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

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

IANAL, (I am not a lwwyer), but if there's any passing off here, I would say
it's the other way round. ICANNatlarge.com was established well before
At-large.org.

Regards,
Joanna

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexander Svensson [mailto:alexander@svensson.de]
> Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 8:15 AM
> To: atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] 006 Deciding Name for Organisation
>
>
>
> 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
>


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