NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Andrew A. Adams" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Andrew A. Adams
Date:
Thu, 13 Jan 2011 09:59:18 +0900
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (37 lines)
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/

ATOM RSS1 RSS2