With this post, I’m hopeful to clarify the different types of syndication and how IDX is different from all types of syndication.  Here are my definitions:

• Broker Syndication — Where the broker chooses (opts in) to send their listings (and only their listings) to a third-party listing advertising portal.  MLSs can and do provide tools such as ListHub or Point2 to help brokers syndicate but that is to be distinguished from MLS Syndication.

• MLS Syndication — Where the MLS syndicates a feed of all listings (other than those opted out of the feed by brokers) direct to a third-party listing advertising portal.   As indicated by the bolded terms opt-in and opt-out, MLS Syndication is different than Broker Syndication in that MLS Syndication sends all listings by default unless the broker chooses not to send them (opts out) whereas Broker Syndication is an opt-in approach.  (Theoretically, an MLS could syndicate the entire active listing database to a third-party portal with no ability to opt-out, but I’m not aware of any MLS doing that and so have limited the definition of MLS syndication to an opt-out broker choice.) This distinction between opt-out and opt-in broker choice (and, therefore, between Broker and MLS syndication) is very important, because opt-in (Broker Syndication) will significantly reduce the number of listings being sent to any one third-party portal whereas opt-out (MLS Syndication) will result in more listings being sent to the third-party portal.

• IDX — Where brokers (MLS Participants) agree with each other to share listings for display on their respective web sites.  The primary distinction between IDX and syndication (both MLS and Broker) is that IDX does not involve display of the listing on a third party portal.  Instead, the web sites involved are the broker’s or their agent’s own sites and the IDX policy is the terms on which they agree to share listings on their web sites.  IDX policies actually come in two flavors as well, opt-in and opt-out, but the primary difference between syndication and IDX is not whether the broker is opted-in or out but rather the destination site and who controls the rules for display on that site.  With syndication, the third party web site dictates the terms and with IDX the terms of display are dictated by the IDX policy.

• VOW — Another important MLS policy that applies here is for Virtual Office Websites or VOWs.  I know there are all kinds of legal documents (e.g., the DOJ/NAR settlement) defining a VOW but, for purposes of this post, I’m simply going to say that a VOW is a web site that is like the brokers real office in that it has a front-door and requires the consumer to identify him or her self before getting service.  If the consumer identifies him or her self (by signing in and agreeing to the terms of use), the broker can disclose MLS information to the customer on the VOW web site just as they could if they walked in the front door of their office.  VOWs are very different from IDX in that basically the entire MLS database (with some limited exceptions) is involved, just as it is in their physical office.

From the above definitions, there are two major distinctions among the terms:

1. Who controls the terms of use for the listing information (third party portal or the broker or agent); and
2. The extent to which the aggregate of MLS data is involved versus just the listings of one broker.

These two themes impact each other, because the more the aggregate MLS data is involved (as opposed to just the listings of one broker), the more important is agreement (terms of use) among the brokers regarding how the aggregate listing information is displayed and used.  Applying these two distinctions, we can more easily see the gradations between Broker Syndication, MLS Syndication, IDX, VOWs and even MLS consumer portals or other listing portals.

Syndication involves sending listings to third-party sites, which typically dictate the terms of use (how the listing information is displayed, how the listing broker is displayed, what ads can be sold around the content, etc.).  In contrast, the terms of use for IDX, VOWs, and MLS portals are defined by the brokers through the MLS.  This fundamental difference (who determines the terms of use) is why a decision by a broker or the MLS not to syndicate does not inexorably lead to a decision not to participate in IDX.

Of course, the lines of distinction I’ve drawn above are not hard and fast as demonstrated recently by Sandicor’s attempt to influence the terms of use on third-party web sites.  Will the new rules from Sandicor change the terms of use of the third-party portals and require more prominent display of the listing broker?  If so, this could create an entirely new way of forging agreements for syndication that could allow broader use of the MLS aggregation.

