IDX and VOWs are out, ILD is in. The National Association of Realtors "Internet Listing Display" (ILD) policy is designed to please just about everyone - especially the Department of Justice (DOJ.) But like all compromises, not everyone will get exactly what they wanted.

What everyone, from LendingTree to brand-new agents, wants is the raw, naked listing data of the MLS, so the first thing the new policy does is establish that it's about real estate gold -- listings.

Unlike Internet Data Display, or IDX, or Virtual Office Website (VOWs), Internet Listing Display makes the subject of the policy very plain. The new policy consolidates IDX and VOW policies into a "single, unified policy governing the Internet display of all property information originating from the more than 800 multiple listing services owned and operated by Realtor organizations. All Realtor MLSs will be required to comply with the new policy by July 1, 2006."

Let's hope the third time's a charm.

IDX was the first Internet listings-sharing policy created by the NAR, in which the MLS acts as a technology intermediary to enable cooperating brokers to share listings with each other in an online publishing environment otherwise known as a website. IDX, to Realty Times' knowledge, never caused any problems with the DOJ because it was totally reciprocal. If a broker didn't want to share his/her listings with other brokers online, s/he didn't have to, but by the same token, s/he wouldn't be able to use other brokers listings on his/her website either. Share and share alike. That was the order of the day.

But some companies felt that IDX was too G-rated, and the possibility that another company could yank its listings was too great. They wanted to share the whole stockroom of the MLS with consumers, without having to get "permission." They wanted to use the technologies that allowed brokers direct access to the MLS for clients in a new way - as an advertising medium (websites) for consumers, thus turning the MLS into a lead generation utility.

The argument was that if a brokerage could do everything in a virtual environment that it can do in a bricks and mortar office, then the MLS should be totally available to share online. The caveat was that online brokers would get consumers to consent to online user agreements in order to see the listings.

Opponents felt that no broker owes another broker an advertising advantage. Listings are to be sold, not displayed as lures for lead generation or lead diversion, which the NAR maintains is not the intent of the MLS.

So to make everybody happy, the NAR had to go about creating a new data-exchange policy that would work for virtual offices, thus the virtual office Website policy.

Needless to say, the NAR failed, because brokers with non-listing/selling business models weren't happy. The policy the NAR came up with irked the DOJ in three ways:

1. It allowed listing brokers to opt-out of sharing their listings online with other brokers (even though those brokers still had access to listings, they just couldn't display the listings on competitive websites).

2. It addressed restricting referral fees to be gained from using the listings.

3. It addressed the "clean page" rule which precluded brokers from putting advertising around the listings.

The DOJ hounded the NAR for the next three years, until finally about four months ago, the DOJ started actively working with the NAR to adjust the policy.

Even though brokers firmly have the right by state licensing laws to control where they put their listings and how they are displayed to the public, the NAR acquiesced to the DOJ's demands, and all three of the offending rules were removed.

In their place is a new hybrid policy called Internet Listings Display that "ensures that all members of Realtor multiple listing services will receive exactly the same MLS property listings for display on their websites as their competitors," says the NAR. "The policy will bring consumers more points of access to real estate information from multiple listing services than they have ever had before. The policy treats all MLS members equally yet respects the rights of property owners and their listing brokers to market a property as they see fit."

Under the new policy, listing brokers will not be allowed to restrict the display of their listings on selected competitors' websites, as they were under the controversial "selective opt-out" provision in the VOW policy. However, brokers can blanket opt-out as they did with IDX.

The NAR says that all MLS property listing data available for public display will automatically be available to all MLS members unless a member notifies the MLS in advance that he or she does not want to participate in ILD. In that case, none of the listings he or she enters into the MLS will be available for display on other brokers' websites nor will he or she be allowed to display other brokers' listings on his or her own website. A broker who has elected to "opt out" may not reverse that decision for 90 days.

This provision, known as "blanket opt-out," is central to the IDX policy, and has been in force by hundreds of MLSs for three and a half years. However, the new ILD policy contains a new wrinkle -- brokers who have opted out of displaying their listings on competitors' websites can make an exception at the direction of a particular seller who wants to have his or her property displayed on the websites of all other members of the MLS.

However, these concessions may not be enough to make the DOJ happy, because they don't address the basic needs of some complainants to have all access to the data without having to get permission. The reason they don't want to have to get permission is because they want to use the data in ways it wasn't intended to be used by the MLS.

The ILD policy doesn't prevent brokers from opting out of sharing their listings online altogether, particularly in markets where a few brokers dominate.

With large brokerage organizations such as RE/MAX and Cendant brands providing leads back to their agents via their IDX sites, there is strong incentive for brokers to cooperate and not opt-out, but it may be hard to convince the DOJ of that.

In fact, the ILD policy could close the lid on one can of worms, but open another. Should the listings be available for display to all members of the MLS or only those members actively engaged in buying and selling homes?

The problem for the NAR, the DOJ, and competing brokers is that once the policy goes into effect, the MLS has to enforce its rules of who has the right to display the listings and who doesn't. If the MLS was created for brokers who are actively engaged in the business of buying and selling homes, why should other companies be allowed access to display the listings? Otherwise, every newspaper, moving company, dairy delivery and bank could advertise the listings and redirect consumers to other services besides buying a home.

Could the ILD prohibit third-parties from getting the MLS data for display? That's the one benefit that was never allowed, either by IDX or the VOW policy, and it still isn't allowed by the ILD policy. A broker, virtual or not, has to be able to deploy somebody to show a home if a consumer asks for it.

According to the NAR, the MLS is not for business models that capitalize on brokerage licensure or MLS access for lead generation or home valuations or other purposes, and most MLS rules say so. Appraisers, for example, are members of the MLS, but they are not allowed to put the MLS listings on their websites for consumers to see because they aren't actively engaged in the buying and selling of homes.

This would preclude brokers from giving the listings to portals, parent companies and other third-parties that have some other commerce in mind besides buying and selling homes.

If MLSs address such rules before they implement the ILD, it could mean that the NAR and its MLS subsidiaries have to draw a line in the sand, as third-parties won't be happy with having to open brokerages in order to get listings.