<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
My position of online safety is that ICANN should only protect against
fraud and not free speech. Porn is a slippery slope. If we were to take
the Mormon position against porn, do we then take the Catholic position
against birth control or condom use? Do we take down criticism of
Islam? Do we protect children from "cults". ICANN is not in the law
enforcement business. We aren't here to police the Internet - just make
it work. <br>
<br>
Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:C5E92902.5A8C%25k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk"
type="cite">
<title>Re: Discussion of Cybersafety Constituency</title>
<font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;">I am also very much in favor of promoting
issues of online and individual safety, however, my main concern is
that if such issues are promoted under the CP80 or the Mormon agenda
only certain views will be expressed that reflect the culture and
tradition of such groups. Everybody, irrespective of religious or
personal beliefs, wants to see an Internet safe and secure; however,
the means through which this will be achieved varies amongst the
members of the constituency and this is not to say that these views
cannot be expressed. However, we always have to bear in mind that these
views only represent a small fraction of the constituency and are
designed to deal with issues under a different, more religious,
perspective that does not necessarily comply with everybody’s idea of
how safety online is to be achieved. To me this sounds like an
imposition of religious beliefs rather than a genuine concern about
the issues discussed.<br>
<br>
Konstantinos<br>
<br>
</span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
</span></font>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>