NAR approves data-sharing policy change

UPDATE: The decision mentioned below includes a directive that this matter be referred back to NAR’s MLS Committee (or work group) for further study, with a report back to the Executive Committee and Board of Directors in Anaheim at the 2011 Convention. So the “opt-in” provision may or may not survive — the policy could be completely rewritten. So if you think the matter is settled, it isn’t. –AK

After much discussion at its mid-year meeting, NAR’s Board of Directors approved a change to its IDX policy.

[T]he directors voted to add an opt-in provision, effective 30 days from passage, to the “franchisor index and display” portion of the Internet Data Exchange (IDX) policy that the board adopted in November 2010. That provision gives franchisors the right to index and display listing data from their franchisees’ IDX feeds on their national Web sites.

The decision to add the opt-in centered on the directors’ concerns about the availability of listing information to non-participants without brokerages’ consent. Brokers representing Leading Real Estate Companies of the World, Home Services of America, and the Realty Alliance led the way toward the policy change; those companies oppose the new IDX policy and had backed a failed proposal to repeal the policy.

Because the issue of IDX data sharing is complex, we are simply going to point you NAR’s resources on the topic. We’ll be covering the issue in depth in the July/August issue of Commonwealth.

About Andrew Kantor

Andrew is VAR's editor and information manager, and -- lessee now -- a former reporter for the Roanoke Times, former technology columnist for USA Today, and a former magazine editor for a bunch of places. He hails from New York with stops in Connecticut, New Jersey, Cincinnati, Columbus, and Roanoke.
This entry was posted in The Buzz. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to NAR approves data-sharing policy change

  1. Jim Duncan says:

    I’m curious – where can members see how our Virginia directors voted?

    Also, can anyone explain/expand on/elaborate on this?

    Having said that, this vote really revealed a disconnect between perception and reality. I think there’s a perception among the membership, and “out there”, that the NAR Director is like a U.S. congressman — he represents his constituents. Much of the outcry was over the fact that the Directors did not “listen to the members” or “did not represent our views” and so on. The reality is that the NAR Director has a fiduciary responsibility to NAR, and to consider everything in light of, “What is best for NAR?” They are not, strictly speaking, representatives with constituencies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *