[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[atlarge-discuss] New name for Icannatlarge.com

HelpSotiris asked for comments on the menu bar he had designed. Sotiris, I liked the design but I personally dislike the term "at large".

Here in UK (and probably elsewhere) there is NO public awareness of the ICANN At Large as a concept at all. It truly is an obscure terminology known only to a small minority who have "travelled" with ICANN for a few years. To the general public here in UK it means nothing except - "escaped prisoner"... a prisoner at large... or a tiger at large...

I personally like neither ICANN nor At Large as part of our name. (This is one of the few things I disagree with Bruce Young about!)

As Ron Sherwood has suggested, it's practical to signal the ICANN element of our broader mission, by use of a subordinate graphic or sub-heading, but this does not mean that we have to "reduce" the scope of our mission and its popular appeal by embracing the ICANN name or ICANN terminology in our own name and its objectives.

The name of our organisation obviously depends on the nature of our Mission Statement : what we think we are for.

I take the view that in order not to be subsumed and marginalised by ICANN we need the authority of scale, and we need to broaden our mission and our membership by popularising our message and going for large scale outreach in all regions.

I take the view that to occupy a narrow and obscure corner of the debate, and to embrace a limited mission with a limited name, will (a) attract limited numbers (b) be easier for ICANN to fend off or marginalise.

I therefore favour more generic names along these lines (not saying they are specifically the right ones, but to give some idea of the direction I think we should take in the organisation's name):
Democratic Control; Democratic Assembly; Democratic Internet; Internet Democracy Movement; or The Internet Parliament (which I've registered); or PeopleWorldWide (which Bill Lovell has registered)

All of which leads back to this:

The urgency of developing our discussion on our Mission Statement. I would favour a mailing to all members, inviting their contribution on this (rather than just leaving this to a minority who may follow the forum). At the same time, I'd like a section of the forum set up this weekend for discussion of the Mission; and a separate section or thread set up this weekend for discussion of an appropriate name.

I take the view that we cannot take 3 weeks discussing "Mission" then 3 weeks discussing "Name" then 6 weeks discussing various "Bylaws" then 3 weeks discussing "Election Structure" then 3 weeks inviting "Nominations" then 3 weeks for "Statements and Questions" then a week for the "Election".

We need to set up forum subsections and threads, and we need to set all these things rolling this weekend in my opinion. Last weekend I defined quite a large number of sub-sections for bylaw construction, each of which I think needs its own thread or section set up at once.

Another week has passed.

I take the view that the mandate of the Interim Panel expires after 12 weeks and that if possible we should press forward more urgently.