootsweb.com/~xxgenweb.....not all states are on rootsweb
and it becomes a real problem. I don't see why rootsweb would not host us still.
It wouldn't hurt them in any way to host our domain name. We could still give them
credit for their free space....why is everyone so paranoid about this issue? Why
does it always have to turn into a rootsweb/ancestry issue instead of a NCGenWeb
issue? I think we need to have our priorities right, and they should be with the
NCGenWeb and what is best for this project. Ownership of a project domain name is
not stabbing rootsweb/ancestry in the back! Please consider this as a good thing
for our project, not a bad thing! So far, I have not heard one good reason not to
get a domain name....only complaints that cc's don't want to move their pages or
pay for anything....which is not part of my motion in any way, shape, or form!
I am proud to be a part of this project and I feel that having a domain of our own
will help us become better than ever and give us even more to be proud of! Why
would anyone not want that?
Thank you!
Terria
Elizabeth Harris wrote:
<snip>
> Terria, you know perfectly well that Sharon Williamson, Sandy Bolick, and I
> are all CCs, and you certainly have our addresses, yet your privately
> circulated message seems to have omitted our names. Although I agree, you
> have every right to send private messages to the recipients of your choice,
> I find these omissions from an otherwise comprehensive list to be a bit
> peculiar.
>
> Second, your list (as quoted by David Morgan) includes several people who
> have left NCGenWeb, some of them several months back, and has several
> incorrect addresses for current volunteers.
>
> Third, we went around the whole domain name question a couple of years ago.
> Granted, a lot of things have changed since then, but I think it might be
> good for the newcomers to review some of that past discussion before making
> a decision on this question. To search the NCGENWEB archived messages, go
> to
>
> http://searches2.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl
>
> and enter NCGENWEB as the list to search. A search of the 1998 messages
> for the word "domain" will bring up most of the relevant correspondence.
>
> -----
<snip>
>I don't see why rootsweb would not host us still.
>It wouldn't hurt them in any way to host our domain name.
Unless they've changed their policy, one of the services Rootsweb does not
provide is housing domain names. They've made a limited exception for a
couple of major sites, but that's it. So, in order to have a NCGW domain
name, it would be necessary to find -- and pay for -- a home for it, and to
move the state pages.
Angie
Considering how wordy I can get, sometimes asking for opinions can be a
dangerous thing <g>. But, in the spirit of discussion, I'll throw in my
two cents worth. My personal opinions, so if you disagree, well, you
disagree. I'm sure we're all mostly reasonable and intelligent people, so
there's bound to be some disagreement <g>.
>I agree with Mike, both on the perception that the current system for
>NCGenWeb is working smoothly and that Tennessee may not be the best model
>to follow.
I'll follow Elizabeth here, mostly. NCGW, for all the bickering, fussing,
and occasional bouts of paranoia, *works*. We accomplish the goal of
making historical & genealogical information freely available on the
internet, each in our own individual way and to the best of our
ability. Maybe my ideas are a little simple-minded (I've been accused of
it before <g>), but this is the only thing that's important! It doesn't
matter who is in charge of what, or who gets credit for what, or where the
pages are. The visitors, quite frankly, don't care. All they want is to
find the information they're looking for. Anything that detracts from that
is just a distraction.
If we're looking for another state to model, how about South Carolina? Our
SC is a jewel -- she's taken on that thankless job for ages without
complaint, and is a delight to work with. I can't remember the last time
there was a post to our list -- we don't have endless discussions about
whether we should have our own domain, whether special projects are a good
idea, who should be allowed to vote and how many times, do we need bylaws,
is Rootsweb the tool of the devil or the saviour of mankind, etc. etc. etc.
<vbg> We pretty much do our genealogy and put up our pages and go on about
our business.
>I am afraid that the whole issue of a domain name for NCGenWeb will
>make us part of this battle, and I would very much prefer that we continue
>to function as we are, concentrating on genealogy and information exchange
>rather than control.
I agree. Whether or not anyone intends it to be a declaration of
independence (or articles of secession, depending on your viewpoint <g>)
won't be the issue -- the *perception* of the intentions is what will be
endlessly debated.
>I have come to the conclusion that
>Ancestry is a reputable company, and that RootsWeb is still doing an
>excellent job of providing web space, tools, and publicity. My county
>pages will therefore stay on rootsweb.com until such time as I feel that
>the users of my pages will be better served by my moving them elsewhere,
>and I will continue to use the rootsweb lists and GenConnect boards.
>Whether the state-level pages remain on rootsweb is of course up to Sharon
>as SC and the collective membership of the project.
I agree here, too. I know some people have had problems with Rootsweb, and
choose not to use them or their services. I have no problem with that,
everyone should do whatever works for them. My personal opinion and
experience, though, is that Rootsweb has always done right by me, and has
provided incredible tools, for free, that I could never have had
otherwise. If it takes aligning with Ancestry to keep Rootsweb online,
well, they gotta do what they gotta do. As long as Rootsweb keeps to their
original promise of providing free access to the data, then they're doing
what I need them to do. As a little side note, from checking my website
stats, I get a *lot* of page visitors from Rootsweb -- I was surprised to
see how much traffic comes my way from there.
OK, I'll climb off my soapbox now <g>.
Angie
I subscribed yesterday just to voice, perhaps there was a better way to get
my attention then e-mailing me?
Let Sharon announce hot topics being discussed and send the topic
announcement on the other list to all of us, we can subscribe to the discuss
list and contribute if feel inclined.
Let's NOT post the e-mail addresses of the CC's to the list. The only reason
to have them all is to do massive mailings (aka spam). In the future, if one
of you wants our support or input on an issue, using the key to back door of
the henhouse only upsets us who are roosting.
Again, other than "it's easier to remember a short URL" (which is true) I'd
like to hear other reasons (ENUMERATED short phrases IN BREVITY) that speaks
to me. I am really willing to back issues that are logical, I like good
change, I just don't care for ENDLESS discussion and LONG LONG LONG LONG LONG.
At 10:56 PM 7/27/00, Terria Baynor wrote:
>Since I have no idea who is subbed to the discuss list, I sent this to all the
>cc's that I had addresses for. I have a right to send this message to them if
>I want to. Are you saying I cannot communicate with other cc's except on a
>list? Get Real!
Terria, you know perfectly well that Sharon Williamson, Sandy Bolick, and I
are all CCs, and you certainly have our addresses, yet your privately
circulated message seems to have omitted our names. Although I agree, you
have every right to send private messages to the recipients of your choice,
I find these omissions from an otherwise comprehensive list to be a bit
peculiar.
Second, your list (as quoted by David Morgan) includes several people who
have left NCGenWeb, some of them several months back, and has several
incorrect addresses for current volunteers.
Third, we went around the whole domain name question a couple of years ago.
Granted, a lot of things have changed since then, but I think it might be
good for the newcomers to review some of that past discussion before making
a decision on this question. To search the NCGENWEB archived messages, go
to
http://searches2.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl
and enter NCGENWEB as the list to search. A search of the 1998 messages
for the word "domain" will bring up most of the relevant correspondence.
------
For what it's worth, some personal opinions. I am not attempting to force
these views on anyone else (as I was previously accused of doing). You are
all intelligent people and can think for yourselves. The following is
simply my personal perspective.
I agree with Mike, both on the perception that the current system for
NCGenWeb is working smoothly and that Tennessee may not be the best model
to follow.
Since the RootsWeb/Ancestry merger, I've given a lot of thought to the
future of NCGenWeb and of my own county projects. I've been reading the
various national lists, and listening to the wrangling that's going on.
Since leaving office as SC, I've also been getting back to working on my
county pages and my personal genealogy, and I have to say, I am ENJOYING
it.
This has caused me to do some soul-searching about how I want to spend my
time for the next few years, and I have concluded that the endless battles
over ownership and control of the USGenWeb project are not where I want to
be. I am afraid that the whole issue of a domain name for NCGenWeb will
make us part of this battle, and I would very much prefer that we continue
to function as we are, concentrating on genealogy and information exchange
rather than control.
I don't own my ancestors, or the counties in which I do research, nor does
anyone else. I share information freely, and as far as I'm concerned, the
more information that is put on the web for everyone to use, the better.