Similarly, Zillow’s purchase of Diverse Solutions (an IDX provider) poses the potential to blur some of the lines between syndication and IDX.  Also, the creation of the Real Estate Network syndication channels for major franchises and independent brokerages creates the potential to aggregate listing data via syndication outside of the MLS.  Again, however, the key issue here is who controls the terms of use.  To achieve critical mass with any of these approaches requires the terms of use to balance the competing interests of the brokers as accomplished with IDX and VOWs.   And, even there, we know from recent controversies over IDX that the balance of competing interests is fragile and requires constant evaluation to ensure the balance is maintained so the MLS aggregation can be used properly.  This is what MLS organizations do well, create cooperation among competing brokers, and why MLSs and the IDX and VOW policies created through that cooperative process will continue to survive regardless of what happens with the syndication debate.

What to make of all this debate? First, there’s not much new here. Brokers are competitors and will make independent decisions about where to advertise their listings. This is called syndication and it’s been happening since the beginning of real estate brokerage. Historically, the syndication channels were newspapers, home magazines, flyers, signs, etc. Now we have the web and sites like Zillow and Trulia. So, this debate is nothing new.

Brokers will continue to decide how they can gain a competitive advantage for their listings. Some brokers only want their listings on their own web site or their franchise web site. Other brokers find value in Zillow or Trulia or Realtor.com. Others yet post to Craigslist and dozens of other sites, on the theory that more is better. In my view, here’s the rub:

On its own, syndication (the decisions of individual competing brokers) will never result in a critical mass of listings on any one site, because competitors will naturally choose different destinations to distinguish themselves.

This is what distinguishes syndication from the MLS. Almost five years ago, I wrote about how the MLS is more than technology. In that post, I wrote:

The representative decision-making process of the MLS is what allows for the broad cooperation necessary to create critical mass in terms of data sharing. Without this, I believe we’ll simply have a mishmash of data strewn here and there, with no possibility of a national repository or any other useful portal. The MLS embraces the duality of competition and cooperation, and strikes a limited balance that enables critical mass to be established. This feat should not be underestimated.

Five years later, that post proved prescient, because, indeed, what we have today is a mishmash of data strewn here and there. The only site that has anywhere near a complete data set is Realtor.com, because they were successful in working directly with the MLS organizations that have worked so hard to encourage cooperation among the brokers.

Importantly, however, the necessary cooperation will never be the strength of syndication channels (Zillow, Trulia, etc.), because they make most of their money by selling ads to brokers and agents on top of the listing data, which is inherently non-cooperative. In fact, this practice of selling ads on top of the listings to competing brokers really irks the listing brokers and results in claims of “coming to dinner with just a fork” and, ultimately, “we need to take back our data!”

But let’s stop and evaluate that last call to action, “we need to take back our data.” Where I think those who advocate against syndication go wrong is in using the terms “we” and “our.” In the competitive landscape of real estate brokerages, the only “we” and “our” is the MLS but the MLS is not a syndicator. By definition, syndication is the decision of an individual broker for their listings alone, and has nothing to do with the cooperative aggregation of listing data in the MLS. As suggested above, some brokers will decide to syndicate, others won’t, and the market ultimately will decide who has made the best decisions. This is as it should be.

The tougher issues arise, however, when brokers extend these same arguments to the MLS aggregation. In this regard, those arguing against “MLS” syndication are right. The MLS should not send the MLS aggregation to any advertising site, because the business models of those sites conflicts with the cooperative model of the MLS. As I wrote five years ago, the value of the MLS is in creating that fragile cooperation that allows for the aggregation. What we’re now seeing is that the fragile balance of cooperation will not stand for the MLS sending the aggregate data to any advertising site.

Instead, the MLS should continue to foster the IDX and VOW policies that have been successful so far and modernize them with stronger terms of use designed to make it clear to brokers that their data will only be used by home buyers and sellers for their personal home buying and selling decisions. Such a foundation will not only preserve but strengthen IDX and VOWs, and help brokers and agents extend the collective MLS data to their customers on the web, mobile devices and whatever new technology comes down the pipe next.

