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
Actually one of them is on the Discuss list, and the other is not.
But, regardless, that is why I included the e-mail addresses of
the new CCs.
Sharon
Sandy wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, with this gawd-awful read-only list, it is pretty much
> impossible to welcome anybody, unless they are subbed to the DISCUSS
> list, which is doubtful.
>
> Sorry, folks, but as far as I'm concerned, sometimes things that SEEM
> like a good idea at the time, turn out to be the pits. And these two
> lists are a case in point. It takes communication to an all-time low.
>
> In any case, I'm sure we'd all welcome the new folks.....if only we could.
>
> -Sandy
> >
>
> At 9:49 PM -0500 02/07/01, Sharon Williamson wrote:
>
> >Hello CCs,
> >
> >As you will remember, we recently learned of Mark Knight's
> >passing which left the Dare NCGenWeb site without a host.
> >As it turns out a Dare County researcher stepped forward and
> >asked for the Dare County site. So I'd like you to please
> >give a warm welcome to Angel Roller who will be the new CC
> >for Dare County. I believe Angel is new to the USGenWeb scene
> >and I am sure will appreciate a warm welcome.
> >Angel's e-mail is - angel(a)beachaccess.com
> >
> >Another county that has become available is Buncombe. The
> >new CC for that is going to be Larry Williamson. Yes, there
> >is a family connection. He had been checking recently for
> >a couple of counties here is South Carolina, but seemed to be
> >just a little behind the curve, as the counties were already
> >taken by the time he checked.
> >
> >We do have some family connections in the area and this will
> >be a good excuse for us to head to the mountains on some of
> >those hot summer days that aren't too far in the future.
> >
> >Just for the record, If the current discussion about Service
> >Mark, etc., comes to a vote, Larry will abstain from voting on
> >that issue. His e-mail is P_L_Williamson(a)att.net, again, please
> >give him a warm welcome.
> >
> >And finally, the Bute NCGenWeb county is being given up by the
> >present host and is in need of adoption. If anyone is interested,
> >please let me know.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Sharon
> >
> >
> >==== NCGENWEB Mailing List ====
> >Table of County Pages
> >http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncgenweb/county.html
I still think these two lists are the pits, and just for the record,
back at the time, I thought the announce list was a good idea.
However, having experienced it in practice, I have changed me mind. ;-)
IMHO, if anything has killed the family spirit of NCGenWeb, the
elimination of a list that we can all use to communicate with
everyone has surely done it.
Frankly, I think this one-way communication is the biggest reason why
nobody participates anymore.
Just my 2-cents worth.
-Sandy
At 11:20 PM -0500 02/07/01, Sharon Williamson wrote:
>Actually one of them is on the Discuss list, and the other is not.
>
>But, regardless, that is why I included the e-mail addresses of
>the new CCs.
>
>Sharon
>
>Sandy wrote:
>>
>> Unfortunately, with this gawd-awful read-only list, it is pretty much
>> impossible to welcome anybody, unless they are subbed to the DISCUSS
>> list, which is doubtful.
>>
>> Sorry, folks, but as far as I'm concerned, sometimes things that SEEM
>> like a good idea at the time, turn out to be the pits. And these two
>> lists are a case in point. It takes communication to an all-time low.
>>
>> In any case, I'm sure we'd all welcome the new folks.....if only we could.
>>
> > -Sandy
> > >
Unfortunately, with this gawd-awful read-only list, it is pretty much
impossible to welcome anybody, unless they are subbed to the DISCUSS
list, which is doubtful.
Sorry, folks, but as far as I'm concerned, sometimes things that SEEM
like a good idea at the time, turn out to be the pits. And these two
lists are a case in point. It takes communication to an all-time low.
In any case, I'm sure we'd all welcome the new folks.....if only we could.
-Sandy
>
At 9:49 PM -0500 02/07/01, Sharon Williamson wrote:
>Hello CCs,
>
>As you will remember, we recently learned of Mark Knight's
>passing which left the Dare NCGenWeb site without a host.
>As it turns out a Dare County researcher stepped forward and
>asked for the Dare County site. So I'd like you to please
>give a warm welcome to Angel Roller who will be the new CC
>for Dare County. I believe Angel is new to the USGenWeb scene
>and I am sure will appreciate a warm welcome.
>Angel's e-mail is - angel(a)beachaccess.com
>
>Another county that has become available is Buncombe. The
>new CC for that is going to be Larry Williamson. Yes, there
>is a family connection. He had been checking recently for
>a couple of counties here is South Carolina, but seemed to be
>just a little behind the curve, as the counties were already
>taken by the time he checked.
