[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [atlarge-discuss] 006 Deciding Name for Organisation
I agree with Hans too. I just don't like the name he's using.
ICANN faces a well-earned bad reputation problem. And that's an ugly stain
that I don't want to see attributed, falsely or otherwise, to this
organization.
As for "wider focus", as I posted a few minutes ago, I agree with Hans and
apparently with you as well, that the focus is internet governance.
I just don't see "internet governance" married to the name ICANN. If you
do, I'd like to know why.
J
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Judith Oppenheimer
http://JudithOppenheimer.com
http://ICBTollFreeNews.com
http://WhoSells800.com
212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Visit 1-800 AFTA, http://www.1800afta.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lawrence Solum [mailto:Lawrence.Solum@lls.edu]
> Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 1:01 PM
> To: Hans Klein
> Cc: atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
> Subject: 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
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de