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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Judyth and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,

espresso@e-scape.net wrote:

> 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:

  No need to ask for forgiveness from me.  I am always interested in hearing
others opinions...  >;)

>
>
> 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.

  But this is not the case.  Hence there is -0-/NO chance of such a court case
being filed.  There is no legal opinion that would directly indicate such a filing
would be possible reasonable, in fact the contrary... Hence this is not
a good reason in this instance.  But it could be if the situation were
different.  And than and only than would a and only a similar situation
or case be correct as a justification for such a negation of the already
known wishes of the members in their vote for such a DN...

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

  Again hardly even a reasonable consideration.  If you can't stand the heat
or understand the actual legal ramification, which are nonexistent, that
you should not be in a position of any authority or if you are, as Joanna,
and Judith were, than you should resign as they properly did.  Joanna's
real problem was her residant status in the US and she felt threatened,
of any remote consideration of controversy or contentious situation.
Good leaders need not and do not run scared in this manner.  Sorry
if i am being terse or harsh in my direct comments here...

>
>
> 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.

  This may be a good reason.  But I don't think it is one that is so overriding
enough to again cast a ballot such as Richard has suggested or requested,
and now has been seconded.  However, in that such a motion has been
put forth and seconded, than it should proceed regardless.  My point is that
every time there is a conterversity of this particular nature or something very
similar are we going to repeat this scenario?  If so, than yes we or some
of us anyway would be damaging the democratic process unnecessarily.
And THAT is my point..

>
>
> 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.

  As I have said and stated all along now, I did not vote for any DN that
had the string "ICANN" as part of the DN.  I am, and have been against
the string "ATLARGE" in our new DN as well for similar reasons.  BTW
it you look up on Tess you will find that "ATLARGE" is also trademarked.
None the less I bow to the will of the members existing and reported
vote for ICANNATLARGE.ORG as our new DN and presence.  I
also recognize and agree that now that Richard's motion has been put
forth and seconded, that we should vote on it.  This in no way dissuades
me from the belief, and resolve of principal that such a motion is
damaging to our democratic process.

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

  This is a problem, yes.  It can however be easily fixed in about
an hour or even less...  SO again this is not a strong reason
at all for such a motion to be put forward.  Nor does it is any way
change the basic principal that I am espousing regarding the already known
democratic vote for the DN that was chosen.

>
>
> 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.

  This is basically what Richard put forward as a motion and has already been
seconded.  Therefore the redundancy here that you Judyth are suggesting
is unnecessary, although well meaning...

>
>
> 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.

  Ok this is yet another method or motion..  Are you making such a motion
Judyth?

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

  A name is important.  A DN for identification is also important
for this group.

>
>
> 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?

  Not from me, no.  Do we have watchdogs for the ballot? Is there an
official voting ballot for this vote yet?  Not that I am aware of.  Or is this
a List vote, and if so whom is going to be the watchdogs for such
a ballot/vote?

>
>
> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de