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/ >