>
>We do have some family connections in the area and this will
>be a good excuse for us to head to the mountains on some of
>those hot summer days that aren't too far in the future.
>
>Just for the record, If the current discussion about Service
>Mark, etc., comes to a vote, Larry will abstain from voting on
>that issue. His e-mail is P_L_Williamson(a)att.net, again, please
>give him a warm welcome.
>
>And finally, the Bute NCGenWeb county is being given up by the
>present host and is in need of adoption. If anyone is interested,
>please let me know.
>
>Thanks,
>Sharon
>
>
>==== NCGENWEB Mailing List ====
>Table of County Pages
>http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncgenweb/county.html
A couple more questions about this, Sharon.
> > 4. If you and/or the donor do not want us to know who is paying the $50
> > filing fee, then I, for one, do not wish to accept the money. I'm not
> > taking about your half which you disclosed, but the other half which has
> > remained anonymous.
> >
> Again, I am more than willing to pay the $25.00 that is half of the filing
> fee. On the other hand, no one is made of money and if others want to
> contribute, then they/you are welcome to contribute.
Didn't you tell us that somebody offered to pay the $50 filing fee, and that
you wanted to pay half? I was asking who made the first offer to pay and
who, as it stands now, is committed to paying the $25 that you are not
paying? Unless I missed it, there has been no call for or need for anybody
else to pay anything. I mean, it never came up as a question or even an
opportunity. We were TOLD that somebody offered to pay it and you are
paying half; implicit in that is that you accepted this person's offer. Who
is paying the other half?
I don't save every post so that I can play 'got-you,' so I could have a
syllable or a word out of place, but this is the sense of how I remember it
coming out.
My question is still:
> > If any fees need to be paid, what's wrong with the way it was done on
the
> > national level, providing everybody the opportunity to participate?
What's
> > even wrong with ASKING everybody to pay $1.00 per county they manage?
Or
> > asking for $1 from each cc so that we can all participate? So that we
are
> > not beholden to some unknown, anonymous somebody?
your response:
> If we are using the national level as a pattern for behavior, then if you
will
> notice on the list of pledges, the first few items on the pledge list is
> several anonymous pledges. http://home.kscable.com/jschunk/pledge.html
Sharon, I do not suggest we follow the national level way of doing this to
the letter. I used their campaign as an example of opening the process to
everybody. I cited it for that reason only; not meaning or suggesting that
their way has to be followed verbatim. But even if you do use them as a
pattern, they opened the process to everybody so their anonymous donors are
a FEW of MANY. One anonymous person paying for the entire process would not
be acceptable -- and this is exaggeration said for the purpose of making my
point, not a literal event.
As it stands now, we have one anonymous donor paying half and Sharon paying
the other half.
Diana
Diana,
I am posting this also to the Read Only list. There are a good number of
CCs who are not subscribed to the Discuss list that may have an interest
in the points you mention. Since this message was already posted publically
I don't see where that should be a problem.
diana faust wrote:
>
> Sharon,
>
> I guess you are trying to keep dissension down but in the process, there has
> been precious little real information surfacing in this group. Maybe YOU
> know what is going on but I sure don't.
>
> 1. Did you ever find out an alternate e-mail address for Mary Westbrook
> Drake?
You are the first one that has mentioned her name. I know no more than I
did when I posted the message.
> Since she probably has more counties than anybody, and we link to
> neighboring counties, it is an item we need to be informed on.
> 2. Did you find out if the cc died? Don't you think we might like to know
> about that?
Again, I announced that to the best of my understanding, Mark Knight had died
and asked if anyone had contact information for the family, and again, you
are the first person who has mentioned the subject.
> 3. You may not need to look into who owns the domain ncgenwebproject.com
> but don't you think you could extend to us the courtesy of letting US know?
> Just because this is our organization and somebody acquired it's name?
That is the same argument that I gave NameZero about ncgenweb.com and net.
But it wasn't enough of an argument to get much results. I didn't know of,
or acquire, the ncgenwebproject.com. I was told something in confidence and
until I have been given permission to disclose who it is, I am not telling
you. Now, I know you aren't happy to hear that, neither was I happy to
hear the same answer from NameZero about ownership of ncgenweb.com and net.
> 4. If you and/or the donor do not want us to know who is paying the $50
> filing fee, then I, for one, do not wish to accept the money. I'm not
> taking about your half which you disclosed, but the other half which has
> remained anonymous.
