I concur with Andy that a legal FAQ that outlines the intent of, need for and legal scope of PSC Motion #6 (rev. 3) should be prepared and made available to our members on a timely basis. Dave and Chris, will you do this? As I previously indicated to Dave, I devoted a few days last week nearly totally to the ARES trademark and property issue. Kentucky was particularly a hot bed of negative response to the Board action. Ohio came in second and Michigan was a somewhat active third. The issue is not so much related to the trademark, but rather to the property issue. The major concern is that anything that comes to the attention of local ARES managers will be open game for ARRL to come in and confiscate. I answered the questions of many members. Some seem to be totally satisfied; others indicate they would like to have a legal opinion (from Chris) on the extent to which materials held or owned by ARES will be potentially vulnerable to disclosure and/or confiscation by the League. A few remain totally skeptical. For your information, the following are representative questions and positions submitted to me on this subject, as well as replies I have given. My answers were all phrased as being my understanding and opinion. GENERAL INTERPRETATION AND QUESTIONS BY COMMENTING MEMBERS OF BOARD ACTION: The wording sounds like ARRL is in complete control and carrying a big stick! It places a bad taste in members and non-members alike. I questioned the need for the comment after all of these years in running the ARES program, why make it at this time? There should have been an explanation as to why it was put out. MY ANSWER: The action represents nothing new, but merely states the facts as they have existed for many years. The League has been careless in protecting the ARES trade mark over these years and we just recently realized others could lay claim to the mark because we have failed to protect it as legally required. Anyone who is able to take the mark from us could apply it to any sort of activity including those that are anti-ARRL, anti-Amateur Radio or simply detrimental to us. QUESTION: WE HAVE A VAN WITH AN ARES LOGO ON IT. DO WE NEED TO RUN OUT AND CHANGE THE LOGOS RIGHT AWAY? ANSWER: I don't believe it is necessary to make an immediate change; however, as the opportunity arises, the trademark symbol should be added. QUESTION: ARE VEHICLES, FILE CABINETS AND OTHER PIECES OF EQUIPMENT WITH ARES LOGOS ON THEM SUBJECT TO BEING CONFISCATED? ANSWER: No. ARRL is not interested in taking anything such as these. Even in very unusual situations of impropriety, all that would be needed would be to remove the ARES logo rather than give the truck up. QUESTION: MY ARES ROSTER CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT WAS GIVEN ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WOULD NOT BE REVEALED TO OUTSIDE PEOPLE. WHAT HAPPENS WITH IT? ANSWER: The actual interest in the ownership rights to rosters and other ARES-owned documents is to ensure they will be passed on to successors in the organization in case, for example, an EC becomes unhappy with the group, walks away from it and take the records with him. The notice that these records belong to ARES (an ARRL organization) and through it by ARRL Is to help prevent this from happening. If concern still exists, truly confidential information on members can be protected from disclosure. QUESTION: WE HAVE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION FROM A CHEMICAL PLANT THAT WAS GIVEN TO US TO HELP PREPARE COMMUNICATIONS PLANS FOR DISASTERS THAT HIT THE AREA. WE DON'T THINK ARRL HAS A RIGHT TO TAKE THIS INFORMATION. ANSWER: Much as above with the addition - Information that remains the property of a served organization, but is on loan for planning purposes to an ARES unity is not ARES property. It should be treated as such by the ARES unity. QUESTION: MANY ARES ORGANIZATIONS ARE COMBINATION ARES/RACES ORGNIZATIONS. ARE NOT THE MEMERS NAMES (IN THESE INSTANCES) PROTECTED BY THE FEDERAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY ACT SINCE FEMA IS A FEDERAL AGENCY? ANSWER: Don't know, but will find out. QUESTION: SOME GROUPS AND CLUBS HAVE DEVELOPED THEIR OWN LOGOS BASED ON THE ARES LOGO DESIGN. ARE THESE ANY PROBLEM. ANSWER: If the ARES logo is used within another logo it will need to have the trade mark symbol added in due time. QUESTION: IN THE 1ST DISTRICT, WE HAVE SEVERAL ARES/SKYWARN PROTOCOLS AND SOP'S WHICH IN MY OPINION ARE THE PROPERTY OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO CREATED THEM, AND FOR THEM TO RELEASED TO ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP YOU WOULD NEED TO GET PERMISSION FROM THE AUTHORS. UNDER THE LEAGUE'S POLICY, AS WRITTEN AND WITHOUT CLARIFICATION, WE COULD BE COMPELLED TO RELEASE CONTROL OF THESE DOCUMENTS TO THE LEAGUE AND THEY CAN THEN DO AS THEY PLEASE, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THEM. BY THE WAY, A FRIEND OF MINE IS AN ASSISTANT US ATTORNEY AND HE UNOFFICIALLY AGREES WITH THIS INTERPRETATION. ANSWER: This is another one I didn't answer. From my experience I have to say that the above interpretation would be fairly accurate if there was an employer-employee relationship. I don't know about situations that apply regarding volunteers such as in ARES. As you see, the concern really is over who has ownership of property and of what property is covered. 73, Jim Weaver, K8JE Director, Great Lakes Division ARRL 5065 Bethany Rd., Mason, OH 45040 Tel.: 513-459-0142; E-mail: k8je@arrl.org ARRL: The reason Amateur Radio Is! MEMBERS: The reason ARRL Is!