[atlarge-discuss] Fw: New name for Icannatlarge.com

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>]

HelpRe-sent in more readable format:

Sotiris 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.

Richard