[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[atlarge-discuss] Re: [atlarge-panel] MOTION PROPOSAL: was WG-WEB: responses toJamie
At 16:45 -0700 2002/10/03, Jeff Williams wrote:
>Richard and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,
>
> I cannot second this motion. Reason: We have already voted
>on what should be or new Name. That new name by democratic
>process which you were so proud of Richard is ICANNATLARGE.ORG.
>Now we must live with the will of the members. So such a motion
>although I personally agree with it's motive, is in effect trying to
>negate a previous vote of the members. That is decidedly not
>a healthy democratic process...
Forgive me for disagreeing but under the present circumstances I think it is indeed healthy and democratic. A democracy may also choose from time to time to reconsider or reverse a previous decision on the basis of new information received too late to be taken into account at the previous vote. In this case:
1 - A legal opinion to the effect that use of "ICANN" in the organization's name *might* be construed as trademark infringement which *might* result in a court case against this organization in the person of its Panel members.
2 - The resignation of our Chair, Joanna Lane, and also Panel member Judith Oppenheimer over this issue.
3 - The impropriety of conducting a public partisan advocacy of one choice over another during the balloting period and the equal impropriety of the attempt to change the ballot in mid-vote which may have tainted the results.
4 - Continued disagreement as to whether using "ICANN" in the name is a good or bad thing, whether for fear of legal repercussions or for other reasons.
5 - The technical limbo into which the chosen name has fallen.
Quick and democratic ways out of the mess has been suggested:
a) a motion to give all members a straightforward yes/no vote on
whether to retain the word "ICANN", in which case:
i) if yes, we need to sort out the legal and technical issues;
ii) if no, we move on to other priorities.
or
b) a motion to ask the panel to set aside "ICANNatlarge.org" and
go with the second-favourite on the ballot, in which case
i) if yes, we can move on;
ii) if no, then we're back to discussing what we need to do
to resolve the issue.
Frankly, I'm rapidly ceasing to care what this group calls itself.
We've got a motion on the table, duly proposed by Richard Henderson and seconded by Chris McElroy (aka NameCritic):
MOVED we ask the membership whether they want the word
"ICANN" in our name - YES or NO
I move that we put the question to a vote ASAP. Is there a seconder to that?
Regards,
Judyth Mermelstein
##########################################################
Judyth Mermelstein "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
Montreal, QC <espresso@e-scape.net>
##########################################################
"A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
##########################################################
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de