In addition to moving the new mobile project out of beta, we’ve added some new features as well, including an enhanced full-screen photo tour, auto-loading of listings and photos as you scroll or swipe, ability for consumers to take notes on listings, and uploading of photos by the listing agent.

Mobile, in all its forms, continues to be a primary focus for FBS and we expect to continuously add functionality to this new platform.

In response, several of the largest real estate franchises (C21, RE/MAX, Coldwell Banker, Realty Executives) recently announced a major new initiative with Move, Inc. and its Listhub syndication subsidiary to streamline that syndication. The new syndication network is called the Real Estate Network (REN) and is described as follows in the press release:

With the launch of REN, the 376 MLSs and 43,000 brokerage firms currently distributing listings through ListHub may now choose to send their listings to one or more sites within the network with one easy click. Participating brokers and MLSs retain full control over where their listings are and are not syndicated to within the network. One set of standardized, industry-friendly rules will govern the display of listings on publisher websites in the network, and can be found at: http://www.listhub.net/networkrules.html. Franchisors themselves will also participate in the network, displaying each other’s listing inventory on their websites.

I’m still processing what this new syndication network means for MLSs but I think two key points are made in the last two sentences in the quote above.

Starting with the last first, it sounds like the network will facilitate direct franchise to franchise syndication, bypassing the MLS. That seems pretty significant.

Update: I chatted with Rob Reed from Listhub at Inman Connect and he said there is no franchise-franchise syndication, rather the syndicated data is coming from the MLS systems and each franchise site is another syndication destination from the MLS according to the discretion of the listing broker.

Second, the rules are now being established by the license agreements that are part of this syndication network, not NAR and not the MLS. That, too, seems pretty significant.

The billion dollar question, of course, is whether the initiative already has or will achieve critical mass of participation from additional franchises and independent brokerages.

Victor Lund over at the WAV Group blog has some great quotes of various reactions to this new initiative. I’m interested to hear your reaction to this new initiative. Please comment below.

Data Standards: Building the Momentum

Standards are finally gaining steam. RESO, CMLS and a group of industry visionaries are charging hard. This workshop will lay out a path for accelerated progress in 2012.

Rebecca and I hope to engage the audience on a variety of questions, including what new innovations (products, processes, cost savings) will be possible with data standards implemented across MLSs. We’ll be pitching in our own thoughts but mostly hope to get a conversation going.

We’re now well past the point of realizing why data standards are important and now is the time to lay down some concrete ideas for what new innovations might occur as data standards are implemented. Please join us for the discussion and bring your ideas!

Also, something we were not expecting is coming up. We are starting to get  inquiries from agents and brokers that are Diverse Solutions and Zillow customers wondering if we can take THEIR listings from the IDX feed we maintain for them and syndicate them to Zillow.com.  The benefit to them is that their listings would be 100% up to date at all times and they won’t have to do anything to maintain their listings.

Since we are receiving these requests we would like to know if this syndication would be allowed.

Of course, this move by Zillow isn’t surprising and likely was a key motive behind the Diverse acquisition.  I’m curious if other MLSs have received a similar approach from Zillow and, if so, whether your MLS is allowing the syndication.

Update: Zillow CEO Spencer Rascoff addresses this topic on his own blog.

• Treating social media sites separately from other participant web sites (leaving the existing IDX policy alone); and
• Prohibiting use of IDX data in RSS feeds.

Basically, with respect to these two issues, CMLS’s position appears to be that the IDX policy is working, so please leave well enough alone.  Perhaps following a rumor that the Realty Alliance brokers are planning to form their own MLS, CMLS also warns that, with regard to allowing IDX on social media sites, “Some MLSs fear a mass exodus by brokers if they are offered only the all inclusive IDX- Yes or No choice.”

