[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] 006 Deciding Name for Organisation
I endorse Hans's approach.
Remember that the at-large community faces what economists call a
collective action problem. The wider the focus, the worse this problem
will become.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hans Klein <hans.klein@pubpolicy.gatech.edu>
Date: Friday, August 9, 2002 8:59 am
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] 006 Deciding Name for Organisation
>
> I think the organization's mission should stay close to ICANN.
>
> Already back in 2000 we started a general forum for Internet
> users: the
> Civil Society Internet Forum (www.csif.net). CSIF played a
> meaningful role
> in the year 2000 elections, most notably in promoting the "Civil
> Society
> Statement." However, some people in the CSIF wanted it to be more
> than
> ICANN. Energies were invested in a loose grab bag of activities,
> and the
> result was a decline in interest.
>
> We should avoid dispersing our own energies too much. Let's keep
> the
> mission close to something like, "promote user representation and
> participation in DNS management and Internet governance."
>
> Hans
>
>
>
> At 11:46 AM 8/9/2002 +0100, you wrote:
>
> >The name of the organisation itself has t
>
> >o be a fairly urgent "task" to be
> >accomplished and determined by our members. It's linked, perhaps,
> to Mission
> >Statement - as some people may want the name of the organisation
> to reflect
> >a fairly broad mission (I favour this, to broaden membership and
> make us
> >more truly representative) - while others want a narrower technical
> >relationship to ICANN (in which case ICANN-style terms like
> @large may
> >figure... personally I'd prefer we steer clear of this, but I may get
> >outvoted)
> >
> >The reason the name issue is important is because we urgently
> need to
> >commence "branding" our product, and we need press releases etc,
> and the
> >sooner we have an agreed name the better.
> >
> >I'll kick this one off by arguing the case for a broad emotive
> name which
> >will capture the imagination of the public and the media - and
> support>outreach to a broad membership. So I'm against yet another
> acronym or
> >collection of letters. I personally dislike the mention of @large
> because>here in UK and many other places it means virtually
> nothing to ordinary
> >people. Here in UK the only things that are described as at large are
> >escaped prisoners and dangerous wild animals.
> >
> >So I favour the use of broad emotive titles. From my own domains
> I can
> >offer:
> >
> >www.TheVoiceofThePeople.com
> >
> >which would sum up the representational character of our work and
> the focus
> >on democracy and ordinary people. Unfortunately the .org isn't
> available>
> >www.InternetParliament.com and www.TheInternetParliament.com
> >
> >and I've also got one of the .orgs for that - OK it's a bit British
> >sounding, but everyone knows what a parliament is. I admit I'm
> not sure if
> >either of these two work ... they're just what I've got
> >
> >You want something like "Internet For All" or "Internet Nation"
> or whatever.
> >Clearly you can be constrained by available domain names.
> >
> >I also favour keeping the @Large name as a sub-name on all
> websites, to
> >position ourselves clearly in the @Large role in our demands for
> seats on
> >the ICANN Board. I think we can refer to ourselves again and
> again as
> >"Worldwide@Large" as an identity we claim by right of the scale of
> >representation we achieve. A twofold approach to our use of names
> and terms
> >might work.
> >
> >What processes do we apply to decide our name, and decide it
> soon? Do we
> >make a list of all proposed names in this thread? Then do we ask the
> >membership to vote from ??? 20 ??? suggestions. Then if there's
> no clear
> >consensus, do we re-vote on the top 2 or 3?
> >
> >Ideas?
> >
> >Richard
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>
> >To: <espresso@e-scape.net>; <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> >Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 8:20 AM
> >Subject: RE: [atlarge-discuss] RE: [atlarge-panel] Fw: [atlarge-
> discuss]>ALOC
> >
> >
> > > > The big thing is for our Panel and anyone we delegate to
> > > > participate in a particular discussion on our behalf to remember
> > > > that they don't (at least, don't yet) have a mandate to *speak
> > > > for* the membership. >
> > >
> > > My understanding is that the Panel may delegate
> representatives to
> >relevant
> > > fora as observers, but these individuals have no advocacy role
> without a
> > > mandate from the membership. At this moment in time we have 3
> > > representatives in the ALOC. That's all. Personally, I would
> like to see
> > > delegates in every fora, not only in observer capacity, but as
> advocates,> > including every ICANN Task Force, but as others have
> said, if we resolve
> >one
> > > issue per week, we are doing well.
> > >
> > > It would be helpful to have feedback from the membership on
> what policy
> > > issues they would like to address first. The Panel is working
> on a list of
> > > suggestions.
> > >
> > > Joanna
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> > > 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
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> 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