From Caveat Lector, I learned that the Association of Research Libraries’ Ad Hoc Task Force to Review the Proposed OCLC Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records has released their final report. It is a concise, well-written report that anyone who has been following this story will want to read.

Given that the task force itself had trouble understanding the intent of some parts of the proposed OCLC policy (and they found at least one area where “OCLC staff seem unaware of this provision and unable to explain its intended meaning,” (5)) and given that the Task Force points out numerous areas of ambiguity and contradiction, I feel better about my own inability to really understand what was going on in the OCLC policy change.

Some of the most interesting parts of are a discussion or critique of the process by which OCLC wrote and put forward the policy:

The task force began its work with intent to focus mainly on the content of the policy document rather than on the process of its introduction, a process already widely acknowledged as flawed. In the course of our analyses and discussions, we came to the conclusion that in the context of the collective endeavor necessary to create and maintain the WorldCat database, process and content are inextricably intertwined. (7)

. . .

In the eyes of the community, the guidelines expressed a mutual social contract, and the new Policy represents an authoritarian, unilaterally imposed legal restriction. Given that “together OCLC and its member libraries make up the world’s largest consortium” (emphasis ours) [i.e., ARL's] and that the substance and nature of the new Policy is so significant, it comes as no surprise that the membership has responded negatively to the introduction of a unilateral contract by OCLC as a fait accompli. (8)

I also found one paragraph on unanimity and consensus to be particularly interesting:

There is not, and will not be, a universal viewpoint on all issues that are covered by a policy. There is not unanimity within the task force on the core issue: while the majority of members believe that it is desirable to have a policy that limits large-scale redistribution of records that could be harmful to the collective, it is not a unanimous view even within the small membership of the task force. But it is realistic to aim for consensus on a policy, i.e., agreement to follow a policy even though it is not identical in all ways to one’s individual, or even institutional, views. Certainly a process for member input and engagementnecessary for such consensus. (9)

And all those interesting parts don’t even begin to cover the part where they really fisk the policy itself, nor have I yet mentioned the appendix by a technology law and policy lawyer who examines the “Enforceability of OCLC Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records.” Again, if you care at all about this subject, you’ll want to read the report.

On a related note, Iris Jastram would like to see blog or email list posts by OCLC member libraries’ staff (not OCLC employees) who have come out in favor of the policy change. I would, too. I’m sure they are out there–if the ARL Task Force isn’t unanimous in its opinion, it is impossible that all librarians would be united–I just haven’t come across them. Drop Iris or me a link if you know where we can find one.