Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Privacy Security Your Rights Online

Preston Responds On ICANN CyberSafety Constituency 56

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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Preston Responds On ICANN CyberSafety Constituency

Comments Filter:
  • 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?
    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      She forgot to mention protecting the children.
      • by BillX ( 307153 )

        Read closer. First line of the article:

        As an Internet Evolution contributor, I wrote last year about exploring port zoning as a way to protect kids online.

        I "kid" you not.

    • by rs79 ( 71822 )

      I've been opposed to ICANN since day one: it's a single point of failure and is anything but "open" and "transparent". Recall the only elected baord member had to sue to see the books.

      So, I think the cybersecurity constituency is wonderful and the kind of whackjob nutcase coallition the sucking vacuum of a choke point that is ICANN can expect. Godspeed, fuckkers. You deserve this.

  • by John Hasler ( 414242 ) on Friday April 03, 2009 @07:29AM (#27443305) Homepage

    What the hell are "public order issues"?

    • by smoker2 ( 750216 ) on Friday April 03, 2009 @07:38AM (#27443353) Homepage Journal
      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 ?
    • 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 r

      • by julesh ( 229690 )

        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:

  • Anyone see this film [wikipedia.org]? 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?

  • by Speare ( 84249 ) on Friday April 03, 2009 @07:49AM (#27443407) Homepage Journal

    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 other words, "ICANN seeks to build a for-profit, faith-based censorship network hegemony."

  • by Chabil Ha' ( 875116 ) on Friday April 03, 2009 @07:52AM (#27443421)

    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.

    • Coming from an ultra-conservative background myself, I still find the whole notion of Internet regulation and censorship to be a bit laughable.
      [snip]
      If we're really interested in an open and free (libre) society

      Here's the thing... the definition of conservative in the US has been twisted to mean "socially authoritarian". As such, the conservatives in the US are not interested in an open and free society.

      I wish there was a term for fiscal/political conservatives who are socially liberal (liberal as-in-libr

      • by Anonymous Coward

        I'm with you on that one, I would like to have a party of fiscally conservative, socially progressives as well.

      • I wish there was a term for fiscal/political conservatives who are socially liberal (liberal as-in-libre)... the closest I can think of is 'Goldwater conservative'. It would be even better if that was the standard definition of conservative, and the social authoritarians had a distinctive label.

        The social authoritarians you describe and big-central-government members of the Republican supporters are cut from the same cloth. They're what we call "neo-cons".

        • "Neo-cons" is a more specific subset of modern American conservatives... they differ from traditional conservatives in other ways than just social issues (such as a very aggressive militaristic foreign policy stance).
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      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 mere
      • by Chabil Ha' ( 875116 ) on Friday April 03, 2009 @09:07AM (#27444351)

        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.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          I agree that we all have tendencies and drives that lead toward damaging behaviour. Civilisation is built on the realisation that, in order to live in the world, we need to control those emotions and passions. Yes, they are a part of us. However, as soon as I make the choice to behave in a civilised manner, that choice becomes as much a part of me as these "baser instincts". I don't believe that it is hypocritical at all to strive to be better than what I am. I can recognise my wretched behaviour and I
    • ...all I wanted the internet for was to order a stupid computer book that's not available at my local bookstore... why do I have to be subjected to worms, popups, piracy, agenda-driven corruption, scams, spam, primal absurdity, porn and the base nature of humanity!? There are some real utilitarian uses for the internet, that have nothing to do with inserting one's human baggage on anybody who happens to misclick on a misleading link...
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Chabil Ha' ( 875116 )

        You miss the point of what I was trying to say. The Internet is us. Though you choose to focus on the negative aspects of who we are, worms, popups, piracy, agenda-driven corruption, scams, spam, primal absurdity, and porn are a part of who we are.

        If you want a good read, here's God's Debris [nowscape.com], a thought experiment from Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert.

        • Look. If it won't work from a technical standpoint, then I don't think it should be done. But defending the status quo because "this is who we are" seems pretty shallow reasoning. We can still be who we are, and create safe zones for distinct purposes. I think most family users would prefer an alternative to having to purchase a huge suite of cyber-security tools that work fine as long as your kid doesn't go over to the neighbor's house with a USB drive to bring home something that the neighbor wasn't smart
          • To be honest, I think most people object to filtering because they want their vices to be triggered "accidentally"

            An interesting idea, but I doubt it. I for one object to filtering because I have been in situations where I made a bad decision because I did not know the whole story. Once I knew the whole story, I realized I could have made a better decision had I known.

            And knowing this, I further recognize that someone who wanted me to make a bad decision (one that benefited him more than me) could therefore achieve that goal. All he has to do is withhold certain information from me.

