o be a fairly urgent "task" to be
accomplished and determined by our members. It's linked, perhaps, to Mission
Statement - as some people may want the name of the organisation to reflect
a fairly broad mission (I favour this, to broaden membership and make us
more truly representative) - while others want a narrower technical
relationship to ICANN (in which case ICANN-style terms like @large may
figure... personally I'd prefer we steer clear of this, but I may get
outvoted)
The reason the name issue is important is because we urgently need to
commence "branding" our product, and we need press releases etc, and the
sooner we have an agreed name the better.
I'll kick this one off by arguing the case for a broad emotive name which
will capture the imagination of the public and the media - and support
outreach to a broad membership. So I'm against yet another acronym or
collection of letters. I personally dislike the mention of @large because
here in UK and many other places it means virtually nothing to ordinary
people. Here in UK the only things that are described as at large are
escaped prisoners and dangerous wild animals.
So I favour the use of broad emotive titles. From my own domains I can
offer:
www.TheVoiceofThePeople.com
which would sum up the representational character of our work and the focus
on democracy and ordinary people. Unfortunately the .org isn't available
www.InternetParliament.com and www.TheInternetParliament.com
and I've also got one of the .orgs for that - OK it's a bit British
sounding, but everyone knows what a parliament is. I admit I'm not sure if
either of these two work ... they're just what I've got
You want something like "Internet For All" or "Internet Nation" or whatever.
Clearly you can be constrained by available domain names.
I also favour keeping the @Large name as a sub-name on all websites, to
position ourselves clearly in the @Large role in our demands for seats on
the ICANN Board. I think we can refer to ourselves again and again as
"Worldwide@Large" as an identity we claim by right of the scale of
representation we achieve. A twofold approach to our use of names and terms
might work.
What processes do we apply to decide our name, and decide it soon? Do we
make a list of all proposed names in this thread? Then do we ask the
membership to vote from ??? 20 ??? suggestions. Then if there's no clear
consensus, do we re-vote on the top 2 or 3?
Ideas?
Richard
----- Original Message -----
From: Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>
To: <espresso@e-scape.net>; <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 8:20 AM
Subject: RE: [atlarge-discuss] RE: [atlarge-panel] Fw: [atlarge-discuss]
ALOC
> > The big thing is for our Panel and anyone we delegate to
> > participate in a particular discussion on our behalf to remember
> > that they don't (at least, don't yet) have a mandate to *speak
> > for* the membership. >
>
> My understanding is that the Panel may delegate representatives to
relevant
> fora as observers, but these individuals have no advocacy role without a
> mandate from the membership. At this moment in time we have 3
> representatives in the ALOC. That's all. Personally, I would like to see
> delegates in every fora, not only in observer capacity, but as advocates,
> including every ICANN Task Force, but as others have said, if we resolve
one
> issue per week, we are doing well.
>
> It would be helpful to have feedback from the membership on what policy
> issues they would like to address first. The Panel is working on a list of
> suggestions.
>
> Joanna
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de