hi andrew..

Thanks.. but please pay attention,as new member,I was asking by some
reasons why I question it, in my previous email upon NCSG decision to
support ALAC's statement. But your response and your reply is judge me. If
you think I need to read previous NCSG decision, just send it to me. not
only, blame me because as new member I don't read anything. I believe you
are an expert, but please be nice to new member. and I am really
appreciate they way of Nicholas to response my email and give the brief
explanation to me. it's all that I need to know. Anyway,, My apologize if
my words is not really good. But, perhaps I support Jon postel's point of
view that stated "it don't need to behave under domain name". Keep peace:)


Regards,

Dwi













 Dwi,
>
> I did not say that you know nothing about ICANN and its issues. I pointed
> out
> that you accused me of setting NCSG policy and asked what gave me that
> right,
> and then pointed out that what I stated was settled NCSG policy from the
> group, not set by me (though I happen to be one of those who fully support
> that policy and agreed with its adoption). We also have a history of being
> a
> group which is formed around the basis, as Nuno eloquently said, of
> freedom
> and human values. You are welcome to the group and welcome to put your
> views
> forward, but the dogmatic tone you adopted and the accusation that I was
> somehow dictating group policy were not welcome. Before commenting on any
> issue, whether that be the .xxx issue or the MAPO issue, that has already
> had
> significant discussion in this group it is not only polite, but in your
> best
> interests, to review the discussions of the group prior to your joining
> it.
> You came in like "a bull in a china shop" complaining about decisions
> already
> made. It is your right as a member of the group to raise issues including
> requesting a reconsideration of previous decisions in the light of new
> evidence, circumstances or a change in the group make-up, but doing so
> without checking the background in the group misses the concomitant
> responsibility to ensure that debates here are not fruitless re-treading
> of
> old ground every time a single new member comes along.
>
> I value diverse opinions in this group, not least because it is only in
> argument with passionate, informed, intellectually rigorous people that my
> own ideas can find their full expression. The results of those arguments
> will
> not always be to everyone's satisfaction as sometimes it is the underlying
> assumptions about life that differ and those are rarely changed by
> argument,
> but at least with clear polite argument we can identify where out
> differences
> are on assumptions, analyses or desirability of outcome.
>
>
> --
> 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/
>