Re: [atlarge-discuss] 006 Deciding Name for Organisation

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Alexander and all stakeholders or other interested parties,

  I have to again agree with Alex here.  I posted in response to
Jefsey this very same thought process regarding the string
*atlarge*, *@large*, and/or *At-Large* as well as including
the string *ICANN* in our potentially new name...  It is indeed
now too confusing or too costly in terms of resources to
eleviate that already existing confusing factor in using any
of these string in our potentially new name...

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> Just a quick note on the naming issue: I believe atlarge.org would
> be a stupid choice -- people will confuse at-large.org and atlarge.org
> over and over again! Something with "At Large" is fine, but the name
> should not be confusingly similar to another existing group.
>
> At 10.08.2002 10:49, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> >I posted to the panel list what in my view are the two primary
> >questions we have to answer to determine what our organization wants
> >to be. I'll repost them here:
> >
> >A) You could build:
> >  A1) a single monolithic organization, or
> >  A2) a federal organization with the centre plus local chapters, or
> >  A3) a lightweight "glueing" organization - something that has not
> >only individual members, but also organizational members, and that
> >wants to act as point of coordination and confrontation for all At
> >Large-related entities and individuals in the world.
>
> I'd add that you have several sub-options for A1:
>   A1-a) a single organization that wants to be the only/main/
>         dominant At-Large/user organization
>   A1-b) a single organization that wants to be one of a number
>         of At-Large/user organizations
>
> >B) You could build:
> >  B1) a generic Internet user organization (thus entering in direct
> >competition with, just to name one, ISOC, even if ISOC is now shifting
> >towards an industry organization), or
> >  B2) an organization focused by mission on Internet governance, or
> >  B3) an organization focused by mission on DNS governance, or
> >  B4) an organization whose mandate is limited to participation in
> >ICANN.
> >
> >Personally, I'm for A3 and B2 or B3.
>
> I'm for A1-b and B2 or B3. I don't think Icannatlarge.com should
> become A3 -- an organization composed of individuals and organizations.
> *If* we get an interface between user organizations and ICANN (aka ALAC),
> then other At-Large-related entities should participate directly and
> should not participate indirectly through ALAC *and* Icannatlarge.com.
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 127k 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: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
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