An ILL contract terms clearning house?

[Ann Okerson <ann.okerson@yale.edu>]

Carole and liblicense-l readers:

The LIBLICENSE site would be happy to host such a list of ILL provisions.
In order to do so, we would need a couple of people (i.e., a small
editorial board) who would agree to the means of delivering the
information (by publisher, vendor, title, whatever); define the categories
of permissions;  and who would agree to serve as recruiters and contact
points for such information from the authoritative sources.

If anyone is willing to take a ringleader role in such a cooperative
venture, please send me a note (Ann.Okerson@yale.edu).

This seems too good an idea to pass up without at least some exploration!

On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Carole Richter wrote:

> David,
> 
> I think asking people to publish their contracts publicly *could* indeed
> lead to a lot of frantic arm waving, but I'm really only suggesting that
> ILL terms be shared. Even though they may not be absolutely consistent, it
> seems reasonable enough that they should be. I can't imagine that the ILL
> conditions would ordinarily be thought to provide special negotiated
> benefits. On the other hand, the publisher terms and conditions might
> change, and it would be useful to have an up to date site where the
> current terms/restrictions are posted. They are difficult enough to track
> individually that it might be helpful to everyone if there were a
> clearinghouse of ILL practices from vendor to vendor. We could even
> fantasize that such a central site of posted understandings might
> encourage vendors to emulate some of the better terms.
> 
> Carole Richter, Notre Dame University