Yah.. we have to proof that NCSG can draft and make our own statements.
Not only statement that we support other party statement, indeed without
knowing clearly what is their background, justification, reasons, upon
their statement.Then, I will call it " plagiarism action".

Let make our own statement, that will reflect our own position, let build
our barganing position within ICANN society. However, we will do action to
support ALAC's statement, we already have our own analyze, justification
upon ALAC's statement point by point.


Regards,


Dwi






 "
> 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)."
>
>
> I understand your position on this approach but you have so aptly pointed
> out in your last sentence is one of my concerns. It is true that we live
> in
> different cultures but are at a crossroads. It is true that .XXX is
> harmless
> according to you. But this is not the same reading in most of our African
> cultures. Pedophilia has a source. Should we internationalize pedophilia
> by
> . XXX ? I think it is necessary to be consistent and to analyze the
> recommendation point by point.
>
> Baudouin
>
>
> 2011/1/12 Andrew A. Adams <[log in to unmask]>
>
>> 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/
>>
>