RE: [atlarge-discuss] icannatlarge.com

["Bruce Young" <bruce@barelyadequate.info>]

Jeff Williams wrote:

|    Lets get something clear here Bruce.  First I have no idea what
|  "Document" to which you refer.  Can you point us to it please?

Maybe "document" was the wrong word.  I'm referring to our joint message
that Joanna posted to the panel.

|  Second, and most importantly, Joanna jumped the gun, there is
|  NO legal concern regarding ICANNATLARGE.COM with a respect
|  to any "License" which does not exist legally speaking anyway
|  in TM law parlance.

Really?  When a noted lawyer makes a public challenge of our use of the name
in an open forum run by ICANN (specifically the DNSO-GA forum), I'd say that
a potential legal problem is in the wild, and our enemies are aware of it!
I'll not disagree with others in this forum who point out that other Web
sites are using the ICANN name as part of their online identity without
repercussions.  However *none* of these have then have been the target of an
unrelenting, concerted attack on all fronts by ICANN to put them out of
business.  We have.  Do you seriously believe that if we give ICANN any
opening to attack us legally that they *won't* use it, particularly if we
are successful in growing our numbers and start exerting an influence on
their processes?  If so, then you haven't been watching the same ICANN I
have over the last two years or so.  (And I know you have, Jeff, so why are
you ingnoring this?)

|  Third, the "Panel" not it's chair, Joanna, have the mandate to
|  recommend anything with regards to this issue anyway...

Agreed.  And the election Watchdog group, i.e., myself, Walter and Joanna,
when faced with an issue that could affect the election, had an obligation
to present it to the panel, along with a recommendation about how to
procede, rather than sit on it and keep the menmbership in the dark until
after the elections.  Being committed to our obligations to openness and
accountability, we presented the issue to the panel and asked them to
decide.  So based on your statement, quoted above, we fulfilled our
obligation.  What's your beef?

|    Forth, and last, the likelihood of ICANNATLARGE.COM
|  being retained after the vote is unlikely.  Hence making this particular
|  issue moot....

Not being an election watchdog, you're not in any position to predict the
outcome of the election, Jeff, so that statement is just posturing on your
part.  And being one, I will neither confirm or deny your prediction, since
I would otherwise leave myself open (and rightly so!) to accusations of
trying to influence the vote!

But all this is a side issue to the real concern: a potential legal conflict
exists, depending on the election outcome, and ICANN (you remember them? The
guys that wish we would all die and go away quietly!) would be the primary
litigant against us!  In the event that our membership endorses
ICANNATLARGE.ORG as our identity, we would have and obligation to conduct
yet another discussion period and vote over its legality.  That was the
intent behind the post myself, Walter and Joanna presented to the panel, and
our inmitial recommendations were an attempt to avoid that second vote,
considering how hard it was to get everyone on board to conduct *this* one!.

If you find the reality of these events uncomfortable, too bad!  So did we!
So don't shoot the messengers!


Bruce Young
Portland, Oregon USA
bruce@barelyadequate.info
http://www.barelyadequate.info
--------------------------------------------
Support democratic control of the Internet!
Go to http://www.icannatlarge.com and Join ICANN At Large!



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