From nobody Mon Apr 6 08:22:45 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 007591A88D7 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 08:22:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.309 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.309 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IIFWPjcBRr2e for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 08:22:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.gn.apc.org (mail.gn.apc.org [37.220.108.136]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A20EA1A8A5A for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 08:22:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.gn.apc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AE0D2039208 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 16:22:27 +0100 (BST) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mail.gn.apc.org Received: from mail.gn.apc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.gn.apc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q84HYet2NhXU for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 16:22:25 +0100 (BST) Received: from anonymous ([10.254.254.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mallory) by mail.gn.apc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BAE252001D79 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 16:22:24 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <5522A4AF.90304@apc.org> Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 11:22:23 -0400 From: Mallory Knodel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hrpc@irtf.org Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="eL2pPasp6thtLiQnhxcBoEQd1tQAOA2Wa" Archived-At: Subject: [Hrpc] ideas for data and concept visualisation X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 15:22:44 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --eL2pPasp6thtLiQnhxcBoEQd1tQAOA2Wa Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020405060404050608030406" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020405060404050608030406 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi everyone Maybe some of you remember and have read the APC publication "Human rights and Internet protocols"[0]. APC was considering refreshing this at some point, but perhaps in the form of a visualisation of the concepts= =2E That leads me to imagine that there are other ideas for visualisation or infographics related to this work. Could folks share their thoughts? We should explore opportunities together, I think, for explaining different concepts to different audiences. -Mallory --=20 Mallory Knodel Association for Progressive Communications :: apc.org gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780 --------------020405060404050608030406 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi everyone

Maybe some of you remember and have read the APC publication "Human rights and Internet protocols"[0]. APC was considering refreshing this at some point, but perhaps in the form of a visualisation of the concepts.

That leads me to imagine that there are other ideas for visualisation or infographics related to this work. Could folks share their thoughts? We should explore opportunities together, I think, for explaining different concepts to different audiences.

-Mallory
--
Mallory Knodel
Association for Progressive Communications :: apc.org
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780
--------------020405060404050608030406-- --eL2pPasp6thtLiQnhxcBoEQd1tQAOA2Wa Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVIqSvAAoJEAwyonG9PMeAiwAIAK68mDIAEmjhNqvH8GxQZCgv eC7Kfo+62A/SdmvDGsFG2BBPs44085IOGWhDOEcP3jNIohIG0ZW5NvR8/fx8tlIe FNGKcKAOSFbCucOjXndkoaO7al0tpcTNJ6lrwY7VJR+C7H3rQH+0BIsSCCTVYzUm FxUjr2G2NRL7NU+bn59VvKj8Xn3lqABipD/iGrAkaaaX1xW56uRzK+NnK76xNIu7 7mNP3DwWgpdY4zhHKoWfJvSqbPsL6YLb+Z1NLYv4slHx/FDBp2zHPHc0obmfXrkm QcoWkKO194eoq6bqeKm26fccBwZx2Zhc8vyD0lx7fZXIVWrUu+xtsAN7wjM2mns= =wwc/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --eL2pPasp6thtLiQnhxcBoEQd1tQAOA2Wa-- From nobody Mon Apr 6 08:52:40 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E05DE1A8979 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 08:52:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.009 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.009 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xnwjbw3baPcx for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 08:52:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.gn.apc.org (mail.gn.apc.org [37.220.108.136]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98D931A8AA4 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 08:52:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.gn.apc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69ECD2003E82 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 16:52:29 +0100 (BST) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mail.gn.apc.org Received: from mail.gn.apc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.gn.apc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8UAV4qLOw5o4 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 16:52:27 +0100 (BST) Received: from anonymous ([10.254.254.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mallory) by mail.gn.apc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2A8152002335 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 16:52:27 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <5522ABBA.1000506@apc.org> Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 11:52:26 -0400 From: Mallory Knodel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hrpc@irtf.org References: <5522A4AF.90304@apc.org> In-Reply-To: <5522A4AF.90304@apc.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="EnpiJo0GCpm9fcwNeWfpJ43RHirjeS1sc" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Hrpc] ideas for data and concept visualisation X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 15:52:39 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --EnpiJo0GCpm9fcwNeWfpJ43RHirjeS1sc Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020709060703040300090303" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020709060703040300090303 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 04/06/2015 11:22 AM, Mallory Knodel wrote: > Hi everyone > > Maybe some of you remember and have read the APC publication "Human > rights and Internet protocols"[0]. APC was considering refreshing this > at some point, but perhaps in the form of a visualisation of the concep= ts. > > That leads me to imagine that there are other ideas for visualisation o= r > infographics related to this work. Could folks share their thoughts? We= > should explore opportunities together, I think, for explaining differen= t > concepts to different audiences. > > -Mallory [0] https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/human-rights-and-internet-protocols-comparing= -proc --=20 Mallory Knodel Association for Progressive Communications :: apc.org gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780 --------------020709060703040300090303 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 04/06/2015 11:22 AM, Mallory Knodel= wrote:
Hi everyone

Maybe some of you remember and have read the APC publication "Human
rights and Internet protocols"[0]. APC was considering refreshing this
at some point, but perhaps in the form of a visualisation of the concepts=
=2E

That leads me to imagine that there are other ideas for visualisation or
infographics related to this work. Could folks share their thoughts? We
should explore opportunities together, I think, for explaining different
concepts to different audiences.

-Mallory
[0] https://www.apc.org/en/= pubs/human-rights-and-internet-protocols-comparing-proc

--
Mallory Knodel
Association for Progressive Communications :: apc.org
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780
--------------020709060703040300090303-- --EnpiJo0GCpm9fcwNeWfpJ43RHirjeS1sc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVIqu6AAoJEAwyonG9PMeA8FsH/RulMz0dfCagic5NAxANWS3W 1S7Kp+6x2iZ4mysJG6FnZfOyi61K3QIyqeqbby9FX60nZJbXpD7Fqy7CaOxX/CcS OopGX8lDU4WZ0sKKGSLCkfn5iUYqKc8VF6dEulYQeByBrUvr5aM6WK8EVSX56Sqi gmoag1tk/jcJPQrHZMH2+EYuSeaxT2R+t2anUmddftL4Dw2iJMNFERhMd8U42zqz YwQmmXvgP51jeCSwSLxGqdsrukg3dx+OY8aU1PxtNX1HI4cn+S9K5N8oKY4Uex0Y N3hzxoGNJ8ULowQH5WRWq8jM9MuXyvGrO9ha+VqSgr8LmC9WNDEgnc5g8NtgTb8= =n9nH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --EnpiJo0GCpm9fcwNeWfpJ43RHirjeS1sc-- From nobody Mon Apr 6 13:43:45 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 521F11A9167 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 13:43:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.124 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.124 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eRqjUsOeXw6Z for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 13:43:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.article19.io (vps784.greenhost.nl [213.108.108.114]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86F211A9166 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 13:43:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 598FBCC03D for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 20:46:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.article19.io ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.article19.io [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id 8jeYF55OFobv for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 20:46:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E225821B for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 20:46:40 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.article19.io Received: from mail.article19.io ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.article19.io [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id aqnw0QUpM1UD for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 20:46:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.14] (d109201.upc-d.chello.nl [213.46.109.201]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0B96C8176 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 20:46:40 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5522EFF6.2000609@article19.org> Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 22:43:34 +0200 From: Niels ten Oever User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hrpc@irtf.org References: <55197462.7080508@kit.edu> In-Reply-To: <55197462.7080508@kit.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Hrpc] [hrpc] Some Thoughts X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 20:43:44 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Roland, Sorry I have been slow to respond. On 03/30/2015 06:05 PM, Bless, Roland (TM) wrote: > Hi, >=20 > I think that the work is important and this proposed research > group needs input from different disciplines: IETF participants > representing the technical side, but also people from social > sciences and legal sciences. >=20 > * Larry Masinter made a comment that there is also a need for=20 > balancing rights. He is correct in the sense that different=20 > stakeholders may have different objectives, because they focus also > on different values or assets. This typically leads to _conflicts_, > maybe even somewhere in the network as nicely described in [1]. > Usually we use institutions like (social) norms, laws and courts in > order to resolve such conflicts, but also technical systems, either > implicitly or explicitly [2]. Since the Universal declaration of > human rights defines some of the highest values that we know, it's > probably a good starting point. Very often different societies have > different preferences for certain values. Thanks for this, in this light, how do you see the proposal made by Mark Nottingham to make end-users rights the highest priorities? Perhaps that would provide an extra tool/axis to balance rights? >=20 > * There was some discussion about protocol definition and intended > use. I guess that the IETF always has a motivation and usage > scenario while defining protocols, but the IETF usually doesn't do > anything if the protocol is used in a different manner as > originally intended. I think the main point here is that IETF > participants could try to think about alternative protocol designs > that may result in different implications for human rights etc. It > may be beneficial to find a methodology how certain rights/values > could be realized in a better way (e.g., data minimization for=20 > better privacy etc.). >=20 > * Comments on slide 13 of the presentation. Some more concepts came > to my mind: - Accessibility (you need unfettered access to the=20 > Internet/resources/information) - Openness (eases participation) - > Autonomy (e.g., Autonomous System approach) - Federations of > independent domains (ASes, Mail, XMPP servers etc.) Probably the > latter two are sub-principles or closely related to the distributed > nature of solutions. One could also view parts of the list from > slide 13 hierarchically like: Reliability -> Robustness -> > Stateless, Graceful failures/degradation, partial healing, etc. >=20 Thanks! Adding these concepts to the working draft of the ID. > * On slide 15: the lower terms from "interoperable protocols ...=20 > resilience" are concepts that can be used to achieve good/robust=20 > connectivity. However, if I have no access to that robust and well > connected network, I'm limited in participation and maybe freedom > of association. Therefore, accessibility may be also important. Connectivity is already there under freedom of expression, do you think that would suffice? >=20 > Regards, Roland Best, Niels >=20 > [1] http://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2002/papers/tussle.pdf=20 > [2] https://harvardmagazine.com/2000/01/code-is-law-html >=20 > _______________________________________________ hrpc mailing list=20 > hrpc@article19.io https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >=20 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVIu/1AAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpSboIAJgj3X/cdJuNErNXFtA06tns wwPiK8tzOGcaHY1aGusYtkPScYGjnF/fMivEZFNQv++SPq5dkKrxAVeHtDb3R/1j w+Fzlu5ilmLvLet6dYP9hw8XDEqQLRkBkSu/BjXZ7TCn8wn4U1lC6cRWTZmEn8gy KLaJHuVKPaeBZcUq4OyObEihDGAXHex92gpDyKtDx/Ctham+RmlPIqiPhAw8HIkS DV0crdi6NSH+9tBFfb3jXr+sbYKu9WdjoiXCKa9shVRC8YIGkN6P8loa4DBktPvx w/Nyyp6FZFDs8GZALsrCHpcho6m2qdA36+FB+bRoUZyHPd3/biD+OR1oZ96zKV4=3D =3DFBAK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From nobody Mon Apr 6 14:14:00 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 533151ABD35 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 14:13:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.323 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.323 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3oYcenu4-eXv for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 14:13:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.article19.io (vps784.greenhost.nl [213.108.108.114]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E3531ABC10 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 14:13:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC022CC03D for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 21:16:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.article19.io ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.article19.io [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id 8ZK1cdTIDmub for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 21:16:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14EC4CC03F for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 21:16:59 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.article19.io Received: from mail.article19.io ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.article19.io [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id L4y01_nnT96V for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 21:16:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.14] (d109201.upc-d.chello.nl [213.46.109.201]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CE8C1CC03D for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 21:16:58 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5522F712.4060606@article19.org> Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 23:13:54 +0200 From: Niels ten Oever User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hrpc@irtf.org References: <55159D03.2090606@azet.org> In-Reply-To: <55159D03.2090606@azet.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Hrpc] [hrpc] Nomenclature/Definition of Human Rights issues in Protocol Design X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 21:13:59 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Aaron, On 03/27/2015 07:10 PM, Aaron Zauner wrote: <> > I think the proper approach is to think of intent (as done in > security in general). Speaking of malicious intent when a protocol > is (mis)used in a way that causes human rights issues would be an > example. > Why would one need the concept of intent when it can already been shown that a protocol is causing human rights violations? Intent is very hard to show, and only having a protocol be used the way it was intended would probably have negative consequences for permission-less innovation. Looking forward to discuss. Best, Niels -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVIvcSAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpmh4H/RZzLaAIXBvN4OJvRmmjyZH5 1hDwWNgahXkovCr0aGi7sVd+MR4+KA56ncOTu9eIl7Jdo9if97YN/3btOJzIYqoS gx8xsBVnvr7RE5Y6ratXPDb4bdFucKAxa3Y2J99V1nBZlnx2WL0vR+hKiRf98nHS B+k1mWGzv3Rve6Rb250j0iaaJpKznB/W8wYdZvDwetaXiSo8IsbYZXKpQyCE1zwv NJWpBAJf+1jk4D4IkNZOImTzoAQ868k55HuJu3zXx4PWYMCdVDP5ZTkytdpXFzx+ agyZM8pukP7A0cPOjN4AgPbBX5bh8yz0Dbn2KDPNV5f7ewvkMBLKEdXY/H6WavI= =/frh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From nobody Tue Apr 7 00:55:50 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD55D1A0397 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 00:55:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -114.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id erXmUOQcWnGG for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 00:55:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 195541A038C for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 00:55:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2080; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1428393348; x=1429602948; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=AqGFVz2HwUOZLiHBtvPypy/uDpKGhYOBFMpQzfAq6wU=; b=Znxvz4BAPd4SxVUJfruTK3PRUuRzNEjfiq1tuuOGI2el2QfN1zJglJqi 4aGgDBscMQdI6Bsftc749l/MpOWsCg75Qw8AGCJSCeM8Wg9pnk6lUbPXt s3/QBhx+lhqYD/42Yc8/WwAJaDu9SQPLN2AVn+CUPSGUo7Rj69FUDgpVF g=; X-Files: signature.asc : 487 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AQBQBNjSNV/4MNJK1cgwhSXAWDEMIuhX0CgSZMAQEBAQEBfoQeAQEBAwEjVgULAgEIGCoCAjIlAgQOBQ6IGQgNtFOWXgEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAReLK4R8B4JoL4EWBZB0gW6BM1eGD4FXkwQigjOBPG+BRH8BAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,536,1422921600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="138903412" Received: from alln-core-1.cisco.com ([173.36.13.131]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Apr 2015 07:55:36 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com [173.36.12.83]) by alln-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t377taBT031502 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 7 Apr 2015 07:55:36 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.67]) by xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com ([173.36.12.83]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 02:55:36 -0500 From: "Fred Baker (fred)" To: Niels ten Oever Thread-Topic: [Hrpc] [hrpc] Nomenclature/Definition of Human Rights issues in Protocol Design Thread-Index: AQHQcQg70rJ3JJKRhk6l9qIfq86qKQ== Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 07:55:36 +0000 Message-ID: <44587782-78BB-444C-82FB-D59046150F6E@cisco.com> References: <55159D03.2090606@azet.org> <5522F712.4060606@article19.org> In-Reply-To: <5522F712.4060606@article19.