My apologize mr. Andrew,


How come you can conclude that NCSG support for .XXX? is any voting in
NCSG have been done regarding to this conclusion? are all members of NCSG
agree to support .XXX? I am not agree!
and regard to your opinion about .jihad, .poppy, .ira, etc. YES off course
we have concern about the name, because it will reflect the content of the
site. I think we have to start to think widely about this domain name, not
only think about the increasing of business expansion. please keep in mind
that we have to make this business landed in this earth. Means, there are
many circumstance beyond the domain name. there are people who become
subject and object of utilization of domain name, indeed these people
exist in the country that have rules.
Please don't make all things that related to internet, specially domain
name it seems like untouchable thing, we ignore the other aspect of life
that will be conflict with the internet things, specially domain name.

we will make mistake if we just see everything as big as eyes circle.

Regards,

Dwi







I disagree with Dwi and Schombe here. The reason that the ALAC statement
> stressed that settled international law (UN resolutions and treaties with
> broad though not necessarily universal accession) should form the only
> basis
> on which objections could be made is precisely because of the vast
> differences in national law and culture which the Internet spans. Should
> .jihad be banned because the term Jihad has been misinterpreted to mean
> the
> armed struggle by Muslims against non-Muslims? Should .ira be banned from
> introduction as a financial services TLD because of the terrorist
> association
> with that name (and various modifiers) still in operation in Northern
> Ireland? Should .poppy be banned from being adopted by peace campaigners
> and
> war dead remembrance sites because the poppy is the source of opiates?
>
> So far, yes, NCSG has supported the creation of .xxx because there has
> been
> no solid argument put forward that its existence would have any
> significant
> net (sorry for the pun) effect on the amount of erotic material (or porn,
> or
> obscenity, YMMV) available online.
>
> The world is too complex for most short strings to be objectionable in
> anythign but a highly localised and subjective way. As far as I can tell
> about the only things which might reasonably be banned from creation as
> generics are things that can cause confusion (such as recognised country
> names) and a very small set which most would agree are too troubling for
> almost everyone (the only one of these that comes to my mind is
> .paedophile).
>
> Artificial scarcity is one of the things holding back the Internet from
> achieving its full transformative potential. Let's not collude in another
> attempt to re-inforce this scarcity.
>
>
>
> --
> Professor Andrew A Adams                      [log in to unmask]
> Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration,  and
> Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
> Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan       http://www.a-cubed.info/
>