[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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



At 10:49 a.m. 10/08/2002 +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
On Fri, 9 Aug 2002 15:29:49 -0700, you wrote:

>I think that the mission statement is more important since that to a large
>stake will constrain what the name likely is...

I think that first we should decide some basic points about what we
want to be - then the mission statement and the name will descend as a
consequence.

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.

Would the icannatlarge members perhaps prefer
A4) A lightweight virtual Parliament, under which roof Movements or Parties are encouraged to form, who will be weighed on membership numbers only.
Its *only* mission is to provide for the servers, voting software and procedural rules and for a Constitution that spells out the defined voting rights of all individual Parties' delegates and their electorate.

This is exactly what ICANN lacks.

Once the DNS using public has such a respectable structure for output available, it becomes very difficult for an "internet technical co-ordination body" to refuse its delegates.


--Joop


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de