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.117] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C61C3AA2-2E10-4F67-BF3E-D4683CB69F80"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "hrpc@irtf.org" Subject: Re: [Hrpc] [hrpc] Nomenclature/Definition of Human Rights issues in Protocol Design X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 07:55:50 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_C61C3AA2-2E10-4F67-BF3E-D4683CB69F80 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Apr 6, 2015, at 2:13 PM, Niels ten Oever = wrote: >=20 > Why would one need the concept of intent when it can already been > shown that a protocol is causing human rights violations? You seem to start from the assumption that a protocol *causes* human = rights violations. It would help me if you could cite a case. Cause: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cause As we discussed at the IETF, the only one that comes close (that I can = quickly think of) is an IP address. It identifies a locality in the = routing system and can, under some circumstances, be correlated with a = geographic location and/or a subscriber. I would argue doesn=E2=80=99t *cause* human rights violations, any more = than the fact that my geographic address is on my business card. But it = might give someone intent on violating someone else=E2=80=99s rights the = information they need to do so. In my mind, the concept that a protocol element or design, or the misuse = of a protocol element or design, is *causal* in a human rights violation = remains to be shown. --Apple-Mail=_C61C3AA2-2E10-4F67-BF3E-D4683CB69F80 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEVAwUBVSOHK59ieig10VPpAQJW8Qf9FfZ/7eVep215eSZEYmJevmHbRDAbz1Vk BpDS2XNiqD+hidgphE78lyM3JiJ1DG3aC/jI3y2rS/xZ/5krTz7oQ3u7nykujn2X On4GZtIarf6GVCC7+3dfdlGXxzHzMJ5QzbretYIRxXtYR7c/JwtOo5N0LFmIZ4Mo oWdPSkPEYMqAslKz4WLcZBxbNjj1Br4tP5mamhpJbofD5AET/kN17iHJVJMxC1do PRvlqrranx8rBIey8VqZwN/T/7NE9GF35YRTgbLq9vukq076Jm/m4dCEVToW0QtJ C4n/tjHzBi/qUXVkDadJJ2QNU55VxiVBz2s4/nqhJothpbQPlbUHDA== =orPA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_C61C3AA2-2E10-4F67-BF3E-D4683CB69F80-- From nobody Tue Apr 7 04:54:05 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 554A01B3463 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 04:54:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.424 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.424 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GwQLWhFmuM6Q for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 04:54:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.article19.io (vps784.greenhost.nl [213.108.108.114]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 035931B34FE for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 04:54:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 969B413002E; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 11:57:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.article19.io ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.article19.io [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id GrlfxCuHAo5Y; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 11:57:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89C3A13002C; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 11:57:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.article19.io Received: from mail.article19.io ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.article19.io [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id eTdD1zkV8jjo; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 11:57:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.14] (d109201.upc-d.chello.nl [213.46.109.201]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3A40213002E; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 11:57:02 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5523C554.5000004@article19.org> Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 13:53:56 +0200 From: Niels ten Oever User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Fred Baker (fred)" References: <55159D03.2090606@azet.org> <5522F712.4060606@article19.org> <44587782-78BB-444C-82FB-D59046150F6E@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <44587782-78BB-444C-82FB-D59046150F6E@cisco.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="xhj25svflITJcgfWvBqG8hMbELXAHlEFk" Archived-At: Cc: "hrpc@irtf.org" Subject: Re: [Hrpc] [hrpc] Nomenclature/Definition of Human Rights issues in Protocol Design X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 11:54:04 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --xhj25svflITJcgfWvBqG8hMbELXAHlEFk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 04/07/2015 09:55 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: >=20 >> On Apr 6, 2015, at 2:13 PM, Niels ten Oever >> wrote: >>=20 >> Why would one need the concept of intent when it can already been >> shown that a protocol is causing human rights violations? >=20 > You seem to start from the assumption that a protocol *causes* > human rights violations. It would help me if you could cite a > case. >=20 > Cause: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cause I was reacting to Aaron who said that if a protocol caused human rights issues, one can speak of malicious intent, but if a protocol is causing human rights issues, one doesn't need to show intent. But your question remains valid. I would say that a protocol infringes on a users right to freedom of expression if it in-transparently negatively impacts the connectivity of the user. This could be done either intentionally or unintentionally. >=20 > As we discussed at the IETF, the only one that comes close (that I=20 > can quickly think of) is an IP address. It identifies a locality > in the routing system and can, under some circumstances, be > correlated with a geographic location and/or a subscriber. >=20 > I would argue doesn=E2=80=99t *cause* human rights violations, any more= > than the fact that my geographic address is on my business card. > But it might give someone intent on violating someone else=E2=80=99s ri= ghts > the information they need to do so. >=20 > In my mind, the concept that a protocol element or design, or the=20 > misuse of a protocol element or design, is *causal* in a human > rights violation remains to be shown. >=20 Am working on examples, but one (contentious) example that comes to mind is DRM which is often meant as a 'speed bump' that merely 'keeps honest people honest', but it is also limiting the non-commercial and personal use of content and also limiting the access to knowledge and the access to culture. EFF argues that EME (standardization of DRM in HTML by W3C) runs counter to the philosophy that "the Web needs to be a universal ecosystem that is based on open standards and fully implementable on equal terms by anyone, anywhere, without permission or negotiation." EME undermines the Web's compatibility by allowing sites to demand "specific proprietary third-party software or even special hardware and particular operating systems." [0] Best, Niels [0] http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/05/drm-in-html5-is-a-victory-for-the= -open-web-not-a-defeat/ --xhj25svflITJcgfWvBqG8hMbELXAHlEFk Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVI8VUAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjp6qsH/ArXaFjwQC8tM5Wr4zCVE0XW HatXRK/pKFKrObDjYwwAAxyW2ggVFynnu7D5Y7lmV0LlNT7fnDuwk4r/z6P6jCyj dt8TNz4Qv2QxFtGvHl2ESY/5nXQAS7UrRv4Ja4ROogVrL7hVaMJHk7pL3ICoHrEU uAmQnMQXRxCag7EvJCfD0WlkMKiOF2iHLePSLHFPPIs8TvfULm9x48lTKZdfDmOS 1mZNYMOIw+mgVLqq4LVahkiypQfpcEEqmelIMuDf0ArlUYlKpnisN+dlG3acfOTv o9Z5Cugrf0YZxeMI7iE9XxoclcM0VbktRfh2IxIsKtLEJHd/xEh3X5mk4F6Wvqo= =YWvI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --xhj25svflITJcgfWvBqG8hMbELXAHlEFk-- From nobody Tue Apr 7 06:23:49 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 703981B3589 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 06:23:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.323 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.323 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KkytCoT5_hnI for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 06:23:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.article19.io (vps784.greenhost.nl [213.108.108.114]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 556CB1B3584 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 06:23:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A1001445C for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 13:26:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.article19.io ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.article19.io [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id XaZLiGKLZ457 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 13:26:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58457C001A for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 13:26:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.article19.io Received: from mail.article19.io ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.article19.io [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id XMnxjoZirnGy for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 13:26:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.14] (d109201.upc-d.chello.nl [213.46.109.201]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 16477CC039 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 13:26:37 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5523DA53.3060901@article19.org> Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 15:23:31 +0200 From: Niels ten Oever User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hrpc@irtf.org References: <5522A4AF.90304@apc.org> <5522ABBA.1000506@apc.org> In-Reply-To: <5522ABBA.1000506@apc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Hrpc] ideas for data and concept visualisation X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 13:23:48 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Mallory, On 04/06/2015 05:52 PM, Mallory Knodel wrote: >=20 >=20 > On 04/06/2015 11:22 AM, Mallory Knodel wrote: >> Hi everyone >>=20 >> Maybe some of you remember and have read the APC publication >> "Human rights and Internet protocols"[0]. APC was considering >> refreshing this at some point, but perhaps in the form of a >> visualisation of the concepts. >>=20 This paper was important for us in envisioning this research, great you're thinking of putting it back under attention! >> That leads me to imagine that there are other ideas for >> visualisation or infographics related to this work. Could folks >> share their thoughts? We should explore opportunities together, I >> think, for explaining different concepts to different audiences. I think a lot of people would benefit from a good visualization of the hourglass (which is now actually, as someone pointed out at IETF92, a double stemmed martini glass (IPv4 & IPv6)), and what it actually means. A good, meaningful and easy visualization of the OSI model would also be golden, even-though there are other layer models around as well. This doesn't mean simply showing the model, but also explaining it of course. Personally I think packet-switching and IP are most fun to explain and is really beneficial for people to understand, and could be done in a nice visual way. By showing a stream of data and/or file being chopped up into packets/datagrams, send over the network and routed via different paths, and being put back together on the other side. This might be too complex though. If this would be a multi-layered visualization you could