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

I already added my response

[rwwyatt]

I already added my comments in an email response.

• It is beyond the scope of ICANN's current mission to address any content
• It will definitely fail to be all inclusives. Porn Sites do not want to risk selling to minors explicitly.
• Online Safety is the responsibility of the user. In regards to Children, It is the responsibility of the parent

Censorship.

[Darkness404]

Censorship, no matter for what "righteous" purpose you might intend it, always, always, always, leads to tyranny.

Re:Censorship.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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

Interesting

[TubeSteak]

Meanwhile, Internet pornography metastasizes at an ever more alarming rate. Pornographers find ingenious ways to circumvent filters, attract new categories of viewers, and build economic and political support.

I wonder why she threw that last bit in there.
It suggests, to me, that her (organization's) larger goal is to neutralize the pornography industry, not just to limit it to adults.

... I propose using Internet port designations to separate online content. ... the right of parents to determine the means and materials by which their children are educated.

The right of parents begins at the computer and ends at the modem.
Clinton tried separating TV content with the V-Chip and it went absolutely no where.
The fact that it is inconvienent for ignorant people to regulate their hardware is not a social problem.

Fucking with the structure of the internet is not the right solution.

Re:Honestly, I'm not threatened.

[TubeSteak]

So we're giving time to some nutjob who hasn't got a prayer, and providing something for slashdotters to rant about...par for the course I guess.

If you do not aggressively confront and thwart social conservatives, they will keep beating their drums until a sympathetic ear catches the beat and starts dancing to their tune.

Remember Janet Jackson and the Super Bowl? It took over 4 years (2/2004-6/2008) for the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals to void the FCC's $500,000 fine. But in the meantime, other fines were handed out and networks self-censored. In other words, damage was done.

Social conservatives keep demanding laws to regulate everyone because their usual tools of ostracism and shame are only effective within their own communities.