BOARD-L Archives

Archiver > BOARD > 2006-10 > 1159717128


From: "Mike Peterson" <>
Subject: Re: [BOARD] Motion 06-18
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 08:38:48 -0700
References: <200609300100.k8U10tNR018079@ms-smtp-01.tampabay.rr.com><025b01c6e43f$6e429e10$7301a8c0@scott><003701c6e447$f9b9c470$6101a8c0@Mother><029f01c6e449$e4af7f50$7301a8c0@scott><004401c6e44b$f4d0e9d0$6101a8c0@Mother><02e501c6e44f$225b5cc0$7301a8c0@scott><005301c6e453$58741960$6101a8c0@Mother> <035e01c6e454$3ca01df0$7301a8c0@scott><007301c6e457$a15640f0$6101a8c0@Mother><451EC402.5060306@tatumtel.net><009101c6e4c9$3ac9c920$6101a8c0@Mother><072c01c6e4d2$c60c7c90$7301a8c0@scott><00da01c6e4f5$2bd07500$6101a8c0@Mother><080601c6e500$a71f87e0$7301a8c0@scott><011901c6e501$c41e35c0$6101a8c0@Mother><083901c6e504$ac9f51b0$7301a8c0@scott><018101c6e517$f785fe00$6101a8c0@Mother><009901c6e51a$bcff5bc0$7168fd18@lv.cox.net><019601c6e51e$0f2e7400$6101a8c0@Mother>


Thank you Paul. I understand your concern as well as those of others but I have as yet seen where this motion violates, contradicts, adds to, deletes from, or changes any current bylaws. There is nothing we can put in place which will prevent anyone from doing what they pretty much please no more so than homicide laws prevent homicides. What we can do as you have well documented is have in place the necessity for authorities and if one chooses to violate them, then that would be for follow on concerns and actions. We could write a motion with two pages of conditions, examples, samples, etc. and we still wouldn't have every scenario covered and that really isn't the intent. I see this motion as merely setting a process within the organization to respond to those who wish to abide by laws and bylaws and when in doubt seek approval to use the logo.
Sincerely,
Mike

Mike Peterson
USGenWeb Representative At Large
www.mpeterson.us/5/
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul D. Buckley
To:
Sent: 30 September, 2006 10:54 pm
Subject: Re: [BOARD] Motion 06-18


Mike,

Actually there are several, two follow:

Foremost is as stated on the Chat board: "ARTICLE VI: DUTIES/QUALIFICATIONS
OF ADVISORY BOARD, Section 2. The National Coordinator is responsible for
the day-to-day administration of The USGenWeb Project and serves as the
public representative for the project."

Another is: "ARTICLE I. NAME The name of this organization shall be "The
USGenWeb Project." The name, "The USGenWeb Project," and "The XXGenWeb
Project" (where XX is the two-letter postal code abbreviation for each
state) are service marks and reserved exclusively for The USGenWeb Project
and any websites representing The USGenWeb Project."

Paul,
SEMA SC Rep.





----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Peterson" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 1:30 AM
Subject: Re: [BOARD] Motion 06-18


> Paul,
> Could you please indicate which bylaw article concerns you relative to
> this motion?
> Sincerely,
> Mike
> "AB authority issuance in this motion begs the questions of bylaw
> restrictions and servicemark laws."
>
> Mike Peterson
> USGenWeb Representative At Large
> www.mpeterson.us/5/
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul D. Buckley
> To:
> Sent: 30 September, 2006 10:10 pm
> Subject: Re: [BOARD] Motion 06-18
>
>
> Fellow members,
>
> As I recall, the reasons why we trademarked our project name and logo a
> few
> years ago, were to prevent the very problem that this motion addresses.
> At
> that time, we sought protection and prevention from anyone inside or
> outside
> our project using our logo for any reason.
>
> Precipitating our concerns at the time were from recalcitrant and
> disenfranchised members, not from outside sources.
>
> The protection was gained by registration with the U.S. Patent Office as
> previously noted. And, Trademark protection has mixed blessings for our
> initial purpose in that nobody can make a legal claim to sponsorship or
> membership in our organization without explicit permission. But, anyone
> make
> reference to our organization in any media as long as they display our
> logo
> with appropriate copyright, servicemark, etc. indication by symbol or
> wording.
>
> Currently proposed is to make an exception to the original servicemark
> intent by allowing the NC discretionary authority to grant logo usage
> permission to "non-profits." Concerns arise as to AB jurisdiction and
> the
> nature of "non-profits".
>
> AB authority issuance in this motion begs the questions of bylaw
> restrictions and servicemark laws.
>
> "Non-profits" include a myriad of organizations, most having absolutely
> nothing to do with genealogy. Many associations are organized under
> section
> 501(C-6) and legitimately promote parodies, satire, or other activities
> that
> I don't believe our members desire to participate in or associate with.
>
> Years back and before the registration of the USGenWeb servicemark, North
> Carolina had a disgruntled member set up a comic porno web page with the
> name NCGenWeb.org and under his 501(C) organization, where he prominently
> displayed the NCGenWeb and USGenWeb Logos. We had no redress.
>
> Regardless of the honorable intentions of an incumbent NC, the questions
> addressed a few years ago seemingly apply to the current motion.
>
> Am curious also, if the NC would advise the board as to who made the use
> request that precipitated his call for this motion?
>
> Paul,
> SEMA SC Rep.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Burow" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 10:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [BOARD] Motion 06-18
>
>
> > My pardon, Paul, I read your statement to mean that you were
> withdrawing
> > your objection and were calling a point of order. I was asking for
> your
> > point of order.
> >
> > To refresh our situation:
> >
> > Unless there is an objection raised by a board member, Motion 06-18
> shall
> > read:
> >
> > Motion 06-18: "I move that the National Coordinator have the authority
> to
> > approve use of the USGenWeb logo by non-profits in their written
> materials
> > or publications with the provision that he solicit input from the
> Advisory
> > Board before making a final decision."
> >
> > The Board may continue to discuss or indicate that they have no further
> > discussion the motion. Any objections to general consent to the
> amendment
> > as indicated should be made known at this time.
> >
> > Scott
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Paul D. Buckley" <>
> > To: <>
> > Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 9:31 PM
> > Subject: Re: [BOARD] Motion 06-18
> >
> >
> >> Scott,
> >>
> >> Am totally frustrated with this dialog. I have withdrawn my objection
> >> and
> >> I
> >> have withdrawn my call for a point of order.
> >>
> >> Now, could the chair please affirm that the discussion of motion 06-18
> is
> >> in
> >> order?
> >>
> >> Paul,
> >> SEMA SC Rep.
> >>
> >
> > USGenWeb Project information can be found at: http://www.usgenweb.com
> > -------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes
> > in the subject and the body of the message
>
> USGenWeb Project information can be found at: http://www.usgenweb.com
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
> in the subject and the body of the message
> USGenWeb Project information can be found at: http://www.usgenweb.com
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
> in the subject and the body of the message

USGenWeb Project information can be found at: http://www.usgenweb.com
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

This thread: