Subject: Proposal for a Clean Internet (by design)

From: Bhakta Giridhari Damoda Das Jonadon Brah Mahabarat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 23:11:21 +0000

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. 

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:

Pornography of any form
Gambling
Sex-driven sites (excluding dating sites which require reasonable decorum)
Racist sites
Inflammatory sites
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)
Sites which promote consumption of conciousness-altering substances, including caffeine, nicotine and ethanol
{please add to list}
....

 Sites which are permitted:

Personal Home pages, provided the content is not offensive, or derisive
News sites
Internet Search engines
Wikipedia
Selected YouTube content
{please add to list}
....
Anything you would not be alarmed by if your children were reading, for example.

The concept is like Net Nanny, but the onus, motivation, and benefit is with (1) the content owners/authors and providers, (2) governments, to embrace that the Internet is an international forum which deserves sensitive attention so as to cultivate sound content to make a sound web experience, for (3) the people who live in the world.

How does it Work?

The segregation is implemented at the Domain Name System (DNS) level (the level where the protocol and technology which converts a Uniform Resource Locator such as www.entyzero.net to it's Internet Protocol (IP) address is). The IP address is what is used to locate the computer hosting the content one wishes to browse.

There are two steps:

[1] DNS is revised to support acknowlegment of web sites that are registered. A new entry in a DNS lookup response which flags for those entries that are for registered sites is implemented. 

[2] Web browsers are revised to support a feature which selects whether to access only registered content. This feature incorporates sending web servers such as those hosting search engines a message which indicates only registered content should be displayed in search results if the browser feature is accordingly configured.

When a web browser requests a name resolution for a web site, and the web browser is configured to only display registered content, the return from the DNS server includes a indicator which informs the web browser whether the requested address is registered or not registered. If the browser is configured to show registered content and the DNS server response indicates non-registered content, the browser displays an appropriate informational message along the lines of "Content is not registered." Also suggested is a prompt by the web browser asking whether to display the content anyway. In this case, should the operator of the computer elect to display the content anyway, NetNanny or equivalent softwares can still determine whether content is ultimately displayed.

It is great that Net Nanny exists, and there is likely to be a difference of opinions about what is acceptable so to fine tune selection to cater for this Net Nanny and other content restriction software continue to serve an essential purpose. There can even be web sites which are registered but at the computer owner's or operator's discretion should still be restricted by Net Nanny or equivalent software.

WHY?

The point is more to draw attention of the world to actively participate in creating a by-choice clean Internet. The world should be ready to accept responsibility and enjoy the benefit of actively promoting the freedom to choose a clean Internet experience. Net Nanny and equivalent softwares are still essential where a computer owner's discretion deems (some) site(s) that are not registered be nonetheless permitted. Further reason why Net Nanny and equivalent softwares are valuable is apparent if you look further down the horizon of this proposal, where Internet Ratings are implemented, similar to the Film Industry's Rating System: there can be difference of opinion about what is PG and what is M and what M rated content should be permitted.

The technology which houses and provides the Internet is mature. The organisations which accept standards of that technology are well established and also mature. Mature enough, I think, to implement provisions to support higher quality choice. I invite governments of the world to discuss this and collaberate their interests, so that we live in a world where we don't just leave it to someone else, but instead actively promote a clean Internet experience implemented at a technology level- at a protocol level. In other words, a safer Internet by design.

Giridhri

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2015 15:29:16 -0700 (PDT)

You said:

"....

Pornography of any form

Gambling

Racist sites

Inflammatory sites

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)

Sites which promote consumption of conciousness-altering substances, 
including caffeine, nicotine and ethanol

...."

Exactly WHO gets to define these concepts? What is legal in country X 
may be illegal in country Y, etc. What is consider "decorum" or even
"open discussion" [Google for "Tank Man"] also varies greatly by region
and culture.

Generally speaking, Layer 9 solutions do not tend to work well when 
applied on any larger scale.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher
The Internet Protocol Journal
Office:  +1 415-550-9433
Cell:    +1 415-370-4628
UK Cell: +44 7805 977889
docomo: (090) 3337-9311
Web: protocoljournal.org
E-mail: [email-masked]
E-mail: [email-masked]
Skype: organdemo

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 17:44:00 -0500

On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 11:11:21PM +0000, Bhakta Giridhari Damoda Das Jonadon Brah Mahabarat wrote:
> 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

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.

