As an Internet Evolution contributor, I wrote last year about exploring port zoning as a way to protect kids online. Recently, in line with ICANN 's process of restructuring its forum for discussing domain name system (DNS) policy, I submitted a petition to ICANN to form a constituency representing the safety interests of non-commercial Internet users.
The two are not related.
I still think port zoning is one idea worth exploring, but it has nothing to do with the work of the proposed CyberSafety Constituency, or the vast majority of the constituency members.
Here's the background: The petition to form the CyberSafety Constituency responds to ICANN's request to restructure its Generic Name Supporting Organization (GNSO), which is a supporting group within ICANN charged with developing DNS policy. ICANN wants GNSO to be more "inclusive and representative of the broad interests found among the GNSO constituencies and other stakeholders," and to "conduct greater outreach and seek to recruit a broader, more diverse membership" that goes "far beyond the membership of the current Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC)."
Which brings us to the Charter of the CyberSafety Constituency. It states:
The purpose of the CSC is to represent Internet users, as well as organizations that study and advocate for Internet users, whose interest is balancing free speech and anonymity with the values of protection and safety in developing Internet policy within ICANN. The CSC will contribute to the consensus model of policy development, while advocating that ICANN policies and the technical development of the Internet should not unduly impair the lawful rights of governments and other organizations of authority to take steps to protect their citizens and members from illegal activity conducted on or through the Internet.
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. I plan to be an initial member representing BYU J. Reuben Clark Law School.
Separately, I have been involved with ICANN as a member of the NCUC for nearly two years as the representative of CP80, and I have always been clearly identified as such on the NCUC public list cited above and on the ICANN Wiki.
Ralph Yarro and I are just two members of the proposed CyberSafety Constituency. We will have no more vote than any of the other constituency members, and our constituency will have no more clout than any of the others.
Still, 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.
A few members of the proposed constituency are indeed members of the LDS church and some do favor controlling access by children to online pornography. Are either of these grounds to preclude involvement in other issues within ICANN's domain?
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.
Many who have opposed formation of the CyberSafety Contituency also claim it somehow violates Free Speech or the U.S. First Amendment. But all the constituency requests is recognition as one of many constituencies, with the opportunity to speak in the process.
Free Speech principles certainly do not justify silencing, or eliminating the opportunity for speech by, those with whom one disagrees.
The CyberSafety Constituency will gladly accept applications from non-business interests that support the Mission Statement. Comments on the petition and charter may be submitted by email at cyber-safety-petition@icann.org through April 5, 2009.
Agreeing or disagreeing with port zoning or any particular religion are not criteria for participation within ICANN or the CyberSafety Constituency.
— Cheryl B. Preston, Edwin M. Thomas Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University
The list of problems Cheryl Preston presents here sounds reasonable. These are serious issues that need to be addressed. It's a pity that the supporters of of Cheryl's proposed CyberSafety Constituency simply are not talking about them.
I invite readers to look at ICANN's mail archive [1] calling for comments on this proposal. Read through the supporting emails. Find one that mentions any of these issues. Even the tech industry leader, the aforementioned Ralph Yarro, fails to note any particular issue other than “decency”[2]:
“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.”
If you dig further among the various supporting letters, you find a fair amount of form letters. None of these mention any of Cheryl's listed concerns. What do they say?
“Please approve the formation of the newly proposed CyberSafety Constituency.
Online safety for children is an ever-increasing need of utmost importance. I
feel strongly that the formation of this constituency will be very beneficial
in the discussion and implementation of new ideas and policies for making the
Internet better for all.”
Many then tag comments like “We have great concerns for our children and grandchildren. Please help us protect them against the dangers of internet porn” or “I work with Communities for Decency in Utah and this would be a help in what we are fighting for Decency.”
Cheryl assures us that this group has nothing to do with content control. I'm curious as to who she thinks she's fooling; her supporters or us?
Scott, thank you for the clear explanation - the proposal sounds very reasonable the way you described it. Apparently I should pay less attention to Slashdot commenters.
I think that you're missing the point. The CyberSafety Constituency has nothing to do with port zoning. It will provide a pro-security voice on current ICANN issues, like the ones listed.
Root Maniac: "So why should all of the regular users have to change their behavior, just because someone else may be offended?"
They shouldn't. That's one of the benefits of port zoning. If you don't block any ports, you won't notice a difference. It's just like HTTPS. No one argues that HTTPS is censoring or filtering secure content from the Internet. All of the same content will still be there, just on a different port. It will have no effect on you unless you want it to. But for those that do want more control over what content is available to their users (not just families, think libraries, schools, most employers) it will be a much cheaper, simpler, more accurate alternative to filtering.
Interesting point of view. Balancing free speech (whose version?) vs. protection (who decides what is safe) mixed with various users' interests (vary from country to country and within countries) makes it a difficult but not insurmountable challenge.
Being involved with running the ccTLD of a major South Asian country, I am curious what role you think ccTLDs can play in this debate.
