Cybersafety is not about port filtering

[Jennifer Earnshaw Warburton <jennwarburt@xxxxxxxxx>]

 From the comments I have read on this page, I am wondering how many people
have taken the time to actually read the Cybersafety petition.  So many
comments are reacting to the port limitations for certain content but that
material is not in the cybersafety petition.  From my reading, the petition
will represent the voice of the people who are currently not represented at
ICANN.  I am all for protecting free speech and at the same time I am
supportive of ensuring that the decisions made by ICANN include the voices
of victims, children, and the little non-commercial users like me who do not
have major business funding me and the issues I care about.

It can be understandable to have a strong reaction to the thought of free
speech on the Internet being encroached upon but this petition and the
proposed group are not doing that.  Instead, what I am hearing, and it is
always the most hilarious to me when I hear it from people who like to think
that they are the ones who care most about free speech, are commentors on
this post saying that people who disagree with them ought to be silenced.
Does that strike anyone else as being odd?  Free speech means free speech
even (especially?) for people with whom you disagree.  Yet many comments
here, in the name of free speech, say that the voice of a group, or
religion, or individual ought to be silenced.

As I read along, some of the comments concerned me so I started looking for
additional information to verify the accusations made by the comment.  For
example, one commentor accused Ms. Preston (the author of the petition, in
case you have not read it) of not disclosing her affiliation with a group
but it took me two seconds of looking to find that Ms. Preston is actually
listed on the NCUC page with her affiliation listed as that group she is
accused of not disclosing (http://www.ncdnhc.org/members.htm).  If personal
accusations are going to be made, then the commentor ought to double check
their facts before posting or better yet, the commentor ought to comment on
the specific issues of the petition rather than making personal attacks.
Additionally, who knew someone had to not have any litigation pending in
order to be a credible voice at ICANN?  And how exactly does that impact the
issues presented in the proposed cybersafety petition?

I support the cybersafety petition because it will bring new diverse voices
to the table for the discussion and to me, that is free speech at its
finest.

Best Regards,
Jennifer
Minato-ku
Tokyo, Japan