[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] ICANNAtlarge trademark infringement (was LET'SGET GOING: Determining a Chair forthePanel)
A prior panel vote would, indeed, properly inform the Membership before they
themselves voted.
Either way, we have nothing to fear from asking the Membership.
Of course, some people would say : "We have already."
I suppose the question is, did we previously adopt a process which rejected
the most popular names in favour of the least offensive (but also least
wanted) name?
----- Original Message -----
From: Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>
To: Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>; Richard Henderson
<richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>; <gilbert.lumantao@mailcity.com>; 'Atlarge
Discuss List' <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 9:56 PM
Subject: RE: [atlarge-discuss] ICANNAtlarge trademark infringement (was
LET'SGET GOING: Determining a Chair forthePanel)
> 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