Re: [atlarge-discuss] Our New Name Isn't...

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:17:13 +0100, "Richard Henderson"
<richardhenderson@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>Look, could someone PLEASE clarify this situation?
>
>I'm wholly unhappy to proceed with this name, especially when it doesn't
>resolve and there is continuing ambiguity. I also feel there is ambiguity as
>to whether most people actually wanted ICANN in the organisation's name. It
>may be true that more people wanted icannatlarge.org than any ONE of the
>other names, but that's because the "Icann" name was ONE name, whereas the
>"non-Icann" votes were split between three names.

A preferential ballot overcomes this by rankings being re-distributed
as the least popular drops off.  There is IMO no question about the
result.

All we nee the panel to do is ask the current holder of
icannatlarge.org to immediately transfer it to the name of this
organisation and make it resolve.  If they are unwilling to do this
then implement the second choice.

DPF


--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527

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