FW: [ncsg-policy] Draft NCSG comments to GNSO Council on Rec 6

[Dwi Elfrida Martina S]

Hi Nicholas..

I don't think that there is a level of CV based on quality of CV in this
group, my CV will be the lowest or under ground position:).

Please keep in mind that I never say that I don't like porn, even I never
state that I will reject .xxx as sex site, not at all. I'll support .xxx
as sex/porn site if .xxx can guarantee that it is become the center and
the only one known site for sex/porn. Indeed, they have term and condition
for people to access it. For me, if this world have one known site for
porn things is better than have many illegal & unknown porn files  that up
load in many websites.
But, perhaps I am now wrong.. as andrew said .xxx is not sex/porn site,
but it is for openness and freedom. Thanks for andrew to up date
information. I wait for legal paper that state and proof it.


my regards,


Dwi


 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
>> <dwi.elfrida at depkominfo.go.id <mailto:dwi.elfrida at depkominfo.go.id>>
>> 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 aaa at meiji.ac.jp <mailto:aaa at meiji.ac.jp>
>>     > 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/
>>     >
>>
>>
>