> Wikipedia

Some of the things on Wikipedia no doubt would be shocking to you.

> Selected YouTube content

Selected?  By whom?!

> 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
--

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 08:39:00 +0900

> applied on any larger scale.

Though it might be difficult for people in USA to understand, the
issue is at Layer 10 of "Culture".

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 21:14:22 -0400

See RFC 3675 for a discussion of some problems with something somewhat
what you suggest but enormously simpler and easier.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]

On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 7:11 PM, Bhakta Giridhari Damoda Das Jonadon
Brah Mahabarat <[email-masked]> wrote:
> ________________________________
> ________________________________
>
> 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.
>
> 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:
>
> Pornography of any form
> Gambling
> 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)
> The concept is like Net Nanny, but the onus, motivation, and benefit is with
> (1) the content owners/authors and providers, (2) governments, to embrace
> that the Internet is an international forum which deserves sensitive
> attention so as to cultivate sound content to make a sound web experience,
> for (3) the people who live in the world.
>
>
> How does it Work?
> ________________________________
>
> The segregation is implemented at the Domain Name System (DNS) level (the
> level where the protocol and technology which converts a Uniform Resource
> Locator such as www.entyzero.net to it's Internet Protocol (IP) address is).
> The IP address is what is used to locate the computer hosting the content
> one wishes to browse.
>
>
> There are two steps:
>
> [1] DNS is revised to support acknowlegment of web sites that are
> registered. A new entry in a DNS lookup response which flags for those
> entries that are for registered sites is implemented.
>
> [2] Web browsers are revised to support a feature which selects whether to
> access only registered content. This feature incorporates sending web
> servers such as those hosting search engines a message which indicates only
> registered content should be displayed in search results if the browser
> feature is accordingly configured.
>
>
> When a web browser requests a name resolution for a web site, and the web
> browser is configured to only display registered content, the return from
> the DNS server includes a indicator which informs the web browser whether
> the requested address is registered or not registered. If the browser is
> configured to show registered content and the DNS server response indicates
> non-registered content, the browser displays an appropriate informational
> message along the lines of "Content is not registered." Also suggested is a
> prompt by the web browser asking whether to display the content anyway. In
> this case, should the operator of the computer elect to display the content
> anyway, NetNanny or equivalent softwares can still determine whether content
> is ultimately displayed.
>
> It is great that Net Nanny exists, and there is likely to be a difference of
> opinions about what is acceptable so to fine tune selection to cater for
> this Net Nanny and other content restriction software continue to serve an
> essential purpose. There can even be web sites which are registered but at
> the computer owner's or operator's discretion should still be restricted by
> Net Nanny or equivalent software.
>
> WHY?
> ________________________________
> The point is more to draw attention of the world to actively participate in
> creating a by-choice clean Internet. The world should be ready to accept
> responsibility and enjoy the benefit of actively promoting the freedom to
> choose a clean Internet experience. Net Nanny and equivalent softwares are
> still essential where a computer owner's discretion deems (some) site(s)
> that are not registered be nonetheless permitted. Further reason why Net
> Nanny and equivalent softwares are valuable is apparent if you look further
> down the horizon of this proposal, where Internet Ratings are implemented,
> similar to the Film Industry's Rating System: there can be difference of
> opinion about what is PG and what is M and what M rated content should be
> permitted.
>
>
> The technology which houses and provides the Internet is mature. The
> organisations which accept standards of that technology are well established
> and also mature. Mature enough, I think, to implement provisions to support
> higher quality choice. I invite governments of the world to discuss this and
> collaberate their interests, so that we live in a world where we don't just
> leave it to someone else, but instead actively promote a clean Internet
> experience implemented at a technology level- at a protocol level. In other
> words, a safer Internet by design.
>
> Giridhri

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 21:48:16 -0400

Given that one of the reasons many of us got into this was precisely to
prevent governments from controlling any of the items in the list, this is
not going to be happen here or anywhere else. You seem to be under the
misapprehension that we are the Internet governance body. We are not and
nor are the people who claim to be. Their role is strictly limited to
allowing those of a nervous disposition to reassure themselves that someone
is in charge.

This is not Western imperialism. The values the Internet embodies are
entirely modern and have only been adopted very recently and with utmost
reluctance in the West. As later as the 1960s, the UK government was still
attempting to prevent publication of 'obscene' novels and my Oxford
contemporary David Cameron still holds out the ambition of suppressing
Internet pornography. It was ever so, the elites have always regarded the
mass of humanity, the mob with loathing, distrust and fear.

