I support this assessment. On Sun, 2002-05-05 at 20:19, Richard Henderson wrote: > HelpFirst I'd like to give proper thanks and recognition to Joop for the excellent job > and hard work he has devoted to date on the icannatlarge.com website - truly > constructive and vital in the launch of the movement. As the organization advances > week by week and month by month, it's inevitable that the website should evolve > with it, and I hope I'm kicking off a public review of the website, its purpose, > its appearance, and its ease of navigation. > > I thought I'd start today with some comments on the Homepage, as I feel it now > needs some urgent alterations. > > 1. I don't like the fist in the logo : it implies negativity (OK I've got a lot of negative > opinions of ICANN but is that the image we are trying to project to attract new members?). > We are a positive and constructive movement, building worldwide co-operation : > shaking hands would be better than a fist. A totally new logo would be even better. > > 2. We should develop an independent logo which does not need the ICANN 'globe' > at all. We should not portray ourselves as a subgroup of ICANN but as an entity > in our own right. Hence... > > 3. In due course, we need a change of organization name which should feature on > the new homepage. The URL could still be icannatlarge.com (and a small reference > to that could feature in a subordinate position) : in a way this would be quite useful > as we still need to maintain an interface with ICANN and the URL itself would be a > useful link in that way. However I favour a simpler concept as our organization name - > something the public and press can latch onto and identify with, and something much > more global and less obscure than ICANN. I'd propose The Internet Parliament or The > Internet Democracy Group or something like this. Just suggestions as the possibilities > probably run into 100's. Nevertheless I have www.internetparliament.com and > www.theinternetparliament.com and www.theinternetparliament.org which are available > for use if required. Fundamentally, icannatlarge.com is not IMO a suitable name, > as I've explained elsewhere. > > 4. Chuck Costello's long wordy comments (however valid) should not dominate the > Homepage. They should be elsewhere. The Homepage must be more graphic and less > wordy, and should use simple language which explains our mission to new visitors and > ordinary members of the public. > > 5. The 'link' along the top should NOT say "ICANN members" - that's really ambiguous, > not factual, and suggests people are joining ICANN rather than our independent organization > which MAY interact with ICANN. It opens us to ridicule and charges of unreality. The > political reality within ICANN right now is that there is NO single At Large organization, > and ICANN have an initiative to divide and rule through a multiplicity of At Large groups. > Moreover, the idea that we are asking people to register as ICANN members suggests > that we a part of ICANN and that our whole organization is "within" the ICANN empire. If > we really want to encourage individual members to particpate as "members" inside ICANN, > then I suggest we contact them all and urge them to join the GA - particularly as our > membership would then become the largest voting block there. I'm sure Jamie Love's present > motion, for example, would benefit from the votes of our members! However, the Homepage > does NOT need "ICANN members" as the link title to the list of our membership. > > Just a few comments on the Homepage. What do people think? What would people like to see > on the Website? Can we encourage regional and national websites for our organization as an > early target, in preparation for mass outreach? > > Once again, we owe a debt to Joop for his vision and sheer hard work in launching the website > and moving the organization forward. Nothing in the above statements is intended to detract from > what his efforts have already achieved. > > Richard Henderson
This is a digitally signed message part