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

[David Farrar <david@farrar.com>]

If the preferred name is no longer available as is the case then yes we should 
implement the second preference.  Lets not spend more time on this than we need 
to.  Personally I don't care much either way.

What I think we need to concentrate on is how to minimise the time that ALAC 
spends as board appointed to being bottom up appointed.  There is no doubt with 
1,000 members we are in the best position to lead the charge here.

Another issue worth looking at is whether we should form a sub grouping of 
members who are domain name holders and petition for recognition as a GNSO 
constituency.  I believe that the grounds which IDNO got rejected on would not 
apply here and that this organisation offers the best chance of getting an 
individual registrants voice in the GNSO.

To make this happen we need to progress the issue of a constitution quickly.  
This is my area of so called expertise and if someone can point me to the right 
direction I am happy to provide input into these.  I also believe that I could 
arranage for such a constitution to be legally incorporated so that we have 
limited liability as members.

The ICANN Board is about to come to the conclusion that the only thing wrong 
with ICANN is that users have had too much say and that Verisign and other 
registries and registrars have had not enough say.  The GA is about to be 
abolished so this mailing list may be the last forum for individual 
participation in ICANN.  We have a good panel and chair now so lets make things 
happen.

DPF

Richard wrote:
> The present owner of icannatlarge.org is unable to transfer the name to the
> panel.
> 
> www.icannatlarge.org is presently "On Hold"
> 
> This can be seen if you go to a Deleted Domains site like:
> 
> http://www.deleteddomains.com/cgi-bin/browse.pl
> 
> Show: .org
> Domains that were: "deleted or placed on hold"
> Enter: "in the last 60 days"
> that "contain"
> the letters "icann"
> 
> CLICK "Show Domains"
> 
> ....and you'll see that www.icannatlarge.org has been "On Hold" since
> 09-29-02
> 
> Therefore yes, David, I would prefer that we move for the second choice
> (www.atlarge.org)
> 
> Richard
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: DPF <david@farrar.com>
> To: Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>
> Cc: <harivijapur@rediffmail.com>; <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>;
> <atlarge-panel@lists.fitug.de>
> Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 8:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Our New Name Isn't...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 



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