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

[eric@hi-tek.com]

Think!

All of these ideas are good.

Chevrolet does not call each car the same name.
We must brand different multicultural ideas.
Ford's cars in Latin America are sure not the same name as they are in EU.
We are talking branding, marketing, advertising and sales here not (shucks I
don't know).
There must be many names and the Standard is only a flag not anything more.

All of you walk and think with a spirit of helping all of our people, and in
that you must sleep and live well.
While we may be diverse in our opinions we must remain true to ourselves.

Love and Peace

todd glassey wrote:

> You know - I would agree except that I would also point out that using the @
> sign to replace the word "at" in the name is a real difference in the old
> name. Its also trade markable... still if it is not to have the @ sign in it
> as the word AT then we need to probably come up with something totally new.
>
> Todd
>
> ---- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>
> To: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 6:10 AM
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] 006 Deciding Name for Organisation
>
> > If we MUST use the atLarge name at all, I prefer worldatlarge.com /
> > world@large
> >
> > We have to be distinctive - I've already admitted that I quite like the
> use
> > of the word "world" to indicate we represent the whole world, and it says
> to
> > ICANN and the public, hey! the whole world is involved in this - it's our
> > internet and we should be running it
> >
> > Having said that, I'd still prefer a totally distinctive organisation
> name,
> > which defines us as a clearly independent movement
> >
> > But I could live with worldatlarge.
> >
> > AtLarge by itself seems bland in the extreme, is easily confused, is
> little
> > understood by most non-techy sorts (eg most of the world) - and I think to
> > claim to be THE at large might be challenged by other groups just now
> > (though our claim will be stronger as soon as we achieve our large
> > membership)
> >
> > I'd go with world@large and then have uk@large, france@large etc etc....
> > even if we didn't get all the domain names, we could still link from the
> > central world@large page and title the national sites uk@large, etc ,
> maybe
> > with shared logo etc.
> >
> > Just thoughts...
> >
> > Richard
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Alexander Svensson <alexander@svensson.de>
> > To: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> > Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 1:14 PM
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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