I spent 30 minutes trying to come up with other names, but still like these two the best.
As far as how voting should be conducted, I agree that anyone with a stake in the awards shouldn't be voting. One thought is that you could recruit from print publishers in addition to reviewers. (Granted, some of them also e-publish as well). As previously stated, keeping it in the industry means judges who understand the work that goes into a production. I'd also recommend a large panel--something in the neighborhood of 15-20 judges. It may be harder to reach a consensus, but it should also minimize heckling about judge bias.
It seems to me that to keep this thing going from year to year it's going to need a permanent sponsor. The most logical choice would be some sort of industry guild or association. Does an e-(game) publisher association already exist? If not, maybe we need to talk about forming one. One with officers and dues. If each publisher ponied up something like $25 a year, there are hundreds of companies that specialize in taking care of the adminitrative side of running an association. They maintain the association website, process member dues, etc.
Whether or not we create a formal guild, the awards will need a council of organizers. That's partially what we're all doing here on the forums, but at the end of the day someone still has to 1) make the final decision, and 2) execute the plan.
That's my $0.02