I completely agree with CMLS’s primary point that the stakes are high here and messing with a successful program like IDX is dangerous business.  As Jay Thompson said last summer at Inman SF, without IDX he is likely out of business as a broker and I suspect many other brokers feel the same way.  Yet, several of these thorny issues continue to dog the IDX policy, because the world just keeps on changing and that leaves questions about what the current policy means.

In this case, everyone is wondering whether “participant’s web site” in the IDX policy includes the broker’s branding page on  Facebook, Twitter or other social media web sites and whether the accepted practice of providing updates via email can be extended to RSS under the current policy.  Unfortunately, the current policy just isn’t clear on these issues, likely because these technologies hadn’t yet been applied to IDX when the current policy language was drafted.

One of the primary points I want to make with this post is that I don’t see RSS or even the social media issue as a big deal. FBS doesn’t provide RSS updates with our IDX solution (largely because of this controversy) and I certainly don’t think the world will end if RSS is not allowed for IDX.  Frankly, this issue may well be a tempest in a teapot and evidence of how slow the IDX policy discussion is, because many argue that RSS as a consumer technology is dead.

Leaving the irony of this aside, the main point here is that the industry needs IDX (as Jay Thompson so well said) and the industry needs an approach to IDX that responds to technological innovations without so much angst.  Importantly, this is not a debate of those “for” innovation and those “against”.  Proof of this is that there is no debate about whether IDX data should be allowed for use in mobile applications, even those that most definitely are not “web sites” as defined under the current IDX policy.  In other words, everyone understands that mobile applications are critical today, and so no one is debating this issue, even though there many mobile applications allow for sharing on Facebook, Twitter, etc.  Oh, goodness, do you see the tangled webs we weave when we don’t have a firm foundation or understanding of what we’re doing with IDX that allows for change?

As I suggested in my previous post on this topic, I believe the solution here is to focus more on the terms of the license agreements being accepted under IDX, all the way from the MLS, through the broker and agent, and to the consumer.  Central to those license agreements is the condition that the data only be used by consumers for their personal home buying and selling research, which I understand as the core purpose for IDX.  In other words, IDX does not allow others to re-purpose the data for any reason, even if they are just providing it to consumers.  There are no middle-men allowed here (like franchises), the last license relationship is direct from the broker and agent to the consumer and the consumer can only use the data for their own personal research.

This is directly relevant to the RSS issue, which CMLS (quoting MLSListings CEO Jim Harrison) and others have argued is risky because:

RSS technology opens the door for savvy users or websites to essentially export any IDX data; aggregate, store, and manipulate that data without any consent from the broker or MLS. In the hands of technology providers unaccountable to IDX data policies, the persons or entities receiving the data have no obligation to present or use the content in a manner defined by the policies. Without this agreement, the MLS cannot assert any governance or corrections. Any abuse or other use will have to be suffered in silence.

I’m confused by this argument, because I know there are web sites that provide RSS updates with license agreements clearly required.

A very prominent example is the New York Times, which has an entire page dedicated to the many RSS feeds they offer.  Prominently displayed at the end of that page are the terms and conditions for use of the Times’ RSS feeds:

This is very similar to what many IDX sites also do.  For example, here’s the disclaimer/terms text from an MLSListings IDX site:

The listing information marked with Internet Data Exchange icon (a stylized house inside a circle) comes in part from the Internet Data Exchange program of the MLSListings(TM) MLS.

The broker providing this data believes the data to be correct, but advises interested parties to confirm all information before relying on it for a purchase decision.

The information being provided is for consumers’ personal, non-commercial use and may not be used for any purpose other than to identify prospective properties consumers may be interested in purchasing.
© 2011 MLSListings. All rights reserved.

This is a good statement but I would love to see a link to a more detailed Terms of Use agreement, like the one provided by the Times, which has much clearer language about the terms being binding on the consumer, the right of the Times to discontinue providing the service, non-allowed uses, display requirements, and much more.  (The need for this agreement for the broker-agent/consumer relationship is made all the more obvious by the recent acquisition of IDX vendor Diverse Solutions by Zillow.)

