RE: [atlarge-discuss] ICANNAtlarge trademark infringement (was LET'SGET GOING: Determining a Chair forthePanel)

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Let me clarify one point. That was meant to read, "Hence, with respect to
this particular matter, the membership ought to respect a Panel decision to
drop the use of the word ICANN if they so decide, with no right extended to
the membership to override that decision, since it is the individual
Panelists who are the ones taking all the risk. On the other hand, if the
unlikely event that the Panel decide unanimously that keeping the
ICANNatlarge name would not be a problem for them, then indeed, ask the
membership to make the final dtermination. This means to say that there
needs to be 2 votes, one to the Panel first, followed by one to the
membership, then we can know in advance whether the risks these particlar
Panelists are willing to take individually will have an impact on the
choices that are available to the membership subsequently.

Does that make more sense?

Joanna

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joanna Lane [mailto:jo-uk@rcn.com]
> Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 4:34 PM
> To: Richard Henderson; gilbert.lumantao@mailcity.com; 'Atlarge Discuss
> List'
> Subject: [atlarge-discuss] ICANNAtlarge trademark infringement (was
> LET'S GET GOING: Determining a Chair forthePanel)
>
>
> This is now a separate thread. Comments below.
>
> > From: Richard Henderson [mailto:richardhenderson@ntlworld.com]
> >> OK
> >
> > Let's have another vote then.
> >
> > Question:
> >
> > Would you rather another name instead of Icannatlarge.org for our
> > organisation?
> >
> > YES:
> > NO:
> >
> > And stick it in the next Poll
> > (Be a good idea to do it *before* we start outreach and
> > interacting with the
> > media though!)
> >
> > If the response is YES, we'd rather another name, then we know it won by
> > default and we vote on a new option.
> >
> > What's the point of having a name people don't really want?
> >
> >
> > Richard H
>
> Absolutely, but the membership is not properly informed about this issue,
> and such a simple question needs an explanation as to why there is a need
> for change, or they may resist change on principal -  as
> unimportant - time
> wasting - unnecessary ego trip - already decided - and so on.
>
> The important thing to appreciate is that it is not you and I,
> nor the rest
> of the membership who would get sued personally for trademark
> infringement,
> that is one of the privileges won by the Panelists...:-)    Hence, with
> respect to this particular matter, it ought to be a Panel
> decision that the
> membership cannot override. If not, it leaves the Panel nowhere to go for
> protection if the membership determine to keep ICANN in the name, save to
> resign, which is exactly what happened to me. I had no choice to
> run in this
> election and I'd like to se that barrier to entry removed so that everyone
> can have the option to participate fully without having to put their
> personal assets on the line and risk losing them.
>
> To recap, I have no problem with the question, but there has to be some
> explanation on the ballot as to why ICANNatlarge is a problem in the first
> place. Somewhere in the archives from last year there is a succinct
> explanation by John Berryhill that we could use. If those who
> feel strongly
> that ICANNATLarge should be retained, also put their case on the ballot,
> that's fine, but I can't wait to see how a name that contains somebody
> else's trademark can be justified, especially when you don't have
> a license
> to use it.
>
> Joanna
>
>
>
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>
> > To: Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>;
> > <gilbert.lumantao@mailcity.com>; 'Atlarge Discuss List'
> > <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> > Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 8:02 PM
> > Subject: RE: [atlarge-discuss] LET'S GET GOING: Determining a Chair
> > forthePanel
> >
> >
> > > > But there you go... we decided on this name... and I believe in
> > democracy
> > > >
> > > > Richard H
> > >
> > > Not true. More people voted for other choices. I take
> responsibility and
> > > apologise. As Chair, I made a bad decision by deciding to run the vote
> > using
> > > "instant run off", where people had 4 choices and numbered them in
> > priority
> > > 1,2,3,4 against the 4 options. I thought it was important to
> > have a clear
> > > winner, and was concerned that with only one vote and 4
> > options, the vote
> > > would be split and no clear decision emerge. Most people just
> > voted their
> > > first choice, or first and second choice and left the rest
> blank, or put
> > > ICANNATlarge 3rd. In the first round, it was a close call between two
> > > strongest contenders and neither were ICANNAtlarge, so the
> name with the
> > > least votes was eliminated and people who had voted for that
> > name, we then
> > > counted their second choice and so on. It went all the way to
> the fourth
> > > round before a simple majority was established for
> ICANNatlarge, but you
> > > have to appreciate that most votes had been eliminated, or were
> > a member's
> > > 3rd or 4th choice by that stage. The name won by default.
> > >
> > > So I don't think you can say it was the democratic will of the
> > membership,
> > > or that we are stuck with it when more members voted for other
> > names than
> > > ICANNatlarge. What is clear, is that if we just took the number
> > 1 one vote
> > > and done a straight count, ICANNatlarge would not have won.
> > >
> > > Joanna
> > >
> > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>
> > > > To: <gilbert.lumantao@mailcity.com>; 'Atlarge Discuss List'
> > > > <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 7:00 PM
> > > > Subject: RE: [atlarge-discuss] LET'S GET GOING: Determining a
> > Chair for
> > > > thePanel
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > 7. we should use icannatlarge.org in everything we do (website,
> > > > > > mailing list, ftp, etc.) unless there is a valid reason not to.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > gilbert
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello Gilbert,
> > > > > Icannatlarge.org will never have a registered trademark,
> > > > (becuase "ICANN"
> > > > is
> > > > > already registered). And it also means that ICANN itself can
> > > > shut down the
> > > > > organization at any time they choose by sending a "cease and
> > > > desist using
> > > > > our name" letter. Do you also realize that Panelists can be held
> > > > personally
> > > > > liable for breach of ICANN's copyright? And if you start to
> > > > fundraise for
> > > > an
> > > > > organization called ICANNatanything, don't you think ICANN
> > > > could claim you
> > > > > are raising funds in their name?
> > > > >
> > > > > Joanna
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
>


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