RE: [atlarge-discuss] 006 Deciding Name for Organisation

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Eric, 
You raise an important point here. Whatever we call ourselves, translation is a consideration. One of the names being suggested is "World At Large". What does this look like in other languages?

Monde en général
Welt in Freiheit
Мир в целом
Mundo en general

What this tells me is that "At Large" has no intrinsic value to add to "world". They are both generalizations with no indication that we are an internet organization. 

Joanna  


> -----Original Message-----
> From: eric@hi-tek.com [mailto:eric@hi-tek.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 7:08 AM
> To: Richard Henderson
> Cc: atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] 006 Deciding Name for Organisation
> 
> 
> Richard,
> I agree with ridding ourselves of the at-large handle.
> 
> In the pursuit of outreach may I suggest a name that we here call 
> a cross-over.
> Like;
> Viva personas. Or Folksspreken.
> (no these are not thought out suggestions just examples of a cross-over)
> 
> Not necessarily proper in any language but easily recognized to 
> be inclusive of
> several.
> Just a thought.
> Eric
> Richard Henderson wrote:
> 
> > The name of the organisation itself has to 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
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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