The bottom line for me is providing help and information to people who are
researching their North Carolina ancestors, especially those in the
counties where my ancestors lived also. The question then becomes, how
best to provide that information. I have come to the conclusion that
Ancestry is a reputable company, and that RootsWeb is still doing an
excellent job of providing web space, tools, and publicity. My county
pages will therefore stay on rootsweb.com until such time as I feel that
the users of my pages will be better served by my moving them elsewhere,
and I will continue to use the rootsweb lists and GenConnect boards.
Whether the state-level pages remain on rootsweb is of course up to Sharon
as SC and the collective membership of the project.
Elizabeth Harris
NCGenWeb project: http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncgenweb/
Winston-Salem NC area genealogy: http://users.erols.com/fmoran/
There is already a motion on the floor, Horace. Or who were you making your motion to?
Diana
----- Original Message -----
From: Horace B. Peele
To: Terria Baynor
Cc: diana faust ; Anne Wise ; Barbara Peck ; Bill Smith ; BJ Roundtree ; Bobby Touchton ; Carol Morrison ; Carson Turner ; Charles Barnes ; Clint Edwards ; Crystal Surber French ; D. Stoddard ; Dale Deason ; David Morgan ; Debbie Fowler ; Derick S. Hartshorn ; Diane Kelly ; Elizabeth (Betsy) Ross ; Gale Payne Nagy ; Gayla Wynn ; Holly Timm ; Horace Peele ; Jacque Lopez ; Jane Moyer ; Jason Bordeaux ; Javan Michael DeLoach ; Jeff Swann ; Jerome Smith ; Jim Cole ; Joel S. Russell ; John Godwin ; John McGowan ; Joy Pixler Hyde ; Joyce Johnson ; Katherine White-Duke ; Kirk Stephens ; Kris Mayfield ; Leah Sims ; Linda Miller ; Linda Sorrell ; Mark Knight ; Mary Westbrook-Drake ; Meg Wilder ; Myrtle Bridges ; Patrick Barrett ; Patty Day ; Paul Buckley ; Peggy Patterson ; Philip Sheppard ; Randy Godfrey ; Rhonda Tomlinson ; Robert Chancey & Diane K. ; Ruth Kidd & Georgeanne Hammond ; Scott Lee ; Sheila Weaver ; Sonya Vance Woosley ; Steffi Davis ; Steve Davenport ; Steven Page ; !
Sue Ashby ; Sue Seibert ; Teresa Maro Rozich ; Tim Seawolf-Self ; Tom Bridges ; Tom Winslow ; Tracy Putnam ; Victoria Proctor ; Virginia Crilley ; Warren Bagley ; Yvonne Henderson ; Glenda Biggerstaff ; Kay M. Sheppard
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 10:04 PM
Subject: Re: NCGenWeb domain name...need opinions!
At 07:55 PM 07/27/2000 -0400, Terria Baynor wrote:
Hello All NC CC's
Please, let's discuss a Domain name. Having a Domain Name for like NCGENWEB.ORG is exactly what we need to do to get the full recognition that we need for the NC Gen Web Project. That is the same logic that your Mother and Dad gave you a unique name, for recognition purposes.
But there are those of you who are confused about a Domain name. It does not mean necessarily that anything has to be moved from where ever your currently have your pages. Of course it could mean that but it does not have to mean that. There is the term of "Hosting" a domain name. There is also a "domain redirection" capability that many providers offer. I, for example, have "horace.peele.com" as my web site address however it is redirected (not hosted) by my domain name provider to the actual address of "www.txdirect.net/~hpeele" which is located right on my independent provider in San Antonio. I have them redirect my subdomain name of "Horace" within the domain name of "Peele.com". I do not own "Peele.com", I only own the subdomain of "Horace". My site is not located on their machine. I have been using this feature now for two years.
I enter a motion that we obtain the "NCGENWEB.ORG" domain name and then find a provider that will redirect subdomain addresses like "richmond.ncgenweb.org" to where the actual web site where the Richmond County Site is physically located. It would work just like my address above. That way, those who like to use Rootsweb.com may do so and stay there while those of us that do not prefer Rootsweb may use their own like I do. Just think of your own county address for example "gates.ncgenweb.org", "surry.ncgenweb.org", how cool!
