Slashdot Mirror
Preston Responds On ICANN CyberSafety Constituency
An anonymous reader writes "After coverage here on Slashdot and elsewhere, Cheryl Preston has responded. She says that 'some netizens have missed the mark by turning the rather hum-drum constituency formation issue into a rash of (admittedly sometimes quite humorous) charges, allegations, and ad hominem attacks. I can only wish that I had control of some global Mormon conspiracy network, that this were a money-making proposition, and that my powers of persuasion could possibly move ICANN to adopt a content regulatory system...in reality, the CyberSafety constituency is interested in many current GNSO issues, such as Fast Flux Hosting (FFH); the development of a Registrants' Rights Charter; the gathering of identity information on WHOIS; and public order issues with the granting of new Top Level Domain names, to name a few.'"
Well. A little bit of ad hominem on her opponents(who, to be fair, probably include, but are not limited to, some ranting crazies) that fails to amount to any actual refutation. Then, an invocation of "public order issues". What could possibly go wrong?
Take the G20 protesters, take away a lot of their activism, add a couple hundred pounds to them, move them into their parents' basements, and give them a computer.
It's a recipe for a Slashbot!
Ah, can't forget to make those fingers Cheeto-orange.
What the hell are "public order issues"?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Anyone see this film? Fast Flux Hosting sounds a lot like the technique the bad guy was using in that...
(BTW: for anyone who hasn't seen it, it isn't as bad as the premise makes it sound.)
Speaking of fastflux, is there anything they can do with DNS to discourage the botnets from using fastflux techniques to keep ahead of justice?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
In other words, "ICANN seeks to build a for-profit, faith-based censorship network hegemony."
[
Coming from an ultra-conservative background myself, I still find the whole notion of Internet regulation and censorship to be a bit laughable. The Internet is an inherently 'dangerous' place. The 'Net is a portal into the ethos of human society. If you want to know the collective wisdom, foolishness, virtues, and vices of humanity, it's all there--unedited, uncensored, uncut. Some people find that uncomfortable because it lays bare the core of who we really are. And if you don't like that, then maybe the Internet is not for you. If we're really interested in an open and free (libre) society, the Internet gives everyone the best chance to be heard and be seen--and the side of that open coin is hearing and seeing things that you don't necessarily agree with or condone.
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
Jeez, this woman is trying to downplay everything. "Here we were, getting ready to stamp out your rights, and you're making a big fuss! oh, this is nothing".
From the article, from this woman. "I submitted a petition to ICANN to form a constituency representing the safety interests of non-commercial Internet users."
"The proposed CyberSafety Constituency is made up of many organizations and individuals, as evidenced on the roster linked above. Indeed, the CP80 Foundation, a group that supports port zoning and is represented by Ralph Yarro, who is also chairman of the board of The SCO Group , is anticipated to be a member of the constituency"
Yes, lets let not just let businesses and the individuals of those businesses represent their own interests, but lets tell them they speak for the community at large! Clearly SCO is the best company to tell netizens what they need, and to represent us through representing their own interests.
Talk about idiocy at its finest.
Does anyone know if this port restriction thing is anything other than stupid?
"What are you so /angry/ about" deflection or the well-worn "Well how is it going to affect /you/ negatively?" strawman.
I think the Mormons are just pissed that the real Christians marginalized their little cult for so long, and now they feel like they've got some groups they can push arround: gay, porn viewers, other normal sane individuals who don't worship the sky, etc.
Blar.
Just use a little Flux Spray on it, This will keep the Fastflux Techniques down to a minimum !?
We are Dead Stars looking back Up at the Sky
They mention it only in passing in that article, but the new gTLDs-for-sale are a colossally bad idea. Registrar compliance (or lack thereof) is terrible right now; it is too easy to find a shoddy registrar who will accept completely bogus registration data for your latest spamming/phishing/insert-other-dubious-activity-here activity. But at least the current system of TLDs has some miniscule shred of accountability. If people can start purchasing their own TLDs - say .viagara for example - they can set all the rules for registrar and registration requirements.
At which point our last hope to track down the source of the newest waves of spam have gone out the window, as there will be nothing meaningful to track. And as those TLDs won't be in any way regulated by ICANN - or anyone else not in it just for money - there will be no one to turn to when the WHOIS records are meaningless or empty.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
The article links to an ICANN memo on "Morality and Public Order Objection Considerations in New gTLDs". Essentially ICANN says you have the right to free speech online, except when you don't. From the memo
In case you missed it, here's the short version.
