Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [atlarge-panel] MOTION PROPOSAL: was WG-WEB: responses to Jamie

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>]

Well I move that we ask the membership whether they want the word "ICANN" in
our name - YES or NO

You can't have a much simpler question than that, and then I'd be happy to
accept the democratic will more easily. At present I genuinely think there
is ambiguity as to whether most of our members actually wanted ICANN in the
name. I believe a coalition of not-have-Icann-in-the-name voters would
actually outnumber those who wanted Icannatlarge.org, though of course I
could be wrong.

A vote will clarify that point. I propose the motion:

Do you want the word "ICANN" in our name - YES or NO or Abstain

Richard

----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Young <bruce@barelyadequate.info>
To: <atlarge-panel@lists.fitug.de>
Cc: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 7:17 AM
Subject: RE: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [atlarge-panel] WG-WEB: responses to
Jamie


> I don't disagree with this thinking.  But without a clear mandate from our
> members rejecting the vote results, I don't see that we have the freedom
to
> reject their will as reflected in the vote.
>
> 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!
>
>
> |  -----Original Message-----
> |  From: Richard Henderson [mailto:richardhenderson@ntlworld.com]
> |  Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 5:19 AM
> |  To: atlarge-panel@lists.fitug.de; J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin
> |  Cc: atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
> |  Subject: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [atlarge-panel] WG-WEB: responses to
> |  Jamie
> |
> |
> |  What I'm trying to say is that in the world of democratic
> |  politics, a "minority" may get the highest number of votes, but
> |  the democratic will of the people may be expressed through a
> |  "coalition" of smaller parties.
> |
> |  Eg : Imagine a UK election where
> |
> |  Conservatives 40%
> |  Labour 31%
> |  LibDem 16%
> |
> |  Clearly a coalition *could* be formed to outvote the Conservative group
> |
> |  The same may apply with regard to our name vote (we just don't
> |  know without a clarifying poll)
> |
> |  I believe you'd find a majority coalition in favour of
> |  jettisoning the "minority" ICANN name
> |
> |  I don't actually think icannatlarge.org is REALLY the name most
> |  of our membership wants.
> |
> |  And as the name doesn't even resolve, and as the owner of the
> |  name would prefer an alternative anyway - why do we stick with
> |  an (arguably) non-working non-accessible non-popular name?
> |
> |  I argue the majority of voters did NOT want the name we've been
> |  landed with.
> |
> |  And then there's the legality issue, which has yet to unfold
> |
> |  Richard
> |
> |
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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