I am in contact with two such providers who may be able to provide such "redirection" services for a minimum fee for redirecting the subdomain names Like "gates" to it proper location. I will let you know my findings as soon as they become known. On the last two Fridays in a row , I have had two operations so please relax while I work on this. Terria, please develop the Bylaws for the eventuality. It only makes sense.
In that light, let it be known that I have leased "NCGENWEB.ORG" for a period of ten years in support of this action. It is registered in my name. Transfer of ownership to the project will occur when the appropriate bylaws and controls are in effect that will allow it to be properly implemented, used and supported.
I am seeking a second to this motion.
For those who disagree with my independent action, so be it, I am only trying to protect the project. My action is not up for discussion. The only discussion is how to develop the appropriate bylaws, to find a provider that will "redirect" the county addresses to their current location, and then start using "NCGENWEB.ORG" name. Therefore, I will not discuss the issues of my actions, only those to get it implemented. If the combined body of CC's does not care to use it then it will simply be mine Domain for the next ten years.
Horace
====================================================
Attention everyone, if I have missed any cc's in North Carolina....please forward this to them.
This is in order to get your opinion of our getting our own domain name. Please read and respond! Thank you....Terria Baynor-CC NCBath Co.
Sure Diana,
I would be glad to hear any suggestions from anyone.....maybe even a revision of the motion would be good. Personally I don't give a flip where it is hosted. I just think we need to preserve "our"(meaning NCGenWeb) place. I think the owner needs to be the NCGenWeb General Membership, the contact could be the SC, and the tech could be the ASC. And if we ever get any bylaws, then we could add this into them. I really am open to any suggestions so feel free to throw them out there! Cost, well I am sure that most of us wouldn't mind throwing in a few dollars to pay for this a year. If someone truly doesn't want to, or can't afford say $3.00?? a year then I will see if I can't scrounge it up from somewhere, or pay it all myself as a gift. Hosting fees aren't that expensive. Also, if everyone still wants it on Rootsweb/MyFamily.com then we would need to contact them and request them to still host us. I think, since there has been so much controversy over the rootsweb!
/myfamily/ancestry issue I don't want to go there. I think it is more important that we have our own domain name. We need our own presence by having our own domain, thus having a permanent address no matter what server it is hosted on. All the county pages can stay wherever they are, no moving necessary. The only difference would be that the main page can be accessed at "www.ncgenweb.org".....now doesn't that look good for us? Wouldn't you be proud to be affiliated with that domain name?
Terria
diana faust wrote:
Terria,
This begs the questions, where would the domain be hosted? How would the
hosting be paid for? And what would be future plans for renewing the domain
registration and paying for hosting? Not that it is a lot of money, but
there should be a plan in place. And in whose name do you propose the
registration of the domain be?
People might want to hear some of these kind of details before they jump on
seconding a nomination to do it.
Diana
----- Original Message -----
From: Terria Baynor <hoji(a)beaufortco.com>
To: <NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 10:50 PM
Subject: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] Re: NCGenWeb domain name
> Sharon and List,
> I would like to make a motion to purchase our own domain name
NCGenWeb.org.
Thank you, Horace.
(I now have over 34,200 descendents of Lawrence Peelle)
____________________________________________________
Visit all my sites from - http://www.horace.peele.com
Horace Peele, 12806 Chateau Forest, San Antonio, TX 78230
_________________ô¿ô For More Peeles__________________
Well I guess the domain name is all a mute point since it has been purchased for the next 10 years.
So I withdraw my original motion and make a new motion to Sharon to accept the free offer of our domain name and make some bylaws to cover it as the condition states.
I would like a second on this motion.
Thank you!
Terria
I don't think the idea, or proposal, was to have anybody move their pages
but rather have it for the state page.
Diana
----- Original Message -----
From: Kelly <Kellygirl3398(a)mpinet.net>
To: <NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 10:35 PM
Subject: Re: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] Re: NCGenWeb domain name...need opinions!
> I personally would not move my pages to a domain exclusive to NCGENWEB. I
> would use my own web space first.
> Just me though
> Kelly
Hi Terria, I did misunderstand the fact that maybe the county pages will not
be housed there but I do understand the specifics of the situation alot
better than I care too. My question(s) are (sorry if they have been answered
but I have been very busy and delete happy) who will be listed as the domain
owner. If it is the SC will the ownership of the domain pass with each SC
elected? If the answer to this is yes, will this be put into writing? Who
will cover the expense of this domain and will paying for the domain give
that particular person and "ownership" ? Once this domain is registered what
will be the after effects of NCGENWEB in the USGENWEB?
BTW, I certainly do not feel threatened at all, I always have choices and
recourses.
Kelly
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terria Baynor" <hoji(a)beaufortco.com>
To: <NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] Re: NCGenWeb domain name...need opinions!
> Kelly, I think you misunderstood this issue, the county pages wouldn't be
> touched or affected in any way what-so-ever. The only page affected would
be
> the state ncgenweb main page, so therefore you need not feel threatened.
> Thank you
> Terria
>
> Kelly wrote:
>
> > I personally would not move my pages to a domain exclusive to NCGENWEB.
I
> > would use my own web space first.
> > Just me though
> > Kelly
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > Javan Michael DeLoach wrote:
> > >
> > > > First, I am quite satisfied with the current operation of the
NCGenWeb.
> > I
> > > > see no reason to make changes to something that is working smoothly
and
> > > > without problems.
> > > >
> > > > Second, I am a CC in the TNGenWeb, which does have its own domain
> > > > name. Things are not one bit better there. If anything, there is
more
> > > > dissension amongst the CCs since it was incorporated and a domain
name
> > > > purchased.
> > > >
> > > > Third, I object to you trying to recreate the NC Discuss list. You
> > should
> > > > not be trying to circumvent the system that was voted upon and set
up by
> > > > our SC.
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > > > Avery County
> > >
> > >
>
>
I personally would not move my pages to a domain exclusive to NCGENWEB. I
would use my own web space first.
Just me though
Kelly
----- Original Message -----
> Javan Michael DeLoach wrote:
>
> > First, I am quite satisfied with the current operation of the NCGenWeb.
I
> > see no reason to make changes to something that is working smoothly and
> > without problems.
> >
> > Second, I am a CC in the TNGenWeb, which does have its own domain
> > name. Things are not one bit better there. If anything, there is more
> > dissension amongst the CCs since it was incorporated and a domain name
> > purchased.
> >
> > Third, I object to you trying to recreate the NC Discuss list. You
should
> > not be trying to circumvent the system that was voted upon and set up by
> > our SC.
> >
> > Mike
> > Avery County
>
>
Kelly, I think you misunderstood this issue, the county pages wouldn't be
touched or affected in any way what-so-ever. The only page affected would be
the state ncgenweb main page, so therefore you need not feel threatened.
Thank you
Terria
Kelly wrote:
> I personally would not move my pages to a domain exclusive to NCGENWEB. I
> would use my own web space first.
> Just me though
> Kelly
> ----- Original Message -----
> > Javan Michael DeLoach wrote:
> >
> > > First, I am quite satisfied with the current operation of the NCGenWeb.
> I
> > > see no reason to make changes to something that is working smoothly and
> > > without problems.
> > >
> > > Second, I am a CC in the TNGenWeb, which does have its own domain
> > > name. Things are not one bit better there. If anything, there is more
> > > dissension amongst the CCs since it was incorporated and a domain name
> > > purchased.
> > >
> > > Third, I object to you trying to recreate the NC Discuss list. You
> should
> > > not be trying to circumvent the system that was voted upon and set up by
> > > our SC.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > > Avery County
> >
> >
Since I have no idea who is subbed to the discuss list, I sent this to all the
cc's that I had addresses for. I have a right to send this message to them if
I want to. Are you saying I cannot communicate with other cc's except on a
list? Get Real!
Terria
Javan Michael DeLoach wrote:
> First, I am quite satisfied with the current operation of the NCGenWeb. I
> see no reason to make changes to something that is working smoothly and
> without problems.