I do not provide the above example from the New York Times in defense of allowing IDX updates to consumers via RSS, because, as I mentioned, RSS in itself is a relatively minor issue.  Instead, I provide the above example as a demonstration of the proper foundation for licensing data for consumer use on the web today.  (Notice, too, how the Times only provides limited info in their RSS feed, which I’ve also argued is a good idea for certain IDX purposes.)  This approach provides the MLS, brokers, agents and consumers (all the parties to the IDX relationship) with a clear understanding of what is being licensed (allowed) and what isn’t.  As I asked in my last post, if agreements like these are firmly established for every use of IDX data, would broker’s object?  Don’t these agreements, regardless of the technological medium, protect everyone and serve the fundamental purpose of IDX?

As Brian Larson has pointed out, “the license agreement is . . . only the first step, but it is an essential one.”  Subsequent steps, of course, are enforcement of the terms of the license agreement.  With regard to enforcement and compliance, the most important thing is to have a strong program to discover and shut down un-licensed uses of the data.

Looking out for the “bad hats” who steal data is an easier (not easy, but easier) task than monitoring thousands upon thousands of IDX web sites out there.  Instead of worrying about those individual sites, spend money on looking for the bad hats and make sure your agents and brokers know that if a bad hat is found to have been ripping off their IDX web site, the broker or agent will be in violation of their license agreement, their feed will be terminated, and will be liable for the violation under the terms of their license.  As I said in my last post, this approach “reduces the need for compliance by MLSs, focuses compliance where it should be on brokers and agents deploying the data, and creates a mechanism and incentive for everyone to amp up their compliance game, while also allowing for technological innovation without heartache and endless PAGs every few years.”

The stakes are high here, people.  We need to direct this conversation away from these specific technology issues like RSS and social networks that are impossible to predict, can be so easily misunderstood by policy makers, and ultimately are less important than the fundamental purpose of IDX, which is to allow brokers and agents to provide listing information to consumers for their personal use.  I fear that the way the current discussion over RSS and social networks has heated up and become confused, we’re just creating more controversy that will result in brokers becoming divided and decide opting out is best.  And perhaps they’ll not just opt out of IDX but also opt out of the MLS altogether.

To avoid this, we need to work very hard and together to frame this discussion properly and establish a foundation for IDX policy that is more able to respond to technological and other (e.g., Zillow acquiring Diverse) changes.  I hope the above is helpful to that discussion and look forward to hearing your feedback.

P.S. Another thing that confused me about the CMLS letter was the point made about RESO/RETS dictating transport for IDX: “As NAR has provided policy that requires MLS’s to adhere to the latest specification of RETS, the standard as published by RESO should be relied upon to frame data transport mechanisms, not the IDX policy.” RETS outlines one possible transport among many for use by RETS servers and clients. This standard has and should have little or nothing to do with IDX policy. Sure, many IDX vendors get data from MLSs via RETS servers, but the web sites they provide to agents and, in turn, consumers, do not use RETS as a transport, they use the web. Similarly, as I’ve pointed out many times, there seems to be little controversy over the fact that nearly every IDX web site allows updates via email, which is not a RETS-specified transport, either. Further yet, if we limited transport to those provided in the RETS specification, most mobile apps likely would have to be shut down, because RETS does not make for a good transport for mobile development. Anyway, this is kind of an aside, as I suspect it was intended in the CMLS letter, but I’m hopeful the above clarifies the distinction between RETS specifications and IDX policy.

1. Zillow likely acquired Diverse primarily as a way to build relationships with more MLSs. We know Trulia has been amping up its efforts to establish relationships with MLSs and this move by Zillow seems like a response to those efforts.
2. Zillow has said that 60% of its revenue is coming from sales to brokers and agents, so adding IDX products to the mix jives with their primary sales target.
3. Diverse has IDX data from quite a few MLSs but their license agreements won’t allow Zillow to use that data for any purpose other than IDX.  However, I can imagine quite a few interesting products that can be built on top of IDX data that will blur the lines of what Zillow/Diverse offers their IDX customers.  This will be the most interesting development to watch.
4. Will Zillow offer its ad network to brokers and agents using Diverse’s IDX product as a potential revenue share opportunity?  Will that be interesting to agents and brokers?
5. Will Zillow try something like Roost tried initially, with an aggregated IDX portal?
6. What will the MLS response be to this acquisition?  Quite likely many will be digging out their contracts with Diverse to make sure the license agreements lock down the data tight regarding usage.

