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

[atlarge-discuss] FW: [atlarge-panel] 006 Deciding Name - Resolution and Recommendationto Members

-----Original Message-----
From: Joanna Lane [mailto:jo-uk@rcn.com]
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 2:19 PM
To: Michael Geist; atlarge-panel@lists.fitug.de
Subject: RE: [atlarge-panel] 006 Deciding Name - Resolution and
Recommendationto Members

> From: Michael Geist [mailto:mgeist@netcom.ca]
> I would prefer to deal with a name change when/if that comes to pass.
> For now, ICANN = Internet governance and we need to play in the
> sandbox.

I don't think you're right on this one. We have members such as yourself
Hans who quite obviously believe the action should remain with ICANN.
valid, but nevertheless, ought not to override the interests of others who
feel differently. For a start, the majority of ICANN's GA voted for going
over the top of ICANN's head and approaching the DoC directly to have the
ICANN contracts rebid. Now, whether or not you agree with that, I would not
be doing my job if I were to allow one side to rule this organization at
expense of the other.

My mission is to try to hold this together and there is no way I can do
if you alienate half the membership by the choice of name. ICANN must go,
but remains very much a part of the group in the WG-ICANN subset. Those who
oppose having anything more to do with ICANN have already compromised in
allowing the "AT Large" part of the name to go forward. If you and Hans
also compromise on the ICANN part, then I think we can make this work.

We have two options on the table here - WorldAtLarge and InternetAtLarge. I
agree that the mission should be focused on Internet Governance, so for me,
WorldAtLarge is a little broad, and might invite the group to be distracted
by people who would like to see us distracted.

For me the "InternetAtLarge" is a excellent choice - and to counter Hans's
point that it is too much of a change from what we have now, I disagree. In
short form it's still IAL. The initial "I" takes the first Initial letter
ICANN and spells it out, so the only thing that it is being lost here is
"Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers". A change of the kind Hans is
talking about would be say, Govern.net, which was also another suggestion
the table.


> >  > To explicitly operate outside ICANN, it is to be so far
> >>  outside that process as to not matter at all.
> >
> >What then of CIRA and other non-icann-branded constituencies?
> >
> CIRA and other cc's are not about ICANN nor does it seek a direct
> voice on ICANN in the same way that at-large does.  While ICANN
> issues are discussed by the board, it is hardly a key focus.
> MG
> --
> **********************************************************************
> Professor Michael A. Geist
> University of Ottawa Law School, Common Law Section
> 57 Louis Pasteur St., P.O. Box 450, Stn. A, Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 6N5
> Tel: 613-562-5800, x3319     Fax: 613-562-5124
> mgeist@uottawa.ca              http://www.lawbytes.ca
> BNA's Internet Law News - http://www.bna.com/ilaw
> G & M Cyberlaw column - http://www.globetechnology.com
> Internet Law Text - http://www.captus.com/Information/inetlaw-flyer.htm
> Canadian Internet Law Resource Page (CILRP) at: http://www.cilrp.org/
> ICANN UDRP Info at http://www.udrpinfo.com
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-panel-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-panel-help@lists.fitug.de

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