CP80's Cheryl Preston Suggests "CyberSecurity" Group At ICANN

Beezlebub33 writes "A new petition has been filed under the GSNO (Generic Names Supporting Organization) of ICANN to create a new constituency the CyberSafety Constituency. Existing constituencies include 'Commercial and Business,' 'gTLD,' 'Registrars,' 'Non-commercial,' etc. The new proposed one on CyberSafety is in the 'interest of balancing free speech and anonymity with the values of protection and safety in developing Internet policy within ICANN.' If that doesn't raise red flags all by itself, consider that the person submitting it is Cheryl B. Preston. She's listed in the petition with the organization Brigham Young University, but she's part of CP80. She's suggested limiting content on port 80 to the 'right' things, and other stuff can go on other ports, so it can be appropriately filtered by the authorities. Guess who gets to decide what goes on which ports?"

Comments

Re:Obviously the pr0n port

[tomhudson]

should be 7878

Why not 6969? It's the "KFC++ port" - "More than just finger-licking good!"

Re:Censorship.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Unfortunately, that is often considered to be one of its features, rather than its bugs...

Re:Do it like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Sonny, I don't like your tone. I think it's time the authorities had a look at your computer.

I'm a self-appointed guardian of society and I think you are a danger to the rest of us.

You are un-American, providing aid and comfort to the enemy, and just might be an enemy combatant.

Proper authorities have been notified.

Not port 80

[russotto]

How about this? We keep Port 80, but they get all the IPV4 ports above 70000.

Just set the evil bit

[Lunzo]

I have a simpler solution for them right here:
RFC 3514