Overall, this is an excellent move by Zillow and a nice win for Justin LaJoie and the entire Diverse Solutions team. Congratulations to all of you!

1.  Should franchises be allowed to use IDX the same as participants?

General consensus: No.

2.  Should the IDX policy be adopted to new technologies like social networks, RSS, and mobile applications?

General consensus: No, no and yes.

I’m pretty sure the franchise IDX issue has been exhausted and is no longer very controversial, so I’ll leave that alone.  My primary interest in this post is in the second question, regarding whether IDX can be adopted to new technologies.

First, I will state what I see as the basic purpose of IDX: To allow broker participants to provide consumers with IDX listings from the MLS for their non-commercial personal use. I may be wrong about this basic purpose, but let’s just assume that I’m right for a moment as we analyze the controversies present in the revised policy.

Interestingly enough, no one argues that IDX should be banned on mobile applications, even though those clearly are not “web sites” as outlined in the IDX policy.  Leaving that gaping hole aside for a moment, however, let’s turn just to the questions raised by social networks and RSS feeds.  There are many reasonable objections that display of IDX listings in social networks and RSS feeds are dangerous and, therefore, need to be excluded from IDX.  The arguments go something like this:

1. Social networks are beyond the control of the participant;
2. RSS makes it easier for bad hats to steal the IDX data;
3. Complying with the current IDX rules regarding disclaimers, copyright statements, etc., is more difficult on social networks and RSS feeds; and
4. All of the above creates a compliance nightmare for the MLS.

For sake of argument, let’s assume all of the above to be true.  Even if true, my contention is that the same arguments are equally applicable to “web sites” and other technologies already commonly used today in connection with IDX data.

At the most basic level, a “web site” (the currently defined method for displaying IDX) is an HTML page available to the entire world over the “world wide web”.  Let’s repeat and rephrase: Allowing IDX data on world wide “web sites” makes the data as open and accessible as it can be. Any other method, including RSS and social networks, provides much more limited exposure.

Web sites, open to the whole world, can be crawled, scraped, and framed by thieves just as easily RSS feeds.  Even if the thieves don’t have programming skills themselves, paying a programmer in China or India a few dollars to scrape your web site is no big deal, it’s just a cost of doing business. Further, if you can deploy anti-scraping technologies on a web site, you also can deploy those on an RSS feed.  Lastly, every IDX web site I’ve seen allows customers to sign up for email updates, which can be identical to RSS (e.g., the email may contain IDX data such as address, price, beds, baths, etc., or the RSS feed may only contain a link to the listings on the web site).  In either case, there is no real difference between RSS and email updates and the purpose is exactly the same, namely to remind site visitors to come back and visit your site for their non-commercial personal use.  The bottom line is that the current IDX policy allows display of the data to the whole world along with updates by email, and these technologies are very challenging to monitor.

Similarly, the idea that social networks are harder to police for MLSs than web sites or mobile applications is specious.  There can be an unlimited number of web sites whereas the number of social networking pages is much more likely to be limited to the number of members in your MLS given that sites such as Facebook or Google+ try pretty hard to make sure that the people on their sites are real people.  No matter what, however, the number of Facebook, Google+, Twitter or whatever other sites arise in popularity cannot be more than unlimited, which is the current compliance problem MLSs face from web sites alone.  In other words, the compliance issue for MLSs is no greater from social networks than it is for web sites, because the number is unlimited in any event.

