CyberSafety Constituency just another U.S. control attempt at ICANN

[IPB Corporation]

I was looking at the ICANN page today and I saw the petition for a new
constituency – the so-called “CyberSafety Constituency.” I read
through their petition to form the constituency and I was alarmed. Who
were these people? What do they mean by safety? I came to the
conclusion that this was a way for law enforcement to have their own
constituency.

I commented to ICANN about my concerns, but only when I read the
previously submitted comments did I realize what this was really about
— anti-porn.

I read the entire petition, and nowhere does it mention pornography.
So why are there all these comments on the list supporting the
suppression of pornography? How did they figure it out when I
couldn’t? Am I so doltish? Or is this just a way for one of the United
States’ “culture wars” groups to get a bully pulpit for their
crusade?

In the end, despite my confusion about what CyberSafety really means,
I think my comments stand – whatever they stand for, the people behind
the new CyberSafety Constituency need to plainly state what their
mission is.

Following are my specific criticisms of the Petition to form the CSC,
redacted slightly to correct typos and missing words:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the formation of a new
CyberSafety Constituency (CSC).

I am against constituencies in general, because they tend to entrench
advocacy positions and make it difficult to achieve compromise.
Furthermore, ICANN constituencies may make rules which further narrow
the interest of the group to the point where positions that ought to
be represented in the constituency are filtered out. And all of this,
without clearly defining what the role of the new constituency might
be. The CSC proposal is a case in point. There are many problems with
this application.

Their mission, according to the petition, is to: “advocat[e] that
ICANN policies and the technical development of the Internet should
not unduly impair the lawful rights of governments and other
organizations of authority to take steps to protect their citizens and
members from illegal activity conducted on or through the Internet. ”

UNCLEAR MEMBERSHIP, NAME AND MISSION
The phrase “other organizations of authority” ought to be worrisome.
Who are these organizations? If this is code for law enforcement, then
it ought to be called the Law Enforcement Constituency (LEC). If these
organizations already have “lawful rights,” then ICANN is no position
at all to impede them, since they have both the law and the
enforcement capability already on their side. And what does “safety”
mean? Before ICANN admits a constituency, we ought to have a clear
sense of that constituency’s charter, who its membership is intended
for, a convincing explanation of what as-yet-unfilled role they would
play, and a name that clearly denotes the constituency’s function.

UNDUE PRIVILEGE TO “SAFETY” CONCERNS — DOUBLE REPRESENTATION
In the petition, the reason given for the formation of the new
constituency is that freedom of speech and privacy are already well-
represented within the GNSO, and that alternatives or correctives to
that point of view should be heard. Fair enough, but there exists no
Free Speech Constituency that needs to be balanced. Instead, these
voices are within the GNSO generally. Why can’t those who wish to
present a different point of view also make their case within the GNSO
generally — why do they need the privileged position of a
constituency? It might also be added that since their mission is
basically to represent government authority, that they *already* have
a privileged position in the GAC. We already have one case of two
constituencies representing the exact same interests — the Business
and IP consituencies — and there is no need for ICANN to compound that
error by giving governmental and law enforcement two pulpits.

LIMITED MEMBERSHIP
According to the petition, membership in the CSC-LEC would be
restricted to not-for-profits and individuals who work for them. No
reason is given, and one is necessary. I cannot fathom what would
prevent a company or a person who works for a company from providing
disinterested input and support to a constituency’s mission,
especially this one’s. As everyone at ICANN knows, there are many
instances of people working for for-profit companies who toil on
Working Groups whose recommendations are often not in their employer’s
immediate interest. Before granting the status of a constituency to a
group who wishes to unduly restrict membership, ICANN should ask them
to provide a rationale.

In summary, I believe this petition should be sent back to the authors
for improvements. If, as they say, they want to work in ICANN in the
spirit of ICANN, they need to be much less opaque about their
objectives, their role, and why they are needed at ICANN. In
particular, if law enforcement wants to have a role at ICANN, they
need to be much less shadowy.

With thanks for the chance to make comments,

Antony Van Couvering