>
> Second, I am a CC in the TNGenWeb, which does have its own domain
> name. Things are not one bit better there. If anything, there is more
> dissension amongst the CCs since it was incorporated and a domain name
> purchased.
>
> Third, I object to you trying to recreate the NC Discuss list. You should
> not be trying to circumvent the system that was voted upon and set up by
> our SC.
>
> Mike
> Avery County
D'Ann,
Why can't we have pride in our own independence with a domain name and permanent
address, no matter where it is hosted. We are a separate entity and a non profit
one at that. This is the 21st century and everyone has domain names. The
problems we are having at the national level is because we don't have
ownership/control of our national domain names. Our state project will eliminate
those problems if we do this now. This is good for us!
Terria
DAStoddard(a)aol.com wrote:
> RE: Domain name
>
> I'm confused. Why are we wanting to do this? Is there something that needs
> fixing here that I have missed? What's the purpose in all this fuss? I also
> wouldn't want to pay when there is another free alternative available. What's
> the point? (Will we have to tell all volunteers there is an annual due to pay
> bills?)
>
> We should be with Rootsweb and stay there. Rootsweb has merged with a very
> decent company. Everything will be fine, even better as they can finally
> afford more equipment and employees. Bless their hearts for struggling with
> us new USGenWebbers when USGenWeb was first launched. We whined alot as
> beginners learning html on the fly, etc.
>
> I've had some experience with websites, hosting, costs, etc. I don't like
> the idea of our own domain name, it could get messy with the volunteer staff
> we have and financing the costs. Things can and do go wrong with sites, and
> if you are with a hosting co offering you free space, good luck as there is
> traditionally no telephone contact available. I have alot of horror stories
> if you want some proof there.
>
> Rootsweb is all set up for this, let them do it. They give us nice toys for
> our sites, search engines, scripts, etc. It's not worth doing any other way.
> Trust me on this.
>
> D'Ann/
> Nash
>
> PS Yes yes, I know, I am not at Rootsweb. It's just that at the beginning of
> USGenWeb, I was offered alot of free space and alot of nice treatment on a
> friend's server. Someday I want to move to Rootsweb though.
Terria,
This begs the questions, where would the domain be hosted? How would the
hosting be paid for? And what would be future plans for renewing the domain
registration and paying for hosting? Not that it is a lot of money, but
there should be a plan in place. And in whose name do you propose the
registration of the domain be?
People might want to hear some of these kind of details before they jump on
seconding a nomination to do it.
Diana
----- Original Message -----
From: Terria Baynor <hoji(a)beaufortco.com>
To: <NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 10:50 PM
Subject: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] Re: NCGenWeb domain name
> Sharon and List,
> I would like to make a motion to purchase our own domain name
NCGenWeb.org.
Sharon and List,
I would like to make a motion to purchase our own domain name NCGenWeb.org.
I think this would make us more independent from any takeovers that may come up
in the future. This way we have a constant web site for anyone to find us. We
would not have to worry about anyone loosing our website address because it
would always be the same no matter where it is "housed."
I would be willing to purchase this and donate it to our state project. Please
take on a vote on this motion. Thank you!
Terria Baynor
NCBath Co.
I want to thank Sandy for doing the research on this for us and making it SO
EASY for the rest of us to have a voice in the matter of Linda Lewis
applying for a trademark of our name to use for her organization.
I got around to writing my letter tonight. I convinced myself to do it by
saying that it was not that much harder to hit the print key than the send
key. To encourage all of you who would like to preserve our name for
ourselves, I will paste my hurriedly written letter here for anybody to use
as a starter letter -- easily improved upon.
Diana
*****************************************
Office of the Assistant Commissioner for Trademarks
ATTN: Jesse Marshall, administrator
2900 Crystal Drive
Arlington, VA 22202
Re: USGENWEB ARCHIVES
serial number: 78006402
Dear Sir,
I urge you not to approve the application of registration for the trade mark
(trade word) USGenWeb Archives, serial number 78006402 filed by Linda Lewis.
The words 'USGenWeb' belong to another organization, The USGenWeb Project.
For her to use our name for a totally different project that she started
confuses the public as to who and what her organization is, leading people
to believe her project is affiliated with us.
