A recent proposal to create a constituency for so called "cyber-safety" is a violation of the spirit of a free Web, and is in fact a vehicle to make the Net and the world a more dangerous place. Children are already protected from abuse and exploitation by a variety of criminal and civil laws. Such laws are more than adequate for the capture and punishment of those who would molest children. Purveyors of additional laws and control mechanisms are not trying to shield children, but rather abuse them by using the concept of childhood as a means to enforce a political ideology on the rest of the world. Such ideas include the control of otherwise legal material. This material is never limited to what is actually argued by the censors, but expands to educational material, discussions of censorship, and then on to completely unrelated topics in politics, law and ethics. In Australia there exists a censorship board which controls a blacklist originally started out for the censorship of child porn. The mission has expanded., There was even an attempt to turn over the decision making role to the police rather than a court or committee. Australia has now recently decided to fine individuals who provide links to banned sites $11,000AU/day. This includes the now Australia banned whistle-blowing site, Wikileaks. Other similar political and information providing sites are also banned. In Thailand, which has terrible issues of practically institutionalized child molestation, a similar "noble mission" started with the excuse of censoring child porn sites. Now a quarter of the sites on the black list are censored because they mention the Thai royal family in a critical light. Censorship never stops at its proclaimed targets, but malignantly expands. Censors can often find other parties who, though not agreeing with the censorship itself, can often be persuaded to side with the censors through convenience or for return support for their own issues. Thus censorship grows. ICANN's role is to assist in providing free and equitable access to information. That purpose is not to lock up information because some individuals think that their personal sensibilities deserve protection from ideas or images that might chafe.