            I want to make the best deci

      • Well all I wanted the internet for was worms, popups, piracy, agenda-driven corruption, scams, spam, primal absurdity, porn and the base nature of humanity.

        Why should I have to put up with you ordering your stupid computer book?

      • When I first started using the internet, I was shocked to find out that all of the thoughts that I had in my head, that I thought were mine alone, that I was afraid to speak out loud because I thought nobody else felt the same way, were not only shared by other people out there, but shared by a lot of people out there. I realized for the first time that I had been almost unconsciously censoring myself out of fear of disapproval - out of the fear that I was literally the only person on the entire planet who

      • ...all I wanted the internet for was to order a stupid computer book that's not available at my local bookstore... why do I have to be subjected to worms, popups, piracy, agenda-driven corruption, scams, spam, primal absurdity, porn and the base nature of humanity!?

        If you're unable to go and order a book online because of all this baggage, you've done something drastically wrong. I do it all the time.

        Why do you get exposed to all this baggage? Because when you go online, you are exposed to a world of humans (not entirely the whole world - not everyone has 'Net access). It's all fine that all you want to do is do your thing. But all they want to do is their thing as well. It's a competitive world.

        You can walk in down the street in any major metropolis and run in

    • Coming from an ultra-liberal background myself, I wish to let you know that you're right on the money.

      The people who wish to censor the Internet are those that want to pretend that the stuff they don't like doesn't exist. Particularly because that stuff they don't like would be more a log in their own eye than a splinter in someone else's.

    • I still find the whole notion of Internet regulation and censorship to be a bit laughable. The Internet is an inherently 'dangerous' place.

      The Internet become widely accessible in the mid-nineties, a scant fifteen years ago, through services like dial-up AOL.

      Frontier settlements are wild in their beginnings. The world is adolescent and male. The gun-goofy geek with balls.

      But the law comes to Dodge. The law comes to Deadwood.

    • by dj245 ( 732906 )
      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.

      Like Goatse.
  • 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

    • "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.

  • 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.
    • by u38cg ( 607297 )
      Not disagreeing, but how likely are you to be interested in mail from *any* .viagra domain? I imagine that any dodgy TLD operator will fairly soon become a pariah; getting spam autobounced because it emanates from .penis ought to force some sort of market discipline in place.
      • how likely are you to be interested in mail from *any* .viagra domain?

        I might not have been clear, I was referring to hosting domains sold in a new .viagara TLD. Spam, as usual, will probably still come from spoofed hotmail addresses to improve its chances of clearing whitelist/blacklist restrictions. However the spam will itself link to .viagara domains for discount pills.

        And then when you try to determine who the bastard is that is behind the spamvertised .viagara domain, you will find that the owner of the .viagara gTLD is selling domains without requiring anything va

        • by yuna49 ( 905461 )

          And then when you try to determine who the bastard is that is behind the spamvertised .viagra domain, you will find that the owner of the .viagra gTLD is selling domains without requiring anything vaguely resembling valid registration data.

          AFAIK, ICANN has defended trademark owners' efforts to protect their marks in domain names. Any .viagra domain is going to be owned by Pfizer.

          • irrelevant?
          • And then when you try to determine who the bastard is that is behind the spamvertised .viagra domain, you will find that the owner of the .viagra gTLD is selling domains without requiring anything vaguely resembling valid registration data.

            AFAIK, ICANN has defended trademark owners' efforts to protect their marks in domain names. Any .viagra domain is going to be owned by Pfizer.

            Ordinarily I would say that is likely true. However, ICANN is moving to sell the right to registrars to sell the gTLDs themselves. Which could well remove the ability of ICANN to reject purchases of such domains. I have not seen any indication that ICANN will sell any of the new gTLDs themselves, so likely the first registrar to pony up the requisite funds will be the one to sell .viagara.

        • by GeorgeS ( 11440 )

          You don't track or block spam by domain names.
          You use IP addresses and they get blocked at the first attempt to connect to a mail server.
          We will keep on blocking spam as we have in the past and it won't matter what domain they
          claim to be coming from.

          • You don't track or block spam by domain names.

            Perhaps you meant to reply to someone else's message? I never suggested blocking the spam itself by the domain name.

            The domain name problem comes down to the spamvertised domain, not the domain that the email originated from (which is often spoofed).

            You use IP addresses and they get blocked at the first attempt to connect to a mail server.

            That isn't particularly valuable, either, as a very significant portion of spam moves through transiently compromised email relays. If you just keep blocking those as they come up you could eventually end up blocking relays that are of value, if one should

  • 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 w

  • 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 environmentali

  • 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 [icann.org] to register comments on this proposal. Note the emails sent

  • 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.

Suggest you just sit there and wait till life gets easier.

Working...