Subject: Re: [hrpc] for the users

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 10:48:44 +0200

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 11:36:31AM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> > - Finally, I get that the onus of the discussion lies in conflicts of interests between providers or services and equipment AND users of the Internet. How about, however, conflicts between interests of different communities/users? [this may be completely out of the scope of your draft but I had to ask :)].
> 
> I'd be surprised if it didn't happen. I don't think this draft is going to help in that situation; we need to fall back on more specific guidance, depending on the situation.
> 

That is nice and elegant (and resolves my issues as well methinks). Perhaps you could put this in the draft?

Thanks!

Niels

-- 

Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint	   2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488  
                   643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 14:29:16 +1000

> On 1 Aug 2017, at 6:48 pm, Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

I've tried to clarify this:

"""
Note that "harm" is not defined in this document; that is something that the relevant body (e.g.,
Working Group) needs to discuss. The IETF has already established a body of guidance for such
decisions, including (but not limited to) {{?RFC7754}} on filtering, {{?RFC7258}} and {{?RFC7624}}
on pervasive surveillance, {{?RFC7288}} on host firewalls, and {{?RFC6973}} regarding privacy
considerations.

Over time, additional guidance is likely to be defined. In the absence of specific guidance on a
given topic (such as that referenced above), this document provides a general approach to making
such decisions.
"""

Does that help?

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/