Re: [atlarge-discuss] web site

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

For goodness sakes listen to Jefsey because he's talking good sense - he's
thinking strategically and looking ahead in terms of structure and
procedures for operation.

As for icannatlarge.org - it's "On Hold" and it's pretty clear NSI has put
it on hold. I maintain that the best way forward is to adopt the second
place name www.atlarge.org which is hopefully active and readily accessible.
It also represents a non-icann name which I believe the majority of people
originally opted for.

What is needed is a clarification from the membership as to whether they
want "ICANN" in our name, and whether they would be prepared to adopt
www.atlarge.org as a best practical way forward.

This name is neater in terms of the structure and strategy which Jefsey
agrees to set in place if we wish.

All I'm asking is an immediate review of the status of icannatlarge.org
(currently locked and on hold) and a simple YES or NO vote ... not to
overturn democracy, but to clarify democracy... if people vote "YES" we
would prefer to have a name without ICANN in it, then THAT'S not
anti-democratic... that becomes the democratic will of the membership in an
evolving and fluid situation, with new details coming to light

When people voted for icannatlarge.org, they did not have full information
on the ballot (as Jefsey has pointed out)... indeed I think most of us had
not fully realised that icannatlarge.org was "off the rails" ...

So please grasp the structural vision Jefsey has set out... and please
consider a simple, YES or NO, clarifying vote on whether to have the
despicable icann name in our name!

Richard

----- Original Message -----
From: J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey@club-internet.fr>
To: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 11:47 PM
Subject: [atlarge-discuss] web site


> As member of the WG-WEB I strongly suggest that possible webmasters or
> co-webmaster (like Sotiris and NameCritics) tell us about:
>
> - the machine, platform and accesses they plan.
> - the machine IP address and backup-schedule.
> - the kind of site they plan
> - who will participate/should participate to the site management
> - how documents will be produced, accepted
> - how will the site relate with the sub-sites.
>
> before we strike any decision.
>
> The reason why is that we have experienced the control of Joop. I am sure
> all of us want it to change, but for the better, building on experience,
> with Joop continuous cooperation (nothing prevent some part of the site to
> remain on the existing system: for example the forum).. None of us wants
to
> spend time disputing over site details or webmaster's attitude. The first
> one wanting things to be cool being the new Webmaster and his team.  This
> means that we also want to have a true agreement on the way we can
> terminate the mission; protecting both us and the webmaster (he will be
> controverted by nature, and he must feel stable and supported).
>
> This means that all the Panel Members and all the WG-WEB are members of
the
> editorial committee. We want to work out a solution permitting them to
work
> together?
>
> We want good out-reach support. So we want to go the way Richard defined
> it: 190 local sites with possible hundreds of participants. This should be
> well organized through the WG-DNS resource allocation, but the links from
> the main site will have to be maintained and documented. This calls for a
> lot of cooperation, as the site develops.
>
> jfc
>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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