>
Again, I am more than willing to pay the $25.00 that is half of the filing
fee. On the other hand, no one is made of money and if others want to
contribute, then they/you are welcome to contribute.
>
> By holding information so close to yourself and not allowing it to be public
> in an effort to avoid discussion/dissension, please consider that you may be
> creating a different kind of problem.
>
> I would extend what Sandy said:
>
> >I'm not
> >willing to abandon the democratic process of selecting project
> >leaders and deciding organizational matters in favor of turning
> >things over to whomever happens to purchase a domain name and hold it
> >hostage unless they get to call the shots. ;-)
>
> to include whomever happens to acquire our domain name and hold it
> ANONYMOUSLY or whomever pays our filing fees anonymously without first
> allowing us the opportunity to pay for it. Whether the domain name was
> purchased or acquired for free makes no difference. The stipulation
> attached to this one, not that it has been offered to us, is that it be
> owned anonymously.
>
> If any fees need to be paid, what's wrong with the way it was done on the
> national level, providing everybody the opportunity to participate? What's
> even wrong with ASKING everybody to pay $1.00 per county they manage? Or
> asking for $1 from each cc so that we can all participate? So that we are
> not beholden to some unknown, anonymous somebody? I don't like all this
> undercover, not-in-the-open, anonymous business. I am sure the donor's
> intension were and are good and they are certainly generous but people like
> to feel they are in control of their own organization -- at the very least,
> know who is paying for it. It may have been done this way just for
> simplicity's sake but it was inconsiderate of the rest of us, nevertheless.
>
If we are using the national level as a pattern for behavior, then if you will
notice on the list of pledges, the first few items on the pledge list is
several anonymous pledges. http://home.kscable.com/jschunk/pledge.html
By the way, I do appreciate your form in addressing these issues. Just because
folks don't necessiarly agree on a subject doesn't mean that things have to get
ugly. Thanks.
Sincerely,
Sharon
>
> Diana
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sharon Williamson" <Watauga(a)att.net>
> To: <NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-L(a)rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2001 10:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] Domain issue
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I don't have to look into the http://www.ncgenwebproject.com.
> >
> > I did not know about it ahead of
> > time, but after acquiring that
> > domain name someone let me know
> > that they had done so. >
> > Sharon
I like the idea of having trustees, but I think that we need some bylaws
to define their responsibilities. Also to prevent the concentration of
power in a few individuals' hands, I think that no trustee should hold
any other leadership position in NCGenWeb, such as SC, ASC, or with the
Archives. This also might be the time to appoint a committee or an
individual to work on bylaws.
I agree with Diana that communication from Sharon to the rest of us
could be improved. I don't need to know every little detail, but I think
when another domain name containing the phrase ncgenweb is acquired by a
CC, then all the members should be informed.
I also don't think we should have anonymous donations. If an individual
wants to provide financial assistance, then his or her name should be
known and any conditions associated with that assistance should be stated.
Leah
Stanly Co.
lcsims(a)eskimo.com
Ron Eason wrote:
>
> Also,
> I wanted you to know that I am sending a copy of a letter I sent earlier
> today. It was to NameZero but I sent it before Sharon told us about the
> purchase of the Domain Name. But I wanted everyone to know I had already
> asked in case someone might. If they answer I will let you know.
>
> My quandry in this is, if someone bought this domain name to protect us and
> it is okay to have it pointing at our pages with a big business banner at
> the bottom, why wasn't it okay for Horace to have purchased his and offered
> it. Wasn't it originally pointed at the State page? Why didn't we just
> take his offer and secure the domain name under these trustees and have it
> all done with.
>
First off, the domain, ncgenwebproject.com was not bought. It was acquired
for free through NameZero.
Second of all, it was NOT offered to us with strings attached, as was the
case with ncgenweb.org.
and Third, I don't recall that there was ever a mention of any TRUSTEES until I
brought that up myself, and that has only been recently.
>
> I hope you don't think me ignorant with these questions. But if there are
> plans in the works, then maybe we are a little behind the curve when we
> could have already been ahead by accepting what was previously offered. A
> domain is a domain, no matter who's paying and giving.
>
To my knowledge the only "plans in the works" are whatever current
discussions become formulated as a plan. I made suggestions. I did not
lay out a plan that was already in the workings. It is now for us to
discuss the situation and form any plans among the CCs. Please, let's
don't re-hash the issues of last fall. Frankly, I had forgotten about the
ncgenwebproject.com domain until you reminded me this morning.
