Hi Nuno, all I can assure everyone that only my CV would be in contact with the ground. I agree with you on the rest, and with Andrew's take on .xxx. Dwi, i see that you don't like porn and what it represent, but unfortunately for all the world woes and problems, finding a way to ban internet porn would not help resolve any of them. Nicolas > 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] <mailto:[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 <http://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 <http://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] <mailto:[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/ > > > >