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

["J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@club-internet.fr>]

At 08:20 05/10/02, NameCritic wrote:
> 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
I second.

> 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
The information was not late but disregarded.
The situation worsed as a result of the vote (the name was put on hold)

> at the previous vote. In this case:
>
> 1 - A legal opinion to the effect that use of "ICANN" in the organization's
> 2 - The resignation of our Chair, Joanna Lane, and also Panel member Judith
> 3 - The impropriety of conducting a public partisan advocacy of one choice
> 4 - Continued disagreement as to whether using "ICANN" in the name is a good
> 5 - The technical limbo into which the chosen name has fallen.
The real issue is that the Membership, the Panel and the concerned xxMasters
do not give a damn about the name they voted for. There are fully protected DNs
by that name (icann-at-large and icann-atlarge), paid until 2003 NO ONE cares
about. Not a single line in tenth of protesting mails about them.

jfc







> 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
>
>
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.391 / Virus Database: 222 - Release Date: 19/09/02
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de