>
> Have there been no suggestions on the subject or are they being sent
> privately? There have been exactly 2 posts on the subject sent to the
> DISCUSS list. One by Diana praising Sharon for her efforts and the other by
> Paul outlining his professional opinion about the process. Is there a
> behind the scene process that we are not allowed to know? I don't get it.
> Maybe I am suppose to just shut up and let things happen the way the do, but
> I assumed this was a diplomatic process, that when Sharon asked for input,
> the list would respond with ideas and they would be discussed and decisions
> would be made as a whole by everyone.
>
Frankly, I re-posted to the Read Only list with a post from the only other person
who responded with a negative attitude. In answering some points that I was
asked about I felt others might be wondering the same things, so I posted my
answer along with the original, to the Read Only list. You are the only other
person who has come across with a negative tone. Again, I am trying to make
sure everyone is as informed as they can be. I am re-posting some of these
messages on the Read Only list for that reason. But, just for the record,
since you are fairly new to NCGenWeb, it has been my experience over the years
that "no comment" from the CCs seems to indicate they don't have a problem with
whatever is getting others steamed up. People, for the most part, simply want to
take care of their county sites and not participate in the everyday haggling
that has so often occurred within our little family.
>
> Is this not the way it works?
>
And NO, there is NOT any private communications going on behind the scenes
about this issue as far as I know. At least none that involve myself, I don't
know what others may or may not be posting.
>
> Sorry for so many questions, but I do want to do things right but I also
> believe that everyone has the right to be involved.
And I feel everyone also has the right NOT to be overly involved if they don't
want to be, and they also have a right to a peaceful existance. Life has it's
hard knocks, this is SUPPOSED to be FUN! Let's don't forget to keep it fun!
>
> Thanks,
> Ron
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ron Eason <rkeason(a)tir.com>
> To: <NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-L(a)rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2001 12:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] Domain issue
>
> > Thank You Sharon,
> >
> > Unless we all know what's happening, we are left to just making
> assumptions
> > and I would think that everyone would want to know about things as they
> > happen. I found out about that link accidently when I should have heard
> > about it here if it was done for our benefit.
> >
> > But thank you for letting us know.
> >
> > Ron
> >
> >
Ron,
As far as I am concerned, I believe the state level covers
our bases. As Paul stated the other day, the USGenWeb is
in the process of acquiring registration of the USGenWeb
service mark for itself and for each state, under it's
wing. I haven't seen enough feedback from the CCs yet to
form a plan.
Sharon
Ron Eason wrote:
>
> Sharon,
> I had another question about this.
> Is there a plan to move this to the Federal level? Domains and all?
> Ron
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Sharon Williamson <Watauga(a)att.net>
> To: <NCGENWEB-L(a)rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2001 11:50 AM
> Subject: [NCGENWEB] Re: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] Domain issue
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I don't have to look into the http://www.ncgenwebproject.com.
> >
> > I did not know about it ahead of
> > time, but after acquiring that
> > domain name someone let me know
> > that they had done so. Just for
> > the record, it was not me, or any
> > of the ASCs. It is not a potential
> > problem because this person only
> > wanted to secure that domain name
> > before someone else thought to do
> > so. We have enough pirate sites
> > out there now, and this is not a
> > problem. As you noted, the address
> > is aimed where it should be, our
> > own NCGenWeb Project.
> >
> > Sharon
> >
> > Ron Eason wrote:
> > >
> > > Here is an interesting item.
> > >
> > > Anyone know where this domain came from?
> > > http://www.ncgenwebproject.com/
> > >
> > > It may be just that NameZero purchased the rights to it
> > > and is waiting for someone to purchase it from them, but
> > > in the mean time it is directed to our State page with a
> > > banner at the bottom. Unless someone here purchased it?
> > >
> > > Sharon can you look into this item or appoint someone
> > > to do so. Would appear to be a potential problem.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Ron
> >
> >
> > ==== NCGENWEB Mailing List ====
> > Orphan Counties page, and information for volunteers:
> > http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncgenweb/volunteer.html
> >
> >
Dear Sirs,
I would like to find out who the owner is of the following domain name.
ncgenwebproject.com
It is directed to a Project I am a member of, yet it's purchase was not
approved by anyone in our Project. Your assistance in this matter
would be greatly appreciated.
Thank You,
Ron Eason, CC
NCGenWeb Project
Sharon,
I had another question about this.
Is there a plan to move this to the Federal level? Domains and all?
Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: Sharon Williamson <Watauga(a)att.net>
To: <NCGENWEB-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2001 11:50 AM
Subject: [NCGENWEB] Re: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] Domain issue
> Hi,
>
> I don't have to look into the http://www.ncgenwebproject.com.
>
> I did not know about it ahead of
> time, but after acquiring that
> domain name someone let me know
> that they had done so. Just for
> the record, it was not me, or any
> of the ASCs. It is not a potential
> problem because this person only
> wanted to secure that domain name
> before someone else thought to do
> so. We have enough pirate sites
> out there now, and this is not a
> problem. As you noted, the address
> is aimed where it should be, our
> own NCGenWeb Project.
>
> Sharon
>
> Ron Eason wrote:
> >
> > Here is an interesting item.
> >
> > Anyone know where this domain came from?
> > http://www.ncgenwebproject.com/
> >
> > It may be just that NameZero purchased the rights to it
> > and is waiting for someone to purchase it from them, but
> > in the mean time it is directed to our State page with a
> > banner at the bottom. Unless someone here purchased it?
> >
> > Sharon can you look into this item or appoint someone
> > to do so. Would appear to be a potential problem.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ron
>
>
> ==== NCGENWEB Mailing List ====
> Orphan Counties page, and information for volunteers:
> http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncgenweb/volunteer.html
>
>
At 4:08 PM -0500 02/03/01, Ron Eason wrote:
>why wasn't it okay for Horace to have purchased his and offered
>it. Wasn't it originally pointed at the State page? Why didn't we just
>take his offer and secure the domain name under these trustees and have it
>all done with.
Ron,
I believe at the time, Horace's "offer" of the domain stipulated that
the project membership agree to certain personal "conditions" he set
forth regarding our project's organization.
Either the project agreed to do things Horace's way, or he wouldn't
"give" the project the domain.
The membership did not agree, and Horace's reaction would seem to
speak for itself.
I would not presume to speak for anyone else, but personally I'm not
willing to abandon the democratic process of selecting project
leaders and deciding organizational matters in favor of turning
things over to whomever happens to purchase a domain name and hold it
hostage unless they get to call the shots. ;-)
-Sandy
>
Thank You Sharon,
Unless we all know what's happening, we are left to just making assumptions
and I would think that everyone would want to know about things as they
happen. I found out about that link accidently when I should have heard
about it here if it was done for our benefit.
But thank you for letting us know.
Ron
Here is an interesting item.
Anyone know where this domain came from?
http://www.ncgenwebproject.com/
It may be just that NameZero purchased the rights to it
and is waiting for someone to purchase it from them, but
in the mean time it is directed to our State page with a
banner at the bottom. Unless someone here purchased it?
Sharon can you look into this item or appoint someone
to do so. Would appear to be a potential problem.
Thanks,
Ron
As I said, this will cover the Project only within the confines of NC and
anyone operating outside the borders of NC are well within their rights to
do so without the Federal Mark. <see below>
Ron
This is from the NC Secretary of State page at:
http://www.secretary.state.nc.us/trademrk/tmfaq.htm#faq1
****
Does registration with your Department prevent others from registering the
same or similar mark in other states?
"No. Registration of your mark in our office only applies to the state of
North Carolina. You should consult with a trademark attorney to determine
whether additional state and/or federal registrations are needed."
****
What do the designations "TM" and "SM" mean?
"These designations indicate that a person claims rights in a trademark or
service mark. They do not mean that a mark has been registered in this
Department. A person or entity that claims ownership rights in a trademark
or service mark may place these designations next to it even though the mark
is not registered."
Greetings Ron and List,
I think we all can agree that the establishment of organizations on the internet with no physical address has all the federal, state, and local government bodies scrambling for ways to assure compliance with their laws and assure payment of applicable taxes and license fees. The FBI, IRS, and individual states have special monitoring units whose sole purpose is to identify folk violating laws on the internet.
I currently operate two businesses from my home. One is entirely a web based business that I am required to pay an annual Charlotte city fee, a Mecklenburg County fee, and a Zoning fee! And I honestly don't know where my host server is located! The business is exempt from state license fees because it sells services rather than hard goods. (Not all services are exempt) Incidentally, the business is a sole proprietorship.
My understanding is that the laws apply to all for profit and non profit organizations. And in Mecklenburg county, the rules specifically apply to clubs and associations. Technically, registration of the NCGenWeb Mecklenburg page with the Register of Deeds Office is required. And I'll bet that if each of us checks with our county regulations, the same will apply.
