If anyone else has any name suggestions, and you've done the due diligence required to verify there is no name conflict, please speak now or forever hold your peace!
:) On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <[email protected]>wrote: > > On Feb 25, 2009, at 7:36 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: > > Les Hazlewood wrote: >> >>> When you formulate the initial VOTE post, can you clarify that if anyone >>> votes -1, that they should provide an alternate name that does NOT have a >>> conflict in the USTO patent/trademark search? >>> >>> I would do that in two steps : >> - first, select a name which does not conflict with anything. We have a >> few of them already proposed (ki being one of them). We will very quickly >> find a small subset of acceptable names, whatever they are. >> - then, launch a VOTE for those names, and do the math. >> >> Those who are members of the IPMC, ie who have a binding vote, should not >> be able to veto names in the second category. For instance, whatever name >> you pick in the restricted list selected in step 1 fits me, so I would >> consider my VOTE as a simple preference (or I can also not vote or vote +0 >> or -0), just to let you guys pick the name you like, as I'm just a mentor. >> >> Does it sound good ? >> >> PS : we are not in a hurry, but as soon as we start the process, it should >> be closed in 72 hours, otherwise we can discuss forever :) So here, in one >> week, we _must_ be done ! >> > > It's my understanding that I have started step 1 last week. Here are the > names we have so far: > > ki > jsec > > I will start the the vote for these names tonight. > > > Regards, > Alan > >
