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.'"

Comments

Re:Some Are Uncomfortable With The Truth

[frangalista]

I don't disagree that the internet will probably always be impossible to properly regulate. However, I find the notion that "it lays bare the core of who we really are" to be quite absurd. Many sites appear to be filled with people, comfortable behind a shield of psuedo-anonymity who engage in nasty, selfish, and indulgent behaviour. This behaviour is "not the core of who they are" but rather a projection in which they choose to indulge because of loosened inhibitions. I assert that the internet is merely a projection of "who we really are".

ICANN you CANNT

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

What the hell are "public order issues"?

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

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression;[...]
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it
      special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain
      restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are
      necessary:
      (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
      (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of
                public health or morals.

In case you missed it, here's the short version.

The right to freedom of expression...may therefore be subject to certain restrictions... For the protection of...public health or morals.

I am reminded of DeValera's 1937 Constitution of Ireland, which granted unto the Irish people the following freedoms

1 The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality:
i. The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.
The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.

The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.

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.