As genealogists, we are well aware that property claims are legally substantiated by precedent - "squatters rights". Hence, legal registrations, while required, are often "de-facto".
Now, the whole matter of us (NCGenWeb) becoming a legal entity arose due to a few recalcitrant members who left to form a competing organization. Right or wrong some competing organizations have usurped our name and are misleading, perhaps fraudulently, visitors to our project. It seems that prudent action to protect our hard work is to comply with applicable laws as Sharon has started. Guidelines for establishing organizations are posted on the NC Secretary of the State web page.
My opinion of steps to solidify the NCGenWeb project as a "legal entity" should be to obtain an EIN, register the association name with the NC Secretary of the State, and make appropriate filings with each county. US trademark/servicemark registration may not be necessary as we are a part of the USGenWeb project that should have its own national filing.
Sharon has proposed another aspect that I particularly support and for which she has asked for opinion. The notion of appointing "trustees" to oversee the legal and financial matters of our project is appealing. Especially if the trustees are independent of us cc's.
Finally, domain name registration does not in itself guarantee ownership of an organization name in the United States. Our laws protect us from trademark, servicemark, copyright, and patent infringement regardless of ICANN rules. Persons registering domain names that they do not own are subject to civil and criminal prosecution.
Regards,
Paul Buckley, Mecklenburg CC
Just an observation.
Currently there is, in the process, the Archives Project still waiting on
approval of their filing for "USGenWeb Archives". This action in and
of itself will complicate, albeit not deny the USGW Project from filing
for the Mark for "USGenWeb". If and when this act is completed,
they would have full rights to the use of that phrase in other names.
If the current filing being discussed here is being done in NC, will this
only cover the Project within the boundaries of the State of NC? I
would assume if you were wanting to file for an actual Service Mark
or Trade Mark you would need to go through the same process at
the Federal level in order to cover the name outside of NC. Which
the cost is currently at about $350.00. This may be a different process
and may be something worth investigating before wasting money on
something that will do nothing to affect the larger scheme.
Also, it is my understanding that when the process is completed for the
USGW Project, that all State XXGenWebs will get authorization of
use of the National TM.
I presume the whole purpose of this is to disallow anyone else the use
of the NCGenWeb phrase. However, without the Federal Mark being
received, I don't think a local filing will amount to much in the way of
determent. Not everyone lives within NC.
After having read the application for the SS-4 document, I don't think
it was a necessary filing. Since this Project is not a registered
Organization
with any State or Local entity, there is no requirement to file that form.
It may have been the translation given of what we are, but not even the
National Project, of which NC is only an affiliate of, is a legally
registered
Organization with any State or Local Agency. It's just like filing for a
Corporation, which you obviously are against for strange reasons, when
setting up a club or Association, it is suppose to be registered with some
governing agency which it is not. If it was, then there would be a need
for the EIN #, which is what you filed for. But I think the cart is getting
way before the horse.
What's done is done, but I think you may want to get some facts together
and decide that if your attempt is to protect our precious name, then there
are things that need to happen in a logical order and so far, it's out of
step.
I also realize that there was a vote to NOT incorporate. Why, I don't know,
but there is no better way to protect the NCGW. And not securing those
domain names may not have been a good thing either. It would have cost
nothing as I understand. Oh, unless it was tied to the Inc. idea. So there
may be some misconceptions about Inc'ing that should be corrected.
It has gotten a bad rap, but there are those that are just not comfortable
with too much progress too soon.
Fortunately there are good solid ways to get good solid results and there
are "Band-Aid" tactics that will merely cover the situation for a short
period.
In the end, there will be those that will wish they had just gone ahead and
done the right thing in the first place.
It is sort of like a builder. You can pay X amount of money for someone to
build a particular house and in the beginning you will be real proud that
you saved so much by using cheaper materials and you will be convinced that
you showed everyone that you could do it regardless of what they said. In
the end you will find that the cheaper materials end up costing you twice
and three times as much because it is far more expensive to have to redo the
process than not having done it right in the first place.
I am not, by any means, casting dispersions upon the actions taken so far,
but input was asked for, and it is my two cents that there is much more that
will be required to do the job right than what has been proposed so far. It
would be more prudent to put together a team to find out everything that
should and can be done and figure out what it will take, and just do it
right, ONCE, and be done with it. Yes, that will take more than a couple of
days and those people can report their findings and make suggestions and the
group can vote on what is best. But that is just my idea.
I'm sure there are others and I hope to see them here.
Thanks,
Ron