also perhaps click on the packet and see what it looks like, such as the ones made by Ange Albertini [0] Hope this helps. Best, Niels [0] http://www.redbubble.com/people/ange4771/portfolio -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVI9pTAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjp2dIH+wfiTHYnFArpMYdJ60ET0fYO RU/vTIrbwyGkQe+HapqY07QQ+nLt9jyLetJyvfoVqwmvFOBUxm4StumwcYFku8wO 2XLbKFNddEYSmAtGGAK8ERRvlJwH9NtAGE1yM44eYvzo7NjfSmOdeHbP4d7ltYDW FGisK1FAAf6dwTObc1hk9VNKULjD1oZQVBhPkLSfXeUU+xm8ZtsCK/DzuoE26xlt AanVbk3LzrK1dk1Ghr8y8ON4ZZmqzHcWQydp1qVfvkP/c4JgtRuhyHxzgABefPmE 7UI6EBHzb9gTwbAv7KgXj5sPyHgOZ3usNTiDIYB9GJ/WXoUolzQ7LkLW2ZaktQs=3D =3DyPT4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From nobody Tue Apr 7 10:57:39 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79E6C1B3941 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 10:57:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -111.811 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.811 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OMiAYBgErldV for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 10:57:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-8.cisco.com (alln-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.142.95]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09B531A9008 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 10:57:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5192; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1428429451; x=1429639051; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=7LRBPjvdZZEZ9jY7Pe8MxxCdyt90bEiZLibVFr1/6vY=; b=R9VzidlsTxI0nWz0SLPsAtRccdXYxsOkp9x33cBHjGcuoNU1m+5pDd7H OZX4aFakk+T9DHhA90uQ1TXw3Q6RHBIipkBqqSEeeD33Wf2S8Dk1Cv0Bh 3/kjVlzVRtaz347r3CRaOctUeUgGwZ8uhSi8txiWhDiXdNZutE5scX60U 0=; X-Files: signature.asc : 487 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BvBQBYGSRV/5hdJa1cgwiBLgWDEMBkh08CgS86EgEBAQEBAQF9hB4BAQEDASNHDwULAgEIGCoCAjIlAgQOBQ4HiA0ItW6XBAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAReLK4R8B4JogUUFkHSBboEzhmaBHY90g0oigjOBPG+BRH8BAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,539,1422921600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="138964474" Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by alln-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Apr 2015 17:57:30 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com [173.36.12.87]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t37HvUlx008412 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 7 Apr 2015 17:57:30 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.67]) by xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com ([173.36.12.87]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 12:57:29 -0500 From: "Fred Baker (fred)" To: Niels ten Oever Thread-Topic: [Hrpc] [hrpc] Nomenclature/Definition of Human Rights issues in Protocol Design Thread-Index: AQHQcQg70rJ3JJKRhk6l9qIfq86qKZ1BxM4AgABkDoA= Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 17:57:29 +0000 Message-ID: <9FBED4E8-3013-4D34-BBFF-873694198309@cisco.com> References: <55159D03.2090606@azet.org> <5522F712.4060606@article19.org> <44587782-78BB-444C-82FB-D59046150F6E@cisco.com> <5523C554.5000004@article19.org> In-Reply-To: <5523C554.5000004@article19.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.117] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0061DC45-4E78-4DC3-AC8D-AB93ED755D59"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "hrpc@irtf.org" Subject: Re: [Hrpc] [hrpc] Nomenclature/Definition of Human Rights issues in Protocol Design X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 17:57:37 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_0061DC45-4E78-4DC3-AC8D-AB93ED755D59 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Apr 7, 2015, at 4:53 AM, Niels ten Oever = wrote: >=20 > Am working on examples, but one (contentious) example that comes to > mind is DRM which is often meant as a 'speed bump' that merely 'keeps > honest people honest', but it is also limiting the non-commercial and > personal use of content and also limiting the access to knowledge and > the access to culture. >=20 > EFF argues that EME (standardization of DRM in HTML by W3C) runs > counter to the philosophy that "the Web needs to be a universal > ecosystem that is based on open standards and fully implementable on > equal terms by anyone, anywhere, without permission or negotiation." > EME undermines the Web's compatibility by allowing sites to demand > "specific proprietary third-party software or even special hardware > and particular operating systems." [0] Well, I think EFF is a little over the top. I would expect that someone = offering a service or content has the right to say under what = circumstances they are willing to do so. A grocery store sells food to = anyone that can enter the store and pay for the goods they choose. I = have, I think, a right to enter the store, choose food, pay for it, and = leave the store; I don=E2=80=99t have the right to leave without paying. = If Netflix is the =E2=80=9Cstore=E2=80=9D and video service is the = =E2=80=9Cfood=E2=80=9D, we have an analogous situation. I have the right = to purchase content services from Netflix, at a a mutually agreed price. = Youtube is also analogous, but with a price point of $0, and as a result = no requirement for much of the machinery for exchanging money. What I would require of an online retailer is that what they require, = and the means by which they ensure that requirements are met, be = transparent, and that the retailer be the person responsible for = enforcement of whatever provisions s/he requires. Digital products differ from food (in this context) primarily in that = food, once consumed, is unavailable, while digital content remains = available and usable. If a company spends half a billion dollars = creating a bit of content, I think it has a reasonable expectation of = recovering the cost of doing so plus profit. If once it releases the = first copy that gets distributed for free (=E2=80=9Cinformation wants to = be free=E2=80=9D), that expectation is no longer reasonable - people = will choose the unencumbered and free copy to the encumbered copy. If it = does not recover its costs and make something extra, it has neither the = capital nor the motivation to make the next bit of content. So hammering = on the point that =E2=80=9Cinformation wants to be free=E2=80=9D is a = good way to make such information no longer exist. There needs to be a = compromise unless the objective is to put the industry out of business. Where I do get a little antsy is with pricing. If I make a bit of = content that can be delivered as a hard copy book or a set of bits = delivered to my kindle-or-whatever t a nominal cost, when I purchase the = kindle version, I don=E2=80=99t think I should pay the price of a = physical copy. The value is comparable. If the cost is comparable, that = might justify the price being comparable. But I suspect that the cost = (while non-zero - someone bought the bandwidth to deliver it) is = significantly less than the creation and distribution of a physical = object. Hence, for me, if the price is comparable or higher than the = cost of the physical object, I vote with my feet and don=E2=80=99t buy = it. So I actually don=E2=80=99t have a problem with digital watermarking and = other methods of proving that someone created the content, and = expressing as a condition of the purchase that it is for the use of the = person to whom it was sold. What I do have a problem with is legal remedies like SOPA etc that make = the conduit (the ISP) responsible to enforce such things or collect = revenue. Your water pipes aren=E2=80=99t responsible for the water that = flows through them apart from contamination of the water. Why would your = ISP be responsible for what flows through the Intertubes? --Apple-Mail=_0061DC45-4E78-4DC3-AC8D-AB93ED755D59 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEVAwUBVSQZQ59ieig10VPpAQJffAf/ShaAijAtmXcFByoXPfdtHABcdN3rQS4b NfyZIm43W2I9I+olXKjjST2hkA8VM8kr7P+J55yCYbCOVod5+3MrB3OqlVJe1Pkk 8V3tyQPb5DVjfYKuj359yAlIQwdGL8OEsquuanXshhbmqFGyyJHKiBP7xcbZ+2cG npuDPlhZm10lb8rzlyRsXiGc7LNEZiZWeaXskjqielYTdCJTyUZPT0Or9y6Bdh31 B/lHISFZpgZdaYJBPGUbZLbKhTeE5m9TGvGgHbW5cQmlDnQq8tPRp9Q7zUbwB4/d iV1CRwTn2qexL9WMVbMbjXDheyzwWCA5/FZD1NIrtmdzxjAMCi5E0Q== =nd0D -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_0061DC45-4E78-4DC3-AC8D-AB93ED755D59-- From nobody Thu Apr 30 03:20:57 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7A4F1AD0A7 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 03:20:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.124 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.124 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vCe0L0HsTtRQ for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 03:20:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.article19.io (vps784.greenhost.nl [213.108.108.114]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C6891AD0A6 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 03:20:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58C98D0000 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 10:20:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.article19.io ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.article19.io [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id Iyd8L4dGSe81 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 10:20:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DC4ED0013 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 10:20:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.article19.io Received: from mail.article19.io ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.article19.io [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id b_tPn_WsDDyu for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 10:20:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.7] (095-097-254-242.static.chello.nl [95.97.254.242]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 09C17D0000 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 10:20:49 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <554202C3.7060106@article19.org> Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 12:24:03 +0200 From: Niels ten Oever User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "hrpc@irtf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: [Hrpc] draft charter X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 10:20:55 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Dear all, I hope this email finds you well. Behind the scenes were working hard on the editing of the film of the recorded interviews we've done at IETF92 in Dallas, and there is more interesting work coming up, about which you'll hear more soon. We've also requested a 90 minutes timeslot for the IETF meeting in Prague. In the mean time Lars has asked us to come up with a draft charter, which would still change if/when the research group would be formally chartered. This text would be a placeholder and inform people (in the datatracker) about what this group is proposing to do. We came up with the following, I would like to send a finalized version of this to Lars in a week, I am very much looking forward to your comments. Best, Niels Background The Human Rights Protocol Consideration Proposed Research Group is chartered to research whether standards and protocols can solidify, enable or threaten user rights. The research departs for the problem statement that decisive and human rights enabling characteristics of the Internet might be degraded if they're not properly defined, described and protected. Not defining these characteristics could result in (partial) loss of functionality and connectivity. As stated in RFC 1958, the Internet aims to be the global network of networks that provides unfettered connectivity to all users at all times and for any content. Open, secure and reliable connectivity is essential for rights such as freedom of expression and freedom of association, as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Therefore, considering connectivity as the ultimate objective of the Internet, this makes a clear case that the Internet is not only an enabler of human rights, but that human rights lie at the basis of, and are ingrained in, the architecture of the network. Objective This research aims to expose the relations between protocols and human rights, and propose guidelines to protect the rights enabling environment in future protocol development in a manner similar to the work done for RFC 6973 on Privacy Consideration Guidelines, Outputs The research group plans on using a variety of research methods to create different outputs including (but not limited to): - - Internet drafts - (some of which may be put on IRSG RFC track) These would concern tracking of the project, methodology, and would define any possible protocol considerations. - - Policy and academic papers For in depth analysis and discussion on the relationship between human rights and the Internet architecture and protocols. - - Film based on interview with members of the community To give an accessible insight into the variety of opinions on this topic represented in the community by . - - Data analysis and visualization To research and visualize the language used in current and historic RFCs and mailinglist discussions to expose core architectural principles and language and deliberations on end-user rights. Membership Membership is open to any interested parties who intend to remain current with the published documents and mailing list issues. - --=20 Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVQgLDAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpl78H/2zPnJUynrRToxJXCjTk1LG6 rav/sN3dQiUwb7NJBM+CPbdjBZbVOvQoBQHc6mIo/gT0znOoBoU5B0W4HzDy0Edp +ABkd7dpa2fSwligtuNa262xiArRkizV3gWsXUl2g+g1WimCnuFzwVa7JKpwT3Km /FaCqG1EiGSFczZY2mShVPJak61EsBh7hbWGzdRJYuA34lLThoNbttkQZvNo5T6Y GBnSTbMtvwIc5nDNdg64Fy1u6dM0YEYmrb2qJVO1g2aJr8QbKCronO0Ogl3/AwSc f8tNFOcC42MrryTNuE41JKFGDHXc9aLnOOPmPOOenLaWB3aCyZfMksJvTIQnc2U=3D =3Dpn3/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From nobody Thu Apr 30 06:46:37 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D22E21B29E7; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 06:24:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4G1MA96YoUnM; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 06:24:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vn0-x234.google.com (mail-vn0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c0f::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F35E51B29DE; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 06:24:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vnbg129 with SMTP id g129so7129633vnb.4; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 06:24:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:mime-version:subject:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=mW4DWaI64TsxqtUQ2YuuPYajqw5ZNYvVjleuuF1x4Ok=; b=S964URf8x2JWNTzRTDjw6MeQcG4AtQyY4UEBP4a8YO8pkbisdvddYqZ+auhMyJGZ1I oXDJ3mcii4Oz0Cp5qlU1H8Ry45BLAB/yUKP99qXmwi8vrHqYdqh+toGGLD+UubivmDjc mG19kXid4enSV4hmcdrcD+pbposMCCji5b2so8u5Z+I8PFDGHqhDWv4BFZbmOuANz96H gJifq4O09HUAVXN7FxNaRQTaNaaHNNgAwvPlQgrZqvHfBrIPhQ8uaJm965PggNL5JdOs twVM/6UYHQ/ZeHa2hqK5k/p7MvlgbmOybe/pLccy4H+N8gkVpCbbv1SGlFV0fIJp9rRO 0K7Q== X-Received: by 10.52.110.231 with SMTP id id7mr7549073vdb.7.1430400258195; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 06:24:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.149.108.167] (mobile-107-107-62-133.mycingular.net. [107.107.62.133]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ug16sm3385328vdb.14.2015.04.30.06.24.16 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 30 Apr 2015 06:24:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Kathleen Moriarty X-Google-Original-From: Kathleen Moriarty Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11D257) In-Reply-To: <27FF041C-D844-4C4C-8B1B-42A6971C23C2@netapp.com> Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 09:24:16 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7CF5D758-31E4-4444-BA14-396F07D5FBC2@gmail.com> References: <554202C3.7060106@article19.org> <27FF041C-D844-4C4C-8B1B-42A6971C23C2@netapp.com> To: "hrpc@irtf.org" Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 06:46:35 -0700 Cc: IAB , IESG , Internet Research Steering Group Subject: Re: [Hrpc] draft charter X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 13:24:22 -0000 The charter looks good, thank you for your work in this area. I just have a= couple of nits inline. Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:20 AM, "Eggert, Lars" wrote: >=20 > Please comment on the hrpc@irtf.org list >=20 > Begin forwarded message: >>=20 >> From: Niels ten Oever >> Subject: [Hrpc] draft charter >> Date: April 30, 2015 at 12:24:03 GMT+2 >> To: "hrpc@irtf.org" >>=20 >> Signed PGP part >> Dear all, >>=20 >> I hope this email finds you well. Behind the scenes were working hard >> on the editing of the film of the recorded interviews we've done at >> IETF92 in Dallas, and there is more interesting work coming up, about >> which you'll hear more soon. >>=20 >> We've also requested a 90 minutes timeslot for the IETF meeting in >> Prague. >>=20 >> In the mean time Lars has asked us to come up with a draft charter, >> which would still change if/when the research group would be formally >> chartered. This text would be a placeholder and inform people (in the >> datatracker) about what this group is proposing to do. >>=20 >> We came up with the following, I would like to send a finalized >> version of this to Lars in a week, I am very much looking forward to >> your comments. >>=20 >> Best, >>=20 >> Niels >>=20 >> Background >> The Human Rights Protocol Consideration Proposed I assume 'proposed' won't remain in the charter once published, do I'd remov= e it now to make sure it doesn't get left in there. >> Research Group is >> chartered to research whether standards and protocols can solidify, >> enable or threaten user rights. The research departs Do you mean departs or something else here? >> for Should this be 'from' instead of 'for'? >> the problem >> statement Add 'in' Or change this opening phrase to 'The research and problem statement state' >> that decisive and human rights enabling characteristics of >> the Internet might be degraded if they're not properly defined, >> described and protected. Not defining these characteristics could >> result in (partial) loss of functionality and connectivity. >>=20 >> As stated in RFC 1958, the Internet aims to be the global network of >> networks that provides unfettered connectivity to all users at all >> times and for any content. Open, secure and reliable >> connectivity is essential for rights such as freedom of expression and >> freedom of association, as defined in the Universal Declaration of >> Human Rights. Therefore, considering connectivity as the ultimate >> objective of the Internet, this makes a clear case that the Internet >> is not only an enabler of human rights, but that human rights lie at >> the basis of, and are ingrained in, the architecture of the network. >>=20 >> Objective >> This research aims to expose the relations between protocols and human >> rights, and propose guidelines to protect the rights enabling >> environment in future protocol development in a manner similar to the >> work done for RFC 6973 on Privacy Consideration Guidelines, >>=20 >> Outputs >> The research group plans on using a variety of research methods to >> create different outputs including (but not limited to): >>=20 >> - Internet drafts - (some of which may be put on IRSG RFC track) >> These would concern tracking of the project, methodology, and would >> define any possible protocol considerations. >>=20 >> - Policy and academic papers >> For in depth analysis and discussion on the relationship between human >> rights and the Internet architecture and protocols. >>=20 >> - Film based on interview with members of the community >> To give an accessible insight into the variety of opinions on this >> topic represented in the community by . >>=20 Was there supposed to be a word after 'by'? If not, delete 'by'. >> - Data analysis and visualization >> To research and visualize the language used in current and historic >> RFCs and mailinglist discussions to expose core architectural >> principles and language and deliberations on end-user rights. >>=20 >> Membership >> Membership is open to any interested parties who intend to remain >> current with the published documents and mailing list issues. Best regards, Kathleen=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> -- >> Niels ten Oever >> Head of Digital >>=20 >> Article 19 >> www.article19.org >>=20 >> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 >> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> Hrpc mailing list >> Hrpc@irtf.org >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >=20 From nobody Thu Apr 30 06:56:50 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53BE51A9029 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 06:56:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.424 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.424 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C7QCOx7pAhNi for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 06:56:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.article19.io (vps784.greenhost.nl [213.108.108.114]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F2F01B2A91 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 06:56:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EE8E19C007 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 13:56:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.article19.io ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.article19.io [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id 7zWqbhvNGFOI for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 13:56:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8657119C00E for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 13:56:43 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.article19.io Received: from mail.article19.io ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.article19.io [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id bFMnHeKbExpV for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 13:56:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.7] (095-097-254-242.static.chello.nl [95.97.254.242]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3CD0519C007 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 13:56:43 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5542355C.3020901@article19.org> Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 15:59:56 +0200 From: Niels ten Oever User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hrpc@irtf.org References: <554202C3.7060106@article19.org> <27FF041C-D844-4C4C-8B1B-42A6971C23C2@netapp.com> <7CF5D758-31E4-4444-BA14-396F07D5FBC2@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <7CF5D758-31E4-4444-BA14-396F07D5FBC2@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Hrpc] draft charter X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 13:56:49 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Thanks for your suggestions Kathleen, integrated your suggestions and made some further changes. Since the Research Group is still a Proposed Research Group that is not officially chartered yet (this is a decision made by the IRTF chair), I think that should remain in the title, but please correct me if I am wrong. Now it reads: Background The Human Rights Protocol Consideration Proposed Research Group is chartered to research whether standards and protocols can solidify, enable or threaten user rights. The research group takes as its starting point the problem statement that decisive and human rights enabling characteristics of the Internet might be degraded if they're not properly defined, described and protected. Not defining these characteristics could result in (partial) loss of functionality and connectivity. As stated in RFC 1958, the Internet aims to be the global network of networks that provides unfettered connectivity to all users at all times and for any content. Open, secure and reliable connectivity is essential for rights such as freedom of expression and freedom of association, as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Therefore, considering connectivity as the ultimate objective of the Internet, this makes a clear case that the Internet is not only an enabler of human rights, but that human rights lie at the basis of, and are ingrained in, the architecture of the network. Objective This research aims to expose the relations between protocols and human rights, and propose guidelines to protect the rights enabling environment in future protocol development in a manner similar to the work done for RFC 6973 on Privacy Consideration Guidelines, Outputs The research group plans on using a variety of research methods to create different outputs including (but not limited to): - - Internet drafts - (some of which may be put on IRSG RFC track) These would concern tracking of the project, methodology, and would define any possible protocol considerations. - - Policy and academic papers For in depth analysis and discussion on the relationship between human rights and the Internet architecture and protocols. - - Film based on interviews with members of the community To give an accessible insight into the variety of opinions on this topic represented in the community. - - Data analysis and visualization To research and visualize the language used in current and historic RFCs and mailinglist discussions to expose core architectural principles and language and deliberations on end-user rights. Membership Membership is open to any interested parties who intend to remain current with the published documents and mailing list issues. Best, Niels Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 On 04/30/2015 03:24 PM, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: > The charter looks good, thank you for your work in this area. I > just have a couple of nits inline. >=20 > Sent from my iPhone >=20 >> On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:20 AM, "Eggert, Lars" >> wrote: >>=20 >> Please comment on the hrpc@irtf.org list >>=20 >> Begin forwarded message: >>>=20 >>> From: Niels ten Oever Subject: [Hrpc] >>> draft charter Date: April 30, 2015 at 12:24:03 GMT+2 To: >>> "hrpc@irtf.org" >>>=20 >>> Signed PGP part Dear all, >>>=20 >>> I hope this email finds you well. Behind the scenes were >>> working hard on the editing of the film of the recorded >>> interviews we've done at IETF92 in Dallas, and there is more >>> interesting work coming up, about which you'll hear more soon. >>>=20 >>> We've also requested a 90 minutes timeslot for the IETF meeting >>> in Prague. >>>=20 >>> In the mean time Lars has asked us to come up with a draft >>> charter, which would still change if/when the research group >>> would be formally chartered. This text would be a placeholder >>> and inform people (in the datatracker) about what this group is >>> proposing to do. >>>=20 >>> We came up with the following, I would like to send a >>> finalized version of this to Lars in a week, I am very much >>> looking forward to your comments. >>>=20 >>> Best, >>>=20 >>> Niels >>>=20 >>> Background The Human Rights Protocol Consideration Proposed >=20 > I assume 'proposed' won't remain in the charter once published, do > I'd remove it now to make sure it doesn't get left in there. >=20 >>> Research Group is chartered to research whether standards and >>> protocols can solidify, enable or threaten user rights. The >>> research departs > Do you mean departs or something else here? >>> for > Should this be 'from' instead of 'for'? >>> the problem statement > Add 'in' >=20 > Or change this opening phrase to 'The research and problem > statement state' >>> that decisive and human rights enabling characteristics of the >>> Internet might be degraded if they're not properly defined,=20 >>> described and protected. Not defining these characteristics >>> could result in (partial) loss of functionality and >>> connectivity. >>>=20 >>> As stated in RFC 1958, the Internet aims to be the global >>> network of networks that provides unfettered connectivity to >>> all users at all times and for any content. Open, secure and >>> reliable connectivity is essential for rights such as freedom >>> of expression and freedom of association, as defined in the >>> Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Therefore, >>> considering connectivity as the ultimate objective of the >>> Internet, this makes a clear case that the Internet is not only >>> an enabler of human rights, but that human rights lie at the >>> basis of, and are ingrained in, the architecture of the >>> network. >>>=20 >>> Objective This research aims to expose the relations between >>> protocols and human rights, and propose guidelines to protect >>> the rights enabling environment in future protocol development >>> in a manner similar to the work done for RFC 6973 on Privacy >>> Consideration Guidelines, >>>=20 >>> Outputs The research group plans on using a variety of >>> research methods to create different outputs including (but not >>> limited to): >>>=20 >>> - Internet drafts - (some of which may be put on IRSG RFC >>> track) These would concern tracking of the project, >>> methodology, and would define any possible protocol >>> considerations. >>>=20 >>> - Policy and academic papers For in depth analysis and >>> discussion on the relationship between human rights and the >>> Internet architecture and protocols. >>>=20 >>> - Film based on interview with members of the community To give >>> an accessible insight into the variety of opinions on this=20 >>> topic represented in the community by . >>>=20 > Was there supposed to be a word after 'by'? If not, delete 'by'. >>> - Data analysis and visualization To research and visualize the >>> language used in current and historic RFCs and mailinglist >>> discussions to expose core architectural principles and >>> language and deliberations on end-user rights. >>>=20 >>> Membership Membership is open to any interested parties who >>> intend to remain current with the published documents and >>> mailing list issues. >=20 > Best regards, Kathleen >=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital >>>=20 >>> Article 19 www.article19.org >>>=20 >>> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D >>> 68E9 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ Hrpc mailing >>> list Hrpc@irtf.org https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >>=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ Hrpc mailing list=20 > Hrpc@irtf.org https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >=20 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVQjVcAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpIPkIAJzCxRmCGMC1Z88Pp1Mspqm2 nx9rd+DViykE/A7a6/ALqIihPE1slmPcdF5IGXZF9VJwPbOZjwFKhQb3AB9zjWe3 AG5VzaSkdBBH2UktPqv/tpQolyj9eoWC5zV/nO+NjezeUT09KkhjYakSICp2XCMw oECnmd2QRPVRxaDjA6ETrXAwAPqwwtpQOBJn8gJreKA0B8pMm7qTuLJzMRM4Pj6Z u43eUoH4abWkhAxYEVORMXs/WgwXc7EBaQu5cAFQdF5/WLtq3zCIY3IZ5kTHaFng EejlLMct+bLmgdDu+2cu22Nb2Pl/dR5BuuI1FnF+fb+bpanyEvfhhGzt1L9bE7A=3D =3DAOup -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From nobody Thu Apr 30 07:11:54 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC6F11B2AEE for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:11:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.21 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dqs7OdWHOEMk for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:11:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A00C1B2AE6 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:11:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B877BE59; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 15:11:48 +0100 (IST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lANilxFhmnRp; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 15:11:45 +0100 (IST) Received: from [10.87.48.73] (unknown [86.46.18.22]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 721C5BE53; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 15:11:45 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <55423821.9050003@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 15:11:45 +0100 From: Stephen Farrell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Niels ten Oever , hrpc@irtf.org References: <554202C3.7060106@article19.org> <27FF041C-D844-4C4C-8B1B-42A6971C23C2@netapp.com> <7CF5D758-31E4-4444-BA14-396F07D5FBC2@gmail.com> <5542355C.3020901@article19.org> In-Reply-To: <5542355C.3020901@article19.org> OpenPGP: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url= Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="nLlXKKnh0k3huuaTRslkjrLwovLUN4UT5" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Hrpc] draft charter X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:11:52 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --nLlXKKnh0k3huuaTRslkjrLwovLUN4UT5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hiya, For context, I still have no clue what if any outcomes we might see here, but I very much support the idea of trying to find that out:-) (Assuming we have enough folks active etc.) Some comments/questions below: On 30/04/15 14:59, Niels ten Oever wrote: > Thanks for your suggestions Kathleen, integrated your suggestions and > made some further changes. >=20 > Since the Research Group is still a Proposed Research Group that is > not officially chartered yet (this is a decision made by the IRTF > chair), I think that should remain in the title, but please correct me > if I am wrong. >=20 > Now it reads: >=20 > Background > The Human Rights Protocol Consideration Proposed Research Group is > chartered to research whether standards and protocols can solidify, > enable or threaten user rights.=20 What is a "user right" is it the same as a "human right"? I'd say lose the former term would be better. And I think you could start with a pointer to what you think defines human rights? (The UDHR? [1]) Many IETF type folks won't be familiar with that so it's worth an explicit reference maybe. [1] http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ > The research group takes as its > starting point the problem statement that decisive and human rights > enabling characteristics of the Internet might be degraded if they're > not properly defined, described and protected. Not defining these > characteristics could result in (partial) loss of functionality and > connectivity. Hmm. I'm not sure I agree 100% with the thesis there. But it's defensible I agree. My issue with it is that I have seen cases where the act of asking if X is allowed results in X, that used to be not-disallowed, no longer being allowed;-) I think you could make a better argument to the effect that we don't know much about how Internet protocols and human rights intersect and since the Internet is now quite important, it's a good idea to study that. > As stated in RFC 1958, the Internet aims to be the global network of > networks that provides unfettered connectivity to all users at all > times and for any content. Open, secure and reliable > connectivity is essential for rights such as freedom of expression and > freedom of association, as defined in the Universal Declaration of > Human Rights. Therefore, considering connectivity as the ultimate > objective of the Internet, this makes a clear case that the Internet > is not only an enabler of human rights, but that human rights lie at > the basis of, and are ingrained in, the architecture of the network. "basis of, and are ingrained in," may be overstatement. I think it would be fair to say that the architecture makes assumptions that clearly overlap with the UDHR though, even if we don't fully understand the overlaps. >=20 > Objective > This research aims to expose the relations between protocols and human > rights, and propose guidelines to protect the rights enabling > environment in future protocol development in a manner similar to the > work done for RFC 6973 on Privacy Consideration Guidelines, >=20 > Outputs > The research group plans on using a variety of research methods to > create different outputs including (but not limited to): >=20 > - Internet drafts - (some of which may be put on IRSG RFC track) > These would concern tracking of the project, methodology, and would > define any possible protocol considerations. >=20 > - Policy and academic papers > For in depth analysis and discussion on the relationship between human > rights and the Internet architecture and protocols. >=20 > - Film based on interviews with members of the community > To give an accessible insight into the variety of opinions on this > topic represented in the community. >=20 > - Data analysis and visualization > To research and visualize the language used in current and historic > RFCs and mailinglist discussions to expose core architectural > principles and language and deliberations on end-user rights. Maybe education is an objective? Both so HR folks learn more about real protocol stuff but also vice versa, so pointy headed protocol developers learn some more about how their work might influence HR. Cheers, S. >=20 > Membership > Membership is open to any interested parties who intend to remain > current with the published documents and mailing list issues. >=20 >=20 > Best, >=20 > Niels >=20 > Niels ten Oever > Head of Digital >=20 > Article 19 > www.article19.org >=20 > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 >=20 > On 04/30/2015 03:24 PM, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: >> The charter looks good, thank you for your work in this area. I >> just have a couple of nits inline. >=20 >> Sent from my iPhone >=20 >>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:20 AM, "Eggert, Lars" >>> wrote: >>> >>> Please comment on the hrpc@irtf.org list >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>>> >>>> From: Niels ten Oever Subject: [Hrpc] >>>> draft charter Date: April 30, 2015 at 12:24:03 GMT+2 To: >>>> "hrpc@irtf.org" >>>> >>>> Signed PGP part Dear all, >>>> >>>> I hope this email finds you well. Behind the scenes were >>>> working hard on the editing of the film of the recorded >>>> interviews we've done at IETF92 in Dallas, and there is more >>>> interesting work coming up, about which you'll hear more soon. >>>> >>>> We've also requested a 90 minutes timeslot for the IETF meeting >>>> in Prague. >>>> >>>> In the mean time Lars has asked us to come up with a draft >>>> charter, which would still change if/when the research group >>>> would be formally chartered. This text would be a placeholder >>>> and inform people (in the datatracker) about what this group is >>>> proposing to do. >>>> >>>> We came up with the following, I would like to send a >>>> finalized version of this to Lars in a week, I am very much >>>> looking forward to your comments. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Niels >>>> >>>> Background The Human Rights Protocol Consideration Proposed >=20 >> I assume 'proposed' won't remain in the charter once published, do >> I'd remove it now to make sure it doesn't get left in there. >=20 >>>> Research Group is chartered to research whether standards and >>>> protocols can solidify, enable or threaten user rights. The >>>> research departs >> Do you mean departs or something else here? >>>> for >> Should this be 'from' instead of 'for'? >>>> the problem statement >> Add 'in' >=20 >> Or change this opening phrase to 'The research and problem >> statement state' >>>> that decisive and human rights enabling characteristics of the >>>> Internet might be degraded if they're not properly defined,=20 >>>> described and protected. Not defining these characteristics >>>> could result in (partial) loss of functionality and >>>> connectivity. >>>> >>>> As stated in RFC 1958, the Internet aims to be the global >>>> network of networks that provides unfettered connectivity to >>>> all users at all times and for any content. Open, secure and >>>> reliable connectivity is essential for rights such as freedom >>>> of expression and freedom of association, as defined in the >>>> Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Therefore, >>>> considering connectivity as the ultimate objective of the >>>> Internet, this makes a clear case that the Internet is not only >>>> an enabler of human rights, but that human rights lie at the >>>> basis of, and are ingrained in, the architecture of the >>>> network. >>>> >>>> Objective This research aims to expose the relations between >>>> protocols and human rights, and propose guidelines to protect >>>> the rights enabling environment in future protocol development >>>> in a manner similar to the work done for RFC 6973 on Privacy >>>> Consideration Guidelines, >>>> >>>> Outputs The research group plans on using a variety of >>>> research methods to create different outputs including (but not >>>> limited to): >>>> >>>> - Internet drafts - (some of which may be put on IRSG RFC >>>> track) These would concern tracking of the project, >>>> methodology, and would define any possible protocol >>>> considerations. >>>> >>>> - Policy and academic papers For in depth analysis and >>>> discussion on the relationship between human rights and the >>>> Internet architecture and protocols. >>>> >>>> - Film based on interview with members of the community To give >>>> an accessible insight into the variety of opinions on this=20 >>>> topic represented in the community by . >>>> >> Was there supposed to be a word after 'by'? If not, delete 'by'. >>>> - Data analysis and visualization To research and visualize the >>>> language used in current and historic RFCs and mailinglist >>>> discussions to expose core architectural principles and >>>> language and deliberations on end-user rights. >>>> >>>> Membership Membership is open to any interested parties who >>>> intend to remain current with the published documents and >>>> mailing list issues. >=20 >> Best regards, Kathleen >=20 >>>> >>>> >>>> -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital >>>> >>>> Article 19 www.article19.org >>>> >>>> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D >>>> 68E9 >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ Hrpc mailing >>>> list Hrpc@irtf.org https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >>> >=20 >> _______________________________________________ Hrpc mailing list=20 >> Hrpc@irtf.org https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Hrpc mailing list > Hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >=20 >=20 --nLlXKKnh0k3huuaTRslkjrLwovLUN4UT5 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVQjghAAoJEC88hzaAX42ihE4H/1cQb8dN17hf4669GOVwMd0J AabZayCR6eusOK+ooDDerUY933OXDXUlT4Nw01g5fnnsPOfHcPjBbuOiu6oJvO+T 0poCdPGpYQ/wb7hbWWC1LvAWxGpqkJuzAUs0fbX+VEwb41G9TgtfLG+zLUtC3FOo 8R7y3IrKZ9jBaN1yLTk2MBrnU1j31nz9PJt4y+i/yyJZ3Q//XZY0rBUGaV7WtmBd aB2BnIS9KxOns6njI6Y60rVenYbt+OMTKYYFgkXtap8rfbhp4GIQ2Angk4C7mR2i Qlbn3lc9G1HYnMNaMFTowTDecA4gbjmsl5w8ZoMZbtJVm9HW9BqlCihY1xj9M9g= =O6RZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nLlXKKnh0k3huuaTRslkjrLwovLUN4UT5-- From nobody Thu Apr 30 07:18:38 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 245941B2AFF; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:16:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kPsrZrWt4R4K; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:16:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D80B71B2B00; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:16:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2652; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1430403416; x=1431613016; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=4o9mB7/LxDAv/t8NN2BvT24MkkcGR4dBvUrfiNaII7A=; b=Aq5mIlbtCdmE8XTAbMPY2mElejpVMJrmipGfMEEEpAldgGDRUhLY+s07 FusKo7hswW76Y2FV4mXoDiCVwnWAvPtiMyy/gD1ADCIOa2Q5n1fjz2UuL KwWb5nteiLrRuje/VhuUvRm87jcVxGm1SZzSG45usaZjv07okG3e8U1Fy o=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0A3BQCgOEJV/4YNJK1cgwyBLwXNKgKBUUwBAQEBAQGBC4QhAQEDAXIHEAIBCBI0MhcOAgQOBYgjCMgPAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARmLOIRSMweELQEEj0aCJIpIgSODS4Jxjh4jgWWCD2+BRIEBAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,677,1422921600"; d="scan'208";a="416006107" Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Apr 2015 14:16:55 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com [173.36.12.77]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t3UEGtZc001949 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:16:55 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x15.cisco.com ([169.254.9.76]) by xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com ([173.36.12.77]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 09:16:54 -0500 From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" To: "hrpc@irtf.org" Thread-Topic: [Hrpc] draft charter Thread-Index: AQHQgy9a2IhC4U5L+kaT1AckuXeuI51lqv4A Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:16:54 +0000 Message-ID: References: <554202C3.7060106@article19.org> <27FF041C-D844-4C4C-8B1B-42A6971C23C2@netapp.com> In-Reply-To: <27FF041C-D844-4C4C-8B1B-42A6971C23C2@netapp.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.117.15.4] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <5CFC11E526FB6945ADD4BFD931A60CB5@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:18:38 -0700 Cc: IAB , IESG , Internet Research Steering Group Subject: Re: [Hrpc] draft charter X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:16:58 -0000 On 4/30/15, 7:20 AM, "Eggert, Lars" wrote: >Please comment on the hrpc@irtf.org list Hi! This looks like very interesting work. . . . >>The Human Rights Protocol Consideration Proposed Research Group is >> chartered to research whether standards and protocols can solidify, >> enable or threaten user rights. The charter should be to be very clear about what Human Rights are. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was mentioned (below), but just as a reference, and not as the authoritative source. It may be obvious to many that it would be the source, but there may be other interpretations. Along the same vein of being clear and explicit, the paragraph above starts talking about human rights, but it ends with =B3user rights=B2. Are these the same? Will =B3user rights=B2, as in (I assume) users of the Internet be defined as part of the RG? Maybe that is what this next part means: >> The research departs for the problem >> statement that decisive and human rights enabling characteristics of >> the Internet might be degraded if they're not properly defined, >> described and protected. Not defining these characteristics could >> result in (partial) loss of functionality and connectivity. >>=20 >> As stated in RFC 1958, the Internet aims to be the global network of >> networks that provides unfettered connectivity to all users at all >> times and for any content. Open, secure and reliable >> connectivity is essential for rights such as freedom of expression and >> freedom of association, as defined in the Universal Declaration of >> Human Rights. Therefore, considering connectivity as the ultimate >> objective of the Internet, this makes a clear case that the Internet >> is not only an enabler of human rights, but that human rights lie at >> the basis of, and are ingrained in, the architecture of the network. Does this last piece of text mean that Internet connectivity (which means exactly what?) is (or should be declared) a human right? I haven=B9t read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in a while, but I don=B9t remembe= r it talking about the Internet. Maybe, as you say above, the case is clear in the relationship between the Internet objectives and Human Rights =8B but, does it mean that the Internet is just an enabler or should it a human right in itself? I know that several countries have put forth legislation to that effect. I might be getting more into politics at this point =8B it seems hard not to.. The point of my comments is: please be clear on the starting point. Thanks! Alvaro. From nobody Thu Apr 30 07:35:33 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 509791B2BDB for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:35:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.009 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.009 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MyxmVaQQklvh for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:35:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.gn.apc.org (mail.gn.apc.org [37.220.108.136]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 952051B2BC5 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:35:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.gn.apc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 416E12013B32 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 15:35:29 +0100 (BST) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mail.gn.apc.org Received: from mail.gn.apc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.gn.apc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id INef5Vq1Y34Q for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 15:35:18 +0100 (BST) Received: from anonymous ([10.254.254.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mallory) by mail.gn.apc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E31B42017386 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 15:35:09 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <55423D9C.8070501@apc.org> Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 10:35:08 -0400 From: Mallory Knodel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hrpc@irtf.org References: <554202C3.7060106@article19.org> In-Reply-To: <554202C3.7060106@article19.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="0xXCttBseEJRctlvoH9doi9nKKTm9vAkx" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Hrpc] draft charter X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:35:32 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --0xXCttBseEJRctlvoH9doi9nKKTm9vAkx Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090806090507070203070008" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------090806090507070203070008 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Neils My only comment: On 04/30/2015 06:24 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote: > Objective > This research aims to expose the relations between protocols and human > rights, and propose guidelines to protect the rights enabling > environment in future protocol development in a manner similar to the > work done for RFC 6973 on Privacy Consideration Guidelines, Maybe, protect is a strong word and will be taken completely literally. I don't know if what we are doing is creating "guidelines to protect". I think guidelines are meant to guide. And ultimately what we are doing is making a case for human rights as just as an important consideration as efficiency, interoperability, scalability, integrity, etc. etc. -Mallory --=20 Mallory Knodel Association for Progressive Communications :: apc.org gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780 --------------090806090507070203070008 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Neils

My only comment:

On 04/30/2015 06:24 AM, Niels ten Oeve= r wrote:
Objective
This research aims to expose the relations between protocols and human
rights, and propose guidelines to protect the rights enabling
environment in future protocol development in a manner similar to the
work done for RFC 6973 on Privacy Consideration Guidelines,
Maybe, protect is a strong word and will be taken completely literally. I don't know if what we are doing is creating "guidelines to protect". I think guidelines are meant to guide. And ultimately what we are doing is making a case for human rights as just as an important consideration as efficiency, interoperability, scalability, integrity, etc. etc.

-Mallory
--
Mallory Knodel
Association for Progressive Communications :: apc.org
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780
--------------090806090507070203070008-- --0xXCttBseEJRctlvoH9doi9nKKTm9vAkx Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVQj2cAAoJEAwyonG9PMeANGIH/Ri0A+otfv7QlNNa07/mPLRR U7fEo+lI8T7ZoLsjBMcAARBcUyRkeRAb9OilZS2ti1rWdDhF9X0cdhJPeFF3xQJg cYrSQTvQGtcK3wHYMKK/fEzOBAk18b8BgpI9lpQo07bawJQAPjvDp99gSJAmhBmk 44M4wk1U1DBK/v9U/u3/yVG5/CfNwvADQL/wmV7FjBlPQOGsWqe+yssARdt1BnzO ekysvhZKVDHiErRcPWlrZVxgreRzR+k/yC5rt1yPWDB8Fja2w2awCg3WCIkjvxpm lJWkyA7tRBeSOgaQ2GyBlhgPGpnL0KCMGVUpRjSfqa5BYDvd1x9mlKJkmT3VIRM= =b5Mg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --0xXCttBseEJRctlvoH9doi9nKKTm9vAkx--