Imran
Will Your Life's Work "Live, Forever"? http://neternity.org
Citizen participation will grow? Are you talking about free enterprise? Or brainwashed following of a mandated morality policy to protect the children?
The cases cited are indeed one example, I believe the best solutions will come from private enterprise creating solutions to the problems that persist.
I agree that the internet should remain free and undiluted by mandated filtration. When the central entity starts to flavor everything with fluoride, everybody smiles so nice and white, and some get bone cancer.
Whatever you do, don't find yourself between a fan and Robertson, I have seen the unpleasant trampling that can ensue.
If you can find a way to privately offer this type of port control to your constituency, I wish you every success.
"As a compromise, those that push for this filtering of pornography have to agree that we use the same controls on religion. That way, I can be protected from the likes of Pat Robertson and Joel Osteen."
Yes, let's assign them port 666.
All that's needed is a system for those who wish to run a private, filtered network. Then anyone who needs a private network could apply for it, pay a fee (there's a limit to how many networks port filtering could support) , and ICANN would register it and keep track of assigned port-filtered networks.
But leave the general internet alone, like good apple cider - unpasteurized and unfiltered.
In my country, for some market segments (young male adults, their parents, conservative households) internet is synonymous with pornography. Now this has more to do with segment itself instead of internet - but this prevents others from buying a household internet connection. This is sad but understandable since perceived risks outweigh the perceived benefits. So this reputation becomes a barrier to internet uptake, especially among conservative households.
If we are unhappy with ICANN overstepping its charter or segment-ization of internet, then there is an alternate: Web Browsers, IE, FireFox & Chrome should launch a safe version of their browser targeted at family friendly browsing. This is particularly easy for Microsoft & Google since they also have search & ranking engines & already offer safe search. They crawl & tag the web continuously so the web sites inside out - literally.
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
A generation of tech-savvy children is being exposed to sexually explicit material that is not age-appropriate, that they cannot fully process, and that they lack the judgment and experience to contextualize.Rather than give up in despair or pretend that any teen with a decent public education cannot bypass an Internet filter, it is time to step back from failed patterns and consider how Internet architecture can be harnessed to create an environment where regulation can be effective but not unreasonably burdensome.
Getting to Work on Smart Work: How IT Is Transforming the Implementation of the 'Internet of Things' Organizations in all industry sectors are becoming more instrumented, interconnected, and intelligent -- and that's changing the way they approach virtually every facet of their operations. It's up to IT to help organizations adopt a "Three I's" approach that leverages the emerging Internet of Things and enables them to work smarter. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
AT&T showed off lots of improvements to its IPTV service this week. The overall message: IP, Good! Cable, Bad! Phil predicts what it all means for the broadcast proletariat.
Comcast and other broadband providers just might exempt content they own from counting against consumer Internet usage caps. Would that make their broadband services more desirable?
With the number of mobile broadband users more than doubling in 2009, and soon to exceed fixed broadband, the Internet saw a historic transition this year – and the long-term effects are incalculable.
In the final episode of this series about the death of Internet anonymity, Saunders describes how the Internet of the future will start to attain a level of intelligence that requires no human intervention. Scary.
What can users today do to protect their online privacy? The simplest and most obvious option is to not use the Internet – at all. However, once all digital information is consolidated over the Internet, trying to protect digital identity by simply unplugging from the Internet becomes impossible – a fact that has manifest implications for civil liberties, Saunders says.
By 2011 the number of Internet-connected sensors will exceed 1 trillion, making your chances of doing anything or going anywhere unnoticed pretty much zero. Saunders talks about how the 'sensortization' of the Internet is eliminating the traditional divide between online and offline populations.
The 20th Century Internet was characterized by the ability to interact with other people and information on the Internet largely without anyone knowing who you were. The Internet of this century, conversely, will be defined by identity. Saunders explains how Internet users are unwittingly contributing to the demise of the anonymous Internet.
China is investing heavily in fiber to the premises to propel itself into the world broadband Internet first division. What's it deploying, and what's it going to do with all that bandwidth?
It is 20 years since the invention of the World Wide Web, and the Internet has changed beyond recognition since then. Steve Saunders peers into the future to predict what the Web will look like in another 20 years time – and he doesn’t like what he sees.
There's a public-policy war on copyright that nobody is winning, and inconsistencies in viewpoint and interpretation seem to be multiplying. We need to step back and think our policies over again, or we risk having a strategy that fails everyone.
Ultraviolet is an industry-wide attempt to standardize video content delivery across multiple platforms. Apart from the fact that it’s based in the cloud, relies on the DRM system, and isn’t backed by Apple… it sounds great!
The FCC's Sixth Broadband Report has a hidden secret. But here’s a hint: The regulatory body plans to regulate broadband as a telecommunications service.
Once defined by epic journeys, planning, and maps, the phrase "on the road" takes on new meaning in a digital age, where we can make all our decisions using our connected devices en route.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Email This
TWEET THIS
