I am not sure I did understand what Dwi said, but I'm pretty sure I don't
suport or accept this kind of attitude. Dwi, please moderate yourself. If
everyone of us starts pulling out its own merits, I'm pretty sure that your
CV would be on the bottom part of the list (maybe along with mine).

So please let us keep the sanity and humility and proactive learning
attitudes that have always been cherished by us all in this list.

Andrew, thank you for stating a position that is consisten with the group
long agreed positions on freedom and human values.

I agree with Andrew, and by contrast disagree with opinions that are
contrary.

Regards,

Nuno Garcia

On 12 January 2011 13:04, Dwi Elfrida Martina S <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi andrew..
>
> I am new member of NCSG but not new member in ICANN. I have been 2 years
> involve within ICANN and exist in GAC meeting from the fist time GAC start
> to Draft MOPO. I was replace DG of ICT  and Director of e-government of
> Ministry of ICT of Indonesia who are representative in GAC.indeed, I am
> fellowship of ICANN. So please.. watching your words!
>
> As I know, from beginning .XXX is site that intended for sex. .xxx is
> inspire from .xxx.com that known as site for sex activities. But as they
> propose counter to court of USA and make openness and freedom become their
> justification, so the court ask ICANN to review their .xxx proposal. But,
> if you have new issue that .XXX is not site for sex, you have to announce
> that thing to all participant in ICANN meeting, because as I know, from
> Cartagena meeting, most of participant still have the same point of view
> with me.
>
> Beside,my question to you, can you guarantee that the content of .XXX is
> not site for sex? what kind of and openness and freedom that they asked
> for? what is the proof that .XXX as TLD is nothing to do with .XXX.COM?
> Yes.. I you are not Policy maker in NCSG, so please don't make any
> conclusion before its not an agreement between members.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Dwi
>
>
>
>
>  Dwi,
> >
> > Before posting on any topic, I suggest you familiarise yourself with the
> > current issues by reading through the mailing list archives. There you
> > will
> > find that the creation of .xxx is settled NCSG policy and the reasoning
> > behind it has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with openness,
> > freedom and the following of existing rules rather than exactly the kind
> > of
> > knee-jerk blinkered moralism that the MAPO proposals represent.
> >
> > I do not make NCSG policy, but I'm well aware of it, and of the reasons
> > for
> > it.
> >
> > The MAPO issue has also been well-discussed by the existing membership.
> > While
> > I welcome new members, I do not welcome them making personal attacks on
> > the
> > basis of not understanding anything about the existing situation when
> they
> > join.
> >
> > --
> > 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/
> >
>