[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] 006 Deciding Name for Organisation
Judith, Hans, Lawrence, and all stakeholders or other interested parties,
I must agree again with Judith here as well... This is my third post
on this subject area today. Hans's explanation or argument did not
support his conclusion either, BTW IMHO..
In Sept. the DOC/NTIA will be determining if the ICANN BoD
and staff has shown it can implement it's "Black-and-Blueprint"
for reform as well as whether the ICANN BOD and staff have
honored their contractual requirements of the MoU and the
White Paper. Given recent events and Karls victory in court,
it is at least much more likely now that ICANN will be
replaced and those contracts rebid...
Judith Oppenheimer wrote:
> 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
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de