New CyberSafety Constituency Petition and Charter

[Michelle Knight <michelle@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Sir/Madam,
 
I offer my comments for consideration to the public consultation on the matter 
of the cyber safety constituency petition and charter.
 
First point…
 
It is my strong opinion that such a new constituency should not be created 
with the aim of governing Internet safety.  To do so is to allow censorship of 
one community by another.
 
While it is in the interests of various groups who are opposed to the likes of 
pornography to obtain censorship of such material as they object to, I have to 
bring it to your attention that moves in this arena are made by those groups 
against the users of pornographic services.  In short, these groups are 
irresponsible in their attitude of wanting to censor those segments of society 
that they do not like, or have objection to.
 
When, do I ask, has anyone had recollection of anyone from the various 
societies involved in the sexual arena, picketing for the closure of the 
various religious societies?
 
Thus, with this in mind, I beg for the reader to consider which side of this 
discussion is really acting in the best interest of a wide and harmonious 
international society.
 
Second point…
 
The safety of children is the responsibility of the parents. It is the choice 
of the parents as to which path in life their child shall choose; who their 
child plays with; which school their child attends.  I put it to the reader to 
consider any parent who wishes to off load their responsibilities for a childs 
behaviour while using any service, be it library, television or any other 
informational service, to an outside organisation.   I consider this to be the 
act of a parent who will happily choose to make the Internet itself suffer 
rather than actively fulfill their duties as a parent and properly supervise 
the child, or take the responsibility and shoulder the burden of cost, in 
installing a filtering system in their home.
 
The complainants have all forms of television channels flying around their 
homes, through the skies, and they choose to not watch those channels and 
activate the content controlls on their devices.
 
Third point…
 
Any censorship is a matter of degree. If such a course is opened to one 
quarter, then pressure will rapidly come from another quarter who wish to 
censor things that they do not like. Should this follow through then it is 
possible that people from one religion would want to block things of another 
religion from the Internet.
 
Fourth point…
 
The Internet is a carrier service.  The telephone service is also a carrier.  
In an individuals home it is the responsibility of the owner of the telephone 
as to whos number they dial; there has been, as of yet, no similar argument 
against companies who operate various telephone services of an adult nature, 
but this argument has not been levelled against these services as access is 
the resposibility of the householder.
 
The Internet is the same; it is the responsibility of the householder as to 
which services are accessed and the Internet needs to remain as a neutral 
body. I believe it is the hope that these pressure groups continue to put such 
pressure on the Internet where they know they would fail with the 
telecommunications service. It is not the job of ICANN to monitor or police 
content; that is the remit of the police and the laws of individual countries 
and treaties.
 
Fifth point…
 
It is testament to the very existance, size and voraciousness of the various 
sex communities that they exist and the number of services available are 
numerous and flourish. This is the proof of a large and vibrant community.  It 
is not said that prostitution is the oldest career in the world, for no good 
reason.  This community exists through natural forces and the various 
religions are completely unable to prove otherwise. What right does ICANN have 
to attempt to silence such a community for the benefit of who are, in reality, 
a very much smaller number of people on the basis of attempting to pass their 
responsibilities as parents to outside agencies. What right does ICANN have to 
censor what is a large and natural part of humanities behaviour patterns? That 
those patterns are not liked by other groups is not a concern, just as the 
patterns and beliefs of various religious organisations are not my concern.
 
Sixth point…
 
The energies of these people would be better spent on designing and 
maintaining a home or community based blocking service along the lines of the 
current commercial offerings that protect businesses world wide. That is a much 
fairer solution on all.  However, to bring back point 1; the people who are 
pushing for this cybersafety constituency are doing so for the gain of their 
own community and do not care about the cost or impact on any other community 
which is opposed to their stance. Do you believe that this is fair of them?

Has ICANN not considered that the beliefs and rites of others are not found 
offensive to others who are on the other side of this debate? Should ICANN wish 
to provide an even hand in this matter, then it would have to silence both 
sides of this situation. Clearly an absurd position.
 
For ICANN to allow this cybersatefy constituency opens the door to chaos and 
flies in the face of common sense.
 
May I remind you of a quote from none other than Adolf Hitler - "The state 
must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long 
as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the 
people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any 
deprivation." - and I ask you again to consider who is the real vilain in this 
piece.

For ICANN to even attempt to think about blocking a large portion of the 
Internet users at the behest of a minority group who wish to form and steer a 
constituency is, in my opinion, a considerable mistake that will likely spell 
the end of ICANN as it exists. If such a constituency was allowed to be 
created and have a directional voice, I believe that the matter would not rest 
there.

Yours sincerely,

Miss Michelle Knight.