[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] 006 Deciding Name for Organisation
I think that the mission statement is more important since that to a large
stake will constrain what the name likely is...
Todd
----- Original Message -----
From: <eric@hi-tek.com>
To: "Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>
Cc: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 4:07 AM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] 006 Deciding Name for Organisation
> Richard,
> I agree with ridding ourselves of the at-large handle.
>
> In the pursuit of outreach may I suggest a name that we here call a
cross-over.
> Like;
> Viva personas. Or Folksspreken.
> (no these are not thought out suggestions just examples of a cross-over)
>
> Not necessarily proper in any language but easily recognized to be
inclusive of
> several.
> Just a thought.
> Eric
> Richard Henderson wrote:
>
> > The name of the organisation itself has to 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