Subject: Re: [hrpc] HRPC, next

From: Avri <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 12:54:23 +0100

Hi,

Been quiet, reading the comments in the various messages, listening to the views of people on the documents.

As far as I can tell at this point, there is strong support for   draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines becoming a RG document and would be glad to see it become one.    I think this is important, not only