Dev, I fully agree with you and this is in compliance with the position taken when we discussed .xxx issue. Regards, Matías Altamira IIISI Rep. NomCom Rep. Matías Altamira Abogado ALTAMIRA GIGENA - Estudio Jurídico Bv. San Juan 101 Piso 2° "A" Córdoba - República Argentina Tel: +54 351 4281624 - 4257923 matias@altamiragigena.com.ar www.altamiragigena.com.ar -----Original Message----- From: lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Dev Anand Teelucksingh Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 8:07 AM To: lac-discuss-en@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@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en_atlarge-lists .icann.org