I am reminded of DeValera's 1937 Constitution of Ireland, which granted unto the Irish people the following freedoms
DeValera's objective was a sanitized society in Ireland. One in which anything deemed inappropriate by the catholic church and conservatives was expressly illegal. He got his wish, and almost broke the country in the process. Ireland became a priest ridden backwater in which no progressive opinion or position could be uttered or advocated. When in 1950, the government tried to introduce free maternity care to combat the high infant mortality rate, the Catholic Church brought down the government.
In my opinion, ICANN's ultimate aim to transform the internet into a place akin to 1950's Ireland, in which only the opinions and policies of a few powerful (and conservative) groups can hold sway. If the Catholic, or Mormon, or Anglican churches, or an Islamic or Jewish organisation objects to your website, down it goes. If a foreign government complains that your site is contributing to "public unrest" in their state, down it goes. If your website is giving information on abortion in a country where that is illegal, down it goes. If your website uses "obscene language", down it goes.
Remember ICANN is responsible for more than just TLDs. They control domain names and IP addresses. What does a memo like this coming out of the ICANN office say about its commitment to a free and open internet. Not a lot in my opinion. The office has changed.
There are pornography sites, there are racist sites, there are blasphemous sites, anarchist sites, obscene, derogatory, offensive sites. And many more. Guess what? The world has not come to an end. We don't need these "guidelines" or regulations. The internet and society at large have done just fine without them. But try telling that to the people who drafted this memo.
Cyber-saftey is a euphemism. There's no "index.html" file on any webserver in the world that anyone needs immediate and sweeping protections from. This is Cyber-censorship.
May the Maths Be with you!
It is not like ICANN is a Democracy. The CyberSafety commission is well outside ICANN's current mission which is to keep the domain name system and the Internet basically functioning.
The first stage in trying to get past valid points is to state a false scope. Once the door is open, we all too often have mission creep.
Preston still misses the point that it is the parent's responsibility to keep children safe on the internet.
Absolving parents of responsibilities will lead us down a path where most people would not like to go.
Paraphrasing Cheryl B. Preston:
A generation of tech-savvy children is being exposed to religious material that is not age-appropriate, that they cannot fully process, and that they lack the judgment and experience to contextualize.
or
A generation of tech-savvy children is being exposed to neo-liberal propaganda that is not age-appropriate, that they cannot fully process, and that they lack the judgment and experience to contextualize.
or
A generation of tech-savvy children is being exposed to environmentalist hysteria that is not age-appropriate, that they cannot fully process, and that they lack the judgment and experience to contextualize.
And on and on and on...
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
First somebody wiki-leaks our super-secret church manual all over the internet. THEN, somebody lets fly a hint about our secret conspiracy network, in what can practically be called a press release to everyone on the internet.
Please, TELL me how we are supposed to run a good conspiracy IN SECRET with all this stuff going on??? Give us some elbow room here, people!
return sarcasm;
Preston makes it sound so simple and easy to accept. Who among us aren't concerned with information security and the Internet? Preston lists a laundry list of issues that plague the Internet today. Who wouldn't support battling these issues?
The question, however, is who is going to support it. Preston claims that's what the CyberSafety Constituency would do. But do their supporters understand that?
Take some time to view the ICANN mailing list to register comments on this proposal. Note the emails sent in support. Then note how many of Preston's laundry list issues are mentioned. You'll be hard pressed to find anything that doesn't directly (or imply) one single issue: pornography.
Go ahead and look at that list's thread index . It'll help make the form letters stand out. Pornography becomes even more apparent.
Preston claims that this is not an issue of the Mormon church. However, if you look at the proposed initial membership, two things tend to form the familiar pattern: ties to the Mormon Church and pornography.
I'm not sure who Preston thinks she's fooling. Us, or the various people who have written in to support her proposal.
From her most infamous, and probably well-connected, supporter:
In Support Of Cyber Safety Contstituency
* To: cyber-safety-petition@xxxxxxxxx
* Subject: In Support Of Cyber Safety Contstituency
* From: Ralph Yarro
* Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 22:22:32 -0700
It is amazing that it has taken so long to add a voice of family values, decency, and children's rights to the ICANN family. I am Grateful to all those within ICANN that have recognized and hopefully support this much needed Charter.
Though far from balanced, this gesture will serve as a signal that ICANN cares about the hundreds of millions of Internet users who want to see families needs and concerns considered in the formation of policies and representation.
Please approve this most important voice for decency. It is an important step in the right direction. Thank you in advance.
Ralph Yarro
It's a pitty that even Ralph Yarro, who's business is technology, is so badly misled. That is, if you believe Preston.
I don't.
That should tell you everything you need to know here.
Sure, Preston only wants to do the right thing. After all, even the group that she's involved with only drums up rabid support from anti-pornography people. But don't think that this is simply about pornography.
People who claim to want to control the way you think on one issue rarely limit themselves to that one issue when they actually gain the power to control.
Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
www.fogbound.net