[lac-discuss-en] proposed GNSO group "CyberSafety Constituency" devoted to censorship?

[Lance Hinds]

I agree, ICANN insists that their mandate pertains specifically to ensuring
the structural integrity of the internet space. I submit therefore that
getting involved in content regulation is not part of that mandate. 

Lance Hinds 
DevNet 
Georgetown, Guyana

-----Original Message-----
From: lac-discuss-en-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:lac-discuss-en-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Dev
Anand Teelucksingh
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:07 AM
To: lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org
Subject: [lac-discuss-en] proposed GNSO group "CyberSafety Constituency"
devoted to censorship?

Via the IGP blog at 
http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/3/17/4125801.html

is the mention that the proposed CyberSafety Constituency 
(http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#cybersafety)
is "an extension of the CP80 Foundation ( 
<http://www.cp80.org>http://www.cp80.org/). CP80 is devoted to 
systematic, global censorship of internet content in order to eradicate 
pornography."

In my opinion, ICANN should not be involved with content regulation. 
Thoughts?

Dev Anand Teelucksingh






_______________________________________________
lac-discuss-en mailing list
lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en_atlarge-lists
.icann.org