OPPOSED: Social problems are not easily addressed with technical solutions

[Michael Bauer <mjbauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I oppose the creation of the proposed constituency.  It is attempting to 
address social problems through ICANN, which is a provider of technical 
solutions.
The letter accompanying the petition quotes the original Notice of 
Intent to Form the CyberSafety Constituency (NOIF):
"For the new technology society, we need carefully to craft mechanisms 
involving law and industry that balance unfettered free speech and 
anonymity with some protections against exploitation of the most 
vulnerable, the ability to address and reduce criminal activity, and . . 
. the right of Internet users to have choices in the nature of their 
access."
This cited issues are social problems, not a technical ones.  ICANN is 
not well situated to determine if a particular person is vulnerable or 
intent on committing a criminal act, especially because the definition 
of "vulnerable" and "criminal" varies so much from jurisdiction to 
jurisdiction.  For example, Thailand has prohibitions on criticism of 
the Thai monarchy which can result in significant jail time.  The UK has 
no such restrictions on criticism of their own monarch.  As another 
example, the definition of what constitutes illegal pornography -- or 
even what constitutes pornography at all -- varies drastically even 
within the United States, let alone around the world.
Anonymity and unfettered free speech are two of the most valuable points 
of the Internet.  Attempting to "balance" that with protecting the 
vulnerable and reducing criminal activity in ICANN will result in a 
solution that resembles China's national firewalls.  This would leave 
ICANN in the position of being or controlling the censor.  ICANN or its 
agent would have to produce technical definitions of what can and cannot 
pass muster -- thereby reviewing all content for appropriateness -- and 
ICANN would hold the resulting liability should something slip through 
that should not have.
Prevention of, and prosecution of, criminal activity is better addressed 
by the various government law enforcement agencies around the globe.  
Protection of the vulnerable is better addressed by the guardians of the 
vulnerable -- competent parenting being first and foremost -- and those 
same law enforcement agencies.
This constituency should not be created, because it is trying to solve 
social problems with technical solutions.  ICANN is an inappropriate 
forum to address these problems.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Bauer