No, this is not Imperialism of the West, it is the imperialism of the
people, the true dictatorship of the proletariat which thumbs its nose at
all who would exercise authority over them. Once the mob has a hold of a
thing it is a very brave and very foolhardy politician that tries to take
it away. They are many, you elites are so pitifully few.

Be thankful that their demands are so limited and they will be sated by
amusing pictures of cats and a limitless mountain of porn.

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 22:05:31 -0400

On Sep 3, 2015, at 18:17, Bhakta Giridhari Damoda Das Jonadon Brah
Mahabarat <[email-masked]> wrote:

------------------------------
Proposal for A Safe, Clean Internet
------------------------------

Your approach seems to be to achieve universal consensus on what "safe and
clean" means and then... Well, let me stop there, because that's enough.
Good luck with the first part.

I'm a father of two, a fifteen year old boy and a ten year old girl. Both
of them have grown up never knowing a computer that wasn't connected to the
Internet (well, they've seen them, but those ones are called "broken
computers"). Neither of them have ever had their access censored by me.

Both of them have found things in the world that were scary or confusing
using the Internet. I know this because they have both talked to me about
it. But they have learned themselves how to find things that are
interesting, entertaining or that otherwise suit their tastes and they
don't need my help in figuring out what they like, regardless of whether
those things are online or in meatspace.

I am glad my kids started figuring this stuff out early. I'm glad they
continue to figure this stuff out. In my opinion you grow healthy and
capable adults by repeatedly challenging them from a tender age until
they're old enough to make good decisions on their own.

If there *was* a subset of the Internet that contained only content that
satisfied some contrived, universal moral standard, I would keep my kids
away from it. Their job is to learn about the world, and my job is not to
hide it from them.

I'm not suggesting that I know better than anybody else, but I thought a
data-point that challenged the fundamental premise of what I sense you're
trying to achieve might be useful.

Joe

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 17:11:11 +1200

I was going to chime in about why this will never happen. But then I thought, troll?

   Brian

---

From: Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 01:38:54 -0400

> I was going to chime in about why this will never happen. But then I thought, troll?

was it the multicolor text that gave it away?

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 01:47:00 -0400

--On Thursday, September 03, 2015 21:14 -0400 Donald Eastlake
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> See RFC 3675 for a discussion of some problems with something
> somewhat what you suggest but enormously simpler and easier.

Of course, one could also examine RFC 3514 for some ideas as to
how to implement such ideas.  :-(.  

As others have said from different perspectives, if one can
clearly differentiate between Good and Evil or Clean and Unclean
and get universal agreement about the boundaries, then many
things become feasible.  Unfortunately, the quest for such
boundaries, and debates about them, are, depending on which
sources you believe, eight to 12 millennia or more old.  Perhaps
it will be resolved in the next few years, but that would be
truly surprising.

    john

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 10:26:57 -0400

> I was going to chime in about why this will never happen. But then I

I can well imagine a similar article being penned by a member of Narendra
Modi's administration. Or given his predilection for the perpendicular
participle, the 'I Modi' administration as I like to call it.

My former acquaintances in the UK Tory party are currently busy with a
rather similar ambition albeit with a notably comical lack of success.

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 16:40:56 +0200

On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 01:38:54AM -0400,
 Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]> wrote 

> was it the multicolor text that gave it away?

Or the fact that he doesn't know the difference between the Web and
the Internet, or between a domain name and an URL?

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 4 Sep 2015 15:22:20 -0000

>the Internet, or between a domain name and an URL?

Perhaps, between the IETF and the Network Police.

Perhaps in the future we could just disregard let stuff like this,
since nobody is going to say anything useful or surprising.

R's,
John

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2015 02:52:42 +0000

> The IETF is a volunteer organization;
> whence the volunteers for unpopular proposals?

They're in the DTN WG.
________________________________________
From: ietf <[email-masked]> on behalf of Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, 4 September 2015 8:44:00 AM
To: Bhakta Giridhari Damoda Das Jonadon Brah Mahabarat
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Proposal for a Clean Internet (by design)

Ditto.

Ditto.

...

Ditto.

Selected?  By whom?!

Spoiler alert: it won't.

Nico
--