Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by timothy on from the one-frustrated-astronaut dept.

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?"

2 of 139 comments (clear)

  1. ICANN is Accepting Public Comments on Petition by RDGROSS · · Score: 2, Informative
    Members of the general public and encouraged to submit comments to ICANN until 5 April on this proposed constituency from CP80/Robert Yarro. See: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#cybersafety

    Comments on this petition should be sent to ICANN via the email address "cyber-safety-petition@icann.org" mailto:cyber-safety-petition@icann.org

    Yarro's anti-porn crusaders are currently bombarding ICANN with form letters supporting this censorship initiative. See: http://forum.icann.org/lists/cyber-safety-petition/mail3.html

    Here is more information on this issue from IP Justice and the Internet Governance Project: http://ipjustice.org/wp/2009/03/19/robert-yarro-and-his-anti-porn-crusaders-march-on-icann/ http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/3/17/4125801.html

  2. Re:Censorship. by virg_mattes · · Score: 2, Informative

    There's one point you messed up here. No songs were "banned" from the radio. ClearChannel put out a list of songs that "may bother listeners" but there was no edict not to play them, and a good number of the songs on their list got airplay on ClearChannel stations, so there didn't seem to be issues with punishment for running them.

    Virg