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

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2017 21:43:03 -0800

Hi Andrew,

[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/msg00775.html

>Perhaps there is a more charitable reading, which is that the draft
>tries to take values from an international political context and tries
>to suggest how they interact with the relevant standards-setting
>context.  (One might disagree about the degree to which it is
>successful at that, but I think that the documentation of the
>interaction really is the goal, not application of the values as
>such.)

According to the Charter, one of the outputs is to "define any 
possible protocol considerations".  That may be similar to the 
"interact" and "interaction" in the above.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2017 23:50:19 -0800

Hi Andrew,

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

The first sentence is not linked to the second sentence.  I would 
list protocol development as what working groups are doing 
(development side).  I would list decisions about how the IETF should 
work as the policy side, e.g. 
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg100277.html

For the second sentence, taking websockets as an example, the 
protocol being developed would be a technology for bidirectional 
communication between an HTTP client and an HTTP server that provides 
greater efficiency than previous approaches.  The decisions which the 
working group takes would usually be about technical details, e.g. 
how should the future protocol interact with a HTTP server.  The 
decision about whether such a protocol should be developed within the 
IETF would not be technical; it would, for example, depend on whether 
a group of persons are interested in doing that work, what should go 
into the proposed charter, etc.

Is there anything "political" to any of the above?  There is one 
description of "the political" at 
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hrpc/current/msg00744.html  The 
IETF doesn't have any say in (2) as the software developers decide 
about whether to implement the websocket protocol and how to use 
it.  Are there any political implications?  I read Section III and IV 
of 
https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G16/095/12/PDF/G1609512.pdf?OpenElement 
to figure out the human rights angle.  The only point which might be 
relevant to the technical standard is the security considerations for 
the protocol.  There is a discussion about that, from a technical 
perspective, in the IETF RFC.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: "Matthias C. Kettemann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 21:37:45 +0100

Hi there

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 8:57 PM, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>
> There are some recommendations at https://documents-dds-ny.un.or
> g/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G16/095/12/PDF/G1609512.pdf?OpenElement Page 9 states
> that "technical and design choices can have a substantial impact on freedom
> of expression".  I could not find any statement about the UDHR or any other
> right in respect to technical standards.
>
> Not sure what is meant by this.
>>
>
> I was asking about whether it would be the responsibility of the companies
> or NGOs participating in the IETF to make human rights-oriented
> contributions to technical discussions.

Just my two cents here, especially as the silent college of international
human rights lawyers-scholars was called upon in an earlier mail:

As the "Ruggie Principles
<https://business-humanrights.org/en/un-secretary-generals-special-representative-on-business-human-rights/un-protect-respect-and-remedy-framework-and-guiding-principles>"
(the UN "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework) cofirm, Internet companies
must in all their actions respect the internationally recognised human
rights and fundamental freedoms of their users and of non-users who are
affected by their activities. The responsibility to respect human rights
exists independently of the States’ ability or willingness to fulfill their
own human rights obligations. The same applies arguably to non-governmental
actors. Therefore the answer would be: yes, companies and company
representatives (and anyone really) involved in standardization in any form
must respect human rights.

Though interpretations of the concrete duties flowing from this duty of
respect may differ, the duty itself isn't really controversial anymore.

See, e.g., the Principles of the Telecommunications Industry Dialogue
<https://www.telecomindustrydialogue.org/about/guiding-principles/>

"The UN ‘Protect, Respect, and Remedy’ framework defines it as; 1. the
state´s duty to protect human rights, and 2. the corporate responsibility
to respect human rights.iii • The ICCPR recognises that the rights to
freedom of expression and privacy can only be restricted in limited
circumstances.iv • The OECD framework states that “[a] State’s failure
either to enforce relevant domestic laws, or to implement international
human rights obligations or the fact that it may act contrary to such laws
or international obligations does not diminish the expectation that
enterprises respect human rights."

We find a similar approach in the Global Network Initiative's Principles
<https://globalnetworkinitiative.org/principles/index.php>:

"The duty of governments to respect, protect, promote and fulfill human
rights is the foundation of this human rights framework. That duty includes
ensuring that national laws, regulations and policies are consistent with
international human rights laws and standards on freedom of expression and
privacy.

Information and Communications Technology (ICT) companies have the
responsibility to respect and protect the freedom of expression and privacy
rights of their users. ICT has the potential to enable the exchange of
ideas and access to information in a way that supports economic
opportunity, advances knowledge and improves quality of life."

In implementing the duty to respect, companies have to prepare, inter
alia, human
rights impact assessment and ensure that HR-sensitive due diligence
processes are implemented at all stages of business.

If I understand this laudable effort here correctly, setting standards for
an HR impact assessment in standardization processes is exactly its
(important) aim.

Kind regards

Matthias

-- 

Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard)
Post-Doc Fellow | Co-Head | Research Group Internet and Society
<http://www.normativeorders.net/de/forschung/forschungsfelder-2012-2017/forschungsfeld-3/70-forschung/4746-forschungsschwerpunkt-internet-und-gesellschaft>,
Cluster of Excellence „
<http://www.normativeorders.net/de/organisation/mitarbeiter-a-z/person/442>Normative
Orders
<http://www.normativeorders.net/de/organisation/mitarbeiter-a-z/person/442>”
<http://www.normativeorders.net/de/organisation/mitarbeiter-a-z/person/442>,
University of Frankfurt am Main
Lecturer | Institute of International Law and International Relations
<http://voelkerrecht.uni-graz.at/en/>, University of Graz, Austria
<http://trainingszentrum-menschenrechte.uni-graz.at/en/infos-fuer-studierende/>

Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, Exzellenzcluster „Normative Ordnungen“
Max-Horkheimer-Straße 2, 60323 Frankfurt am Main, Germany

E | [email-masked]
Blog <http://internationallawandtheinternet.blogspot.com/> | Google Scholar
<http://scholar.google.ch/citations?user=8jRGt2QAAAAJ> | Twitter
<http://twitter.com/#%21/MCKettemann> | Facebook
<http://www.facebook.com/matthias.kettemann> | Google+
<https://plus.google.com/u/0/116310540881122884114/posts>

<http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/akademie/12068.pdf>

European Yearbook on Human Rights 2016 (2016)
<http://www.nwv.at/recht/verfassungsrecht/1210_european_yearbook_on_human_rights_2016/>Völkerrecht
in Zeiten des Netzes (2015)
<http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/akademie/12068.pdf>
Freedom of Expression and the Internet (2014, co-author)
<https://book.coe.int/eur/en/human-rights-and-democracy/5810-freedom-of-expression-and-the-internet.html>