Subject: Re: [hrpc] Comments about draft-irtf-hrpc-research-07

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2017 01:43:38 -0800

Hi Jeanette,

[This message will not be displayed correctly in the thread as I did 
not reply to a message from the thread]

For context, please see 
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hrpc/current/msg00776.html

>So, my question is what does all of this have to do with whether or 
>not standard setting is a political activity? In my view, all the 
>controversial references to "protocols are politics by other means" 
>can be dropped from the draft. They do not add anything substantial 
>to the proposal.
>
>The essential question is whether, to what extent and in which form 
>the IETF wants to take into account that its work does impact the 
>human rights of internet users. It is unlikely that anybody 
>seriously doubts that internet standards affect the exercise human 
>rights. But what follows from that is much less obvious.

If standards setting is a political activity it would mean that the 
IETF is a political organization.  The first issue is that some 
persons would either be unable to participate in the IETF because 
they are either not allowed to take part in political activities or 
because they will face negative consequences in the country where 
they reside because of the affiliation.

There is a question about an IETF standard at 
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/perpass/current/msg01765.html 
Is it acceptable for the IETF to make a statement about whether the 
European Parliament is infringing on the human rights of its citizens?

>2. The draft constantly confuses political effects and intentions of 
>protocol development. The fact that a protocol does have politica 
>effects does not necessarily make its development a political 
>process. If Janet Abate concludes in her very good book that 
>"protocols are politics by other means", it is not clear if she 
>refers to the effects of protocols or to the intentions of protocol 
>developers. Based on the interviews I did back in the 1990s, I would 
>claim that many people involved in the development of IPv4 became 
>aware of the political dimension of their work (to the extent that 
>it was competing against another protocol suit) but this political 
>dimension did not drive their work. Many of the early developers 
>primarily wanted to connect computers and experiment with network 
>architecture design not code a political statement.
>
>This is why I suggested distinguishing various definitions of "the 
>political" Political can be an effect or an intention or both. But 
>it is not ok to conclude from effects on the intentions of action.

Does an IETF action have a political implication?  There is the 
protocol development side and the policy side.  The action of 
approving the development of a protocol within the IETF is not a 
technical decision.  There may be a political effect if the software 
or hardware in which the protocol is implemented has an effect which 
is contrary to what the government of a country would like to 
see.  Was it the intention of the IETF body to cause that effect to 
happen?  It is not possible to determine that without looking at an 
actual case.

There is a significant difference between the early network 
architecture design and the networks of today.  There has been 
several cases over the last year where it could be said that freedom 
of expression was hindered at a national level.  If a political 
statement was coded in to ensure freedom of expression, it should 
have been possible to prevent that from happening.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 21:06:12 -0500

Hi,

On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 01:43:38AM -0800, S Moonesamy wrote:

> Does an IETF action have a political implication?  There is the protocol
> development side and the policy side.  The action of approving the
> development of a protocol within the IETF is not a technical decision.

Those sentences together represent a pretty bold claim.  Could you say more?

A
-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]