I’m hopeful that what I’ve said above is relatively non-controversial, but I’d like to summarize it to try to make sure of that.  First, IDX currently allows display of IDX listings on an unlimited number of “web sites” (and in email and mobile applications).  Second, display on web sites makes the data available to anyone in the whole world.  Third, such wide open access to the data makes compliance very challenging.  In other words, regardless of new technologies like RSS feeds and social networks, IDX compliance is a big challenge.

Now, let’s evaluate a potential solution that reduces the need for compliance by MLSs, focuses compliance where it should be on brokers and agents deploying the data, and creates a mechanism and incentive for everyone to amp up their compliance game, while also allowing for technological innovation without heartache and endless PAGs every few years.

The basic solution is to get away from thinking about IDX in terms of MLS policy and instead shift the discussion toward creation and enforcement of license agreements for the IDX data.  Many MLSs already have a strong set of license agreements pertaining to the IDX data and my basic argument is that as long as the license agreements are enforceable and enforced, all the questions regarding who is in control, who is responsible, and what can be done with the data should be answered without the need for an MLS policy on IDX.

The license agreements should cover every relationship in the chain:

1. From the broker participant to the MLS;
2. From the MLS to other broker participants (and their developers); and
3. From broker participants to consumers of the data for non-commercial personal use only.

Each of these license agreements should have compliance, enforcement and remedy provisions in them and such provisions should be extended to every other party in the chain, including the right to audit, terminate the license on violation, and sue for damages, including liquidated damages as a penalty for violations.

Let’s assume that these license agreements are all in place, and everyone in the chain is comfortable with the provisions.  Does it really matter whether the consumer gets the data for their non-commercial personal use via RSS feed, Facebook, mobile application, email, snail mail, or in person? Is it not the case that the only thing that really matters are the terms of the license agreement for each party in the chain and that the agreements are enforced properly (and aggressively)?  Isn’t the question of “control” answered by whether or not the broker has a proper and enforceable license agreement in place?  Isn’t this approach of focusing on the terms of the license agreement for each link in the chain much easier to understand than the nuanced language tweaking required to try to anticipate future technology?

The reality is that we cannot know what new technology will be invented tomorrow, but I’m hopeful that most everyone agrees that brokers getting IDX data in the hands of consumers so they can buy houses is a good thing, regardless of the technology used.  If we focus attention on crafting license agreements that allow that and restrict any other uses, the many thorny questions surrounding IDX may just go away.

• Peter Shuttleworth — Peter brings to FBS’s Board extensive MLS industry experience from his 26 years as the Executive Vice President of MetroMLS and 17 years as President of WIREdata Corporation in Milwaukee, WI.  Peter also has served in a wide variety of leadership roles with MLS industry groups such as the Council of Multiple Listing Services and the National Association of REALTORS, and just last week was named the first CMLS Hall of Fame award recipient for his many years of leadership in the MLS industry.  With Peter just recently retiring from his long career with MetroMLS, FBS is incredibly fortunate to have Peter help lead us toward the future for MLS.

• Steve Malme — Steve currently is a Senior Director in the Enterprise Health Group at Microsoft and has been with Microsoft (and Great Plains Software) in a variety of management, technology and sales positions over the last 20 years.  Though Steve now lives in Seattle, he hails from Fargo (where FBS is headquartered) and was the lead developer at FBS in the early ’90s.  Steve’s extensive experience with Great Plains and Microsoft will be invaluable to guide FBS in our future years of growth.

Peter and Steve are joining our other outside director, Dan Woolley of WR Studios (creators of CloudCMA and Dwellicious), to bring FBS diverse and and deep outside leadership.

Also new to the FBS Board are two employee-owners, Jaison Freed (FBS’s VP of Hosting) and Matt O’Brien (Web Developers), who were recently appointed to the Board.  FBS is a 100% employee-owned company and so it is important to us to have significant employee-owner leadership at the highest levels of FBS.  Jaison and Matt are sure to bring passion and excellence to the Board’s efforts to lead FBS.