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:"Public order issues"?

[smoker2]

You can't have a TLD like "WOG" or "CUNT" or "PISS" or "TWAT" or "ALLAH" or "COON" or "$offensive".
It comes under public order, because the public supposedly have a sense of morality that the Govt. enforces. A private concern can't be seen to ignore the law.
Why not read the (6 page) PDF and find out ?

Some Are Uncomfortable With The Truth

[Chabil Ha']

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.

Re:Some Are Uncomfortable With The Truth

[Chabil Ha']

This behaviour is "not the core of who they are" but rather a projection in which they choose to indulge because of loosened inhibitions.

But I would argue that who we are is just that--what kind of person are we when we think no one is looking (or hiding behind a pseudonym)? Be honest with yourself--you might discover something interesting. Some are less hypocritical than that, though, and behave the way they do regardless of who might know.