Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [atlarge-panel] MOTION PROPOSAL: was WG-WEB:responses to Jamie

[NameCritic <chris1@telnor.net>]

Since I seconded on the previous motion I'd like to see someone else second
your's Judith so I know this follows the wishes of more than a few. Anyone
reading this and not responding to the list or lurking should feel welcome
to step forward with their their thoughts as well.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: <espresso@e-scape.net>
To: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 12:38 PM
Subject: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [atlarge-panel] MOTION PROPOSAL: was WG-WEB:
responses to Jamie


At 16:45 -0700 2002/10/03, Jeff Williams wrote:
>Richard and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,
>
>  I cannot second this motion.  Reason: We have already voted
>on what should be or new Name.  That new name by democratic
>process which you were so proud of Richard is ICANNATLARGE.ORG.
>Now we must live with the will of the members.  So such a motion
>although I personally agree with it's motive, is in effect trying to
>negate a previous vote of the members.  That is decidedly not
>a healthy democratic process...

Forgive me for disagreeing but under the present circumstances I think it is
indeed healthy and democratic. A democracy may also choose from time to time
to reconsider or reverse a previous decision on the basis of new information
received too late to be taken into account at the previous vote. In this
case:

1 - A legal opinion to the effect that use of "ICANN" in the organization's
name *might* be construed as trademark infringement which *might* result in
a court case against this organization in the person of its Panel members.

2 - The resignation of our Chair, Joanna Lane, and also Panel member Judith
Oppenheimer over this issue.

3 - The impropriety of conducting a public partisan advocacy of one choice
over another during the balloting period and the equal impropriety of the
attempt to change the ballot in mid-vote which may have tainted the results.

4 - Continued disagreement as to whether using "ICANN" in the name is a good
or bad thing, whether for fear of legal repercussions or for other reasons.

5 - The technical limbo into which the chosen name has fallen.

Quick and democratic ways out of the mess has been suggested:

   a) a motion to give all members a straightforward yes/no vote on
      whether to retain the word "ICANN", in which case:
      i) if yes, we need to sort out the legal and technical issues;
      ii) if no, we move on to other priorities.

or
   b) a motion to ask the panel to set aside "ICANNatlarge.org" and
      go with the second-favourite on the ballot, in which case
      i) if yes, we can move on;
      ii) if no, then we're back to discussing what we need to do
          to resolve the issue.

Frankly, I'm rapidly ceasing to care what this group calls itself.

We've got a motion on the table, duly proposed by Richard Henderson and
seconded by Chris McElroy (aka NameCritic):
     MOVED we ask the membership whether they want the word
     "ICANN" in our name - YES or NO

I move that we put the question to a vote ASAP. Is there a seconder to that?

Regards,

Judyth Mermelstein

##########################################################
Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
##########################################################
"A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
##########################################################



---------------------------------------------------------------------
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