[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] Website Review : Comments on the Homepage
- To: "Richard Henderson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Website Review : Comments on the Homepage
- From: Joop Teernstra <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 17:14:23 +1200
- Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Delivered-To: mailing list email@example.com
- In-Reply-To: <000b01c1f49c$062443c0$1c59fc3e@r6yll>
- List-Help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-Post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-Subscribe: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:email@example.com>
- Mailing-List: contact firstname.lastname@example.org; run by ezmlm
At 02:19 a.m. 6/05/2002 +0100, Richard Henderson wrote:
>I thought I'd start today with some comments on the Homepage, as I feel it
>needs some urgent alterations.
>1. I don't like the fist in the logo : it implies negativity (OK I've got
>a lot of negative
>opinions of ICANN but is that the image we are trying to project to
>attract new members?).
>We are a positive and constructive movement, building worldwide
>shaking hands would be better than a fist. A totally new logo would be
Thanks for your kind words and constructive criticism.
There is a running poll on the logo in the Forum. Have you seen it?
I agree that something better than the "computer-lib" symbol is needed.
But shaking hands are too much used elsewhere.
How about a hand knocking on a closed gate?
Can anyone produce such a graphic? I will gladly incorporate it.
>2. We should develop an independent logo which does not need the ICANN
>at all. We should not portray ourselves as a subgroup of ICANN but as an
> in our own right. Hence...
That is a major policy decision. Possibly best to leave it till after the
>3. In due course, we need a change of organization name which should
>the new homepage. The URL could still be icannatlarge.com (and a small
>to that could feature in a subordinate position) : in a way this would be
>as we still need to maintain an interface with ICANN and the URL itself
>would be a
>useful link in that way. However I favour a simpler concept as our
>organization name -
>something the public and press can latch onto and identify with, and
>more global and less obscure than ICANN.
Now ICANN is finally moving out of obscurity and getting press coverage,
should we abandon the link to it?
Other names may give us a grandiosity that is not yet appropriate.
>4. Chuck Costello's long wordy comments (however valid) should not
>Homepage. They should be elsewhere.
Agree. That was suitable immediately after Accra, but now the homepage
should reflect more recent happenings.
Frankly, I think the Panel should review the homepage on a weekly basis and
suggest new themes to the webmaster if the webmaster cannot come up with
>The Homepage must be more graphic and less
With that I respectfully disagree, unless you can show me what graphics
would be better than words. (a cartoon perhaps? )
>and should use simple language which explains our mission to new visitors and
>ordinary members of the public.
>5. The 'link' along the top should NOT say "ICANN members" - that's really
At lot about ICANN is ambiguous and the Board resolutions on At Large
>not factual, and suggests people are joining ICANN rather than our
>which MAY interact with ICANN. It opens us to ridicule and charges of
Well, we are a somewhat Quixotic organization, but I can see your point.
OK. What other name would you suggest? Just "members"? Would that not do
away with the idea that our members *want* to be regarded as icann members?
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org