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.'"
What the hell are "public order issues"?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
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
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!