Both her project (USGenWeb Archives) and our project (The USGenWeb Project)
are concerned with online genealogy. Our Project has been in existence
serving the public since 1996 and is well known in the genealogy community.
She is using our name to further her organization, to our detriment.
Please, do not approve her application for registration of our name.
Sincerely,
Diana Holland Faust
Wayne County, NCGenWeb Project
USGenWeb Project
*********************************************************
----- Original Message -----
From: Sandy <teylu(a)home.com>
To: <NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2000 9:49 PM
Subject: Re: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] Official source of information
>
> So far as I know, any protests regarding an application to register a
> trademark must be made "the old-fashioned way," i.e., via snail mail.
>
> TO:
> Office of the Assistant Commissioner for Trademarks (Anne Chasser)
> ATTN: Jesse Marshall, administrator
> 2900 Crystal Drive
> Arlington, VA 22202
>
> Include BOTH the name of the mark: USGENWEB ARCHIVES
> AND the serial number: 78006402
>
> -Sandy
>
> ===========
>
> At 6:17 PM -0500 07/24/00, diana faust wrote:
> >Sandy,
> >
> >Does that patent office web site accept comments/input about somebody's
> >(e.g., Linda Lewis') application for a trademark? If so, where? I
didn't
> >see anything about that aspect, but it is a very full site.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Diana
>
>
So far as I know, any protests regarding an application to register a
trademark must be made "the old-fashioned way," i.e., via snail mail.
TO:
Office of the Assistant Commissioner for Trademarks (Anne Chasser)
ATTN: Jesse Marshall, administrator
2900 Crystal Drive
Arlington, VA 22202
Include BOTH the name of the mark: USGENWEB ARCHIVES
AND the serial number: 78006402
-Sandy
===========
At 6:17 PM -0500 07/24/00, diana faust wrote:
>Sandy,
>
>Does that patent office web site accept comments/input about somebody's
>(e.g., Linda Lewis') application for a trademark? If so, where? I didn't
>see anything about that aspect, but it is a very full site.
>
>Thanks,
>Diana
Sandy,
Does that patent office web site accept comments/input about somebody's
(e.g., Linda Lewis') application for a trademark? If so, where? I didn't
see anything about that aspect, but it is a very full site.
Thanks,
Diana
----- Original Message -----
From: Sandy <teylu(a)home.com>
To: <NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 10:36 AM
Subject: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] Official source of information
>
> The official source of information concerning trademarks and patents
> is the US Patent and Trademarks Office.
>
> USPTO has a website:
> http://www.uspto.gov/
>
> Furthermore, the US Patent and Trademarks Office has a toll-free
> phone number where anuone can talk to REAL PEOPLE whose job it is to
> provide official answers to questions:
> 1-800-786-9199
>
> Questions concerning Linda's application for service mark of
> "USGenWeb Archives" should reference:
> "USGenWeb Archives," serial number 78006402.
>
> -Sandy
> >
>
>
Kelly,
> Diana, your obviously trying to pull out what you believe are
discrepancies
> in my message.Since I have requested that you re-read my original message
> and you still have the need for an explanation, I will explain now in
hopes
> that it is simplistic enough for you to understand this time.
There is no need for you to get mean, Kelly. It was so incredulous to me
that a member of this organization would say that she, too, would have
applied for a trademark of our name for the benefit of another organization,
that I had to ask if (and indeed, hoped that) I had misunderstood.
> I can't see why others should be able to manipulate a project
> that she [Linda Lewis] has created.
If by manipulate, you mean object to the registering of the name, the answer
is because it is our name.
Diana
Diana, your obviously trying to pull out what you believe are discrepancies
in my message.Since I have requested that you re-read my original message
and you still have the need for an explanation, I will explain now in hopes
that it is simplistic enough for you to understand this time.
I stated that If I were Linda I would have probably done the same thing,
further into the message I specified that I would have probably given the
trademark name a more original name.
I am not sure how you can misconstrue that statement, it means that I agree
with Linda's actions, I personally would have been more original in the
naming but it's not me were talking about. I do not think that Linda has
broken and rules and I think Teri Pettit's letter to the board explains it
best. I can forward that to you if you would like.
Linda filed for trademark, she was not trying to be underhanded and sneaky
since she included other AB members in the application and also since she is
the founder, and she is still very active with USGENWEB as are the projects
themselves. I also stated that if I were Linda, I would move the project to
a new server.Again,I am not Linda, those are just my opinions and
observations. I can't see why others should be able to manipulate a project
that she has created.
We can continue this conversation for weeks and bottom line is, we are all
entitled to our opinions, and to who or what we choose to support and will
probably never agree.That's why I replied to you off list in my last
message, but since you insist on my replying to you on list here it is.
Kelly
----- Original Message -----
From: "diana faust" <dianafaust(a)knology.net>
To: "Kelly" <Kellygirl3398(a)mpinet.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] USGW Project TRANSCRIBERS
> As I pointed out, you were unclear. First you said you would do the same
> thing Linda Lewis did, then you said she should have chosen a different
name
> of her own. That was ambiguous because she didn't choose a name of her
own.
> You are a member of the USGenWeb Project, so, as such, why don't you
answer
> the question in public unambiguously. I am interested in how you parse
that
> out.
>
> Diana
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Kelly <Kellygirl3398(a)mpinet.net>
> To: diana faust <dianafaust(a)knology.net>
> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 11:35 AM
> Subject: Re: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] USGW Project TRANSCRIBERS
>
>
> > Diana, You read my letter and also replied to it, and the answer to your
> > question
> >
> > "As a member of the USGenWeb Project, you don't see a problem with
> somebody
> > trademarking our name?"
> >
> > was included in that letter, you may want to go over it again.
> > I think I was very clear on that point.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "diana faust" <dianafaust(a)knology.net>
> > To: <NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-L(a)rootsweb.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 12:21 PM
> > Subject: Re: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] USGW Project TRANSCRIBERS
> >
> >
> > > Kelly,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Angie, What you have described below is exactly what Ron Eason did
> with
> > > the
> > > > Census Project. I do understand what you are saying about the
> confusion
> > > with
> > > > the name and the projects, if it were me I would have done the same
> > thing
> > >
> > > You would have done the same thing, meaning you would have tried to
> > > trademark the name of USGenWeb Project, somebody else's organization?
> > > Because that's what we have a problem with, not that she tried to
> > trademark
> > > a name, but the is trying to trademark our name.
> > >
> > > > but probably would have given it my own original name.
> > >
> > > But she didn't give it her own original name. That IS the problem.
If
> > you
> > > probably would have given it your own original name, then you would
not
> > have
> > > been doing the same thing Linda Lewis did.
> > >
> > > > See, like I said
> > > > Eason did it and noting has happened to him, he is using the
USGENWEB
> > name
> > > > for his project that is no longer associated with the actual
USGENWEB
> > (in
> > > my
> > > > opinion that is blatant deception),
> > >
> > > If our leaders had had the good sense to trademark our name in the
first
> > > place, he wouldn't be using the USGenWeb name.
> > >
> > > > at least Linda's projects are still very
> > > > much involved with the USGENWEB.
> > >
> > > For now.
> > >
> > > > I think to me the major difference between
> > > > what Eason has done and what Linda is doing it the fact that Eason
> filed
> > > as
> > > > "for profit" and Linda maintains her stance as "non profit" .
> > >
> > > For now.
> > >
> > > > I am trying to
> > > > look at it from Linda's point of view even though, I am probably
> > clueless
> > > as
> > > > to all of the details involved.
> > >
> > > You respect Linda wanting to protect her project. I don't think
anybody
> > > would argure with that if Linda had not named her project with
somebody
> > > else's name. It would be the same thing if somebody started brewing
> beer
> > in
> > > Wisconsin and calling it "Diet Corona" beer. Or manufacturing cars
and
> > > naming them "Super Ford," then attempting to register the trademark
> names
> > of
> > > Corona or Ford which were originated by somebody else. Surely you see
> the
> > d
> > > eception in what she is trying to do. As a member of the USGenWeb
> > Project,
> > > you don't see a problem with somebody trademarking our name?
> > >
> > > Diana (not to be confused with diane)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>