The IETF is a volunteer organization;
whence the volunteers for unpopular proposals?
They're in the DTN WG.
________________________________________
From: ietf <ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> on behalf of Nico Williams
<nico(_at_)cryptonector(_dot_)com>
Sent: Friday, 4 September 2015 8:44:00 AM
To: Bhakta Giridhari Damoda Das Jonadon Brah Mahabarat
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Proposal for a Clean Internet (by design)
On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 11:11:21PM +0000, Bhakta Giridhari Damoda Das Jonadon
Brah Mahabarat wrote:
Proposal for A Safe, Clean Internet
Before I disclose the concept proposed I will preclude a Big Brother
Internet Censorship that prevents people from exercising free choice.
That is, the concept does not intend to prohibit content in the public
domain which is controversial and or considered in poor taste by some.
No censorship enforcement is proposed- that is, no restriction on what
people display on their websites is discussed. What is proposed is a
world standard recognising the right to choose a clean Internet
experience- ie, what is displayed (by choice) in a web browser. At the
moment, this is left to the computer owner to determine, by means, if
so desired, of Net Nanny software or similar. This works, but it is
not as responsible as it could be.
This will fail for many reasons.
For example, different jurisdictions will have different definitions of
common carriers and liability rules for them. Without global agreement
as to this you'll have great difficulty getting your filtering concept
to work the way you want it to. And then you'll need incentives and
disincentives, with, again, fairly global agreement as to them and
enforcement. It's a mess.
And then there's definitions. You'll get bogged down on those.
And then there are plenty of people who like getting paid for providing
the filtering services that you want to make cheaper...
And then there's niggling things like the First Amendment in the U.S.
The IETF is not really a good organization for driving global legal
standards... The IETF can resist these kinds of proposals more easily
than it can help drive their adoption -- it's a fact of life. You'll
probably find that most IETF participants are not interested in helping
you with this. The IETF is a volunteer organization; whence the
volunteers for unpopular proposals?
The Concept
An internet site registrar is declared, where owners of existing web
sites or new web sites can apply to have their web site registered :
the owner submits their site's URL, and the registrar reviews the site
and it is admitted to the registrar if it contains anything but any of
the following:
Really? How often should re-reviews be done? Is there an appeals
process?
Pornography of any form
I suspect that in the West any real threat to cutting off access to
pornography wouldn't survive the polls.
Gambling
Gambling is quite acceptable in some jurisdictions.
Sex-driven sites (excluding dating sites which require reasonable decorum)
Who is to define what "reasonable decorum" is?
Racist sites
Ditto.
Inflammatory sites
Ditto.
Sites promoting or discussing illegal activity (as a general theme- the
intent is never to prohibit open discussion: free speech is what makes laws
so strong- they can stand examination)
That may not be your intent, but there will be those who will intend to
prohibit "open discussion". Even many people who would like to see
pornography labelled as such will balk when they get to this item.
Sites which promote consumption of conciousness-altering substances,
including caffeine, nicotine and ethanol
{please add to list}
Really?! Anyone still supporting your concept before getting to this
item is liable to turn into an enemy to the death once they see that you
threaten their caffeine supply.
....
Sites which are permitted:
...
Personal Home pages, provided the content is not offensive, or derisive
Ditto.
News sites
In the U.S. anyone and everyone is "the press" for the purposes of the
First Amendment.
Internet Search engines
Wikipedia
Some of the things on Wikipedia no doubt would be shocking to you.
Selected YouTube content
Selected? By whom?!
{please add to list}
....
Anything you would not be alarmed by if your children were reading, for
example.
I suspect that you'd be alarmed by the things that I'm not alarmed by my
children reading. Here's a tip: children grow up, and as they grow the
universe of material that is OK for them to consume varies. Here's
another tip: different parents have different standards.
How does it Work?
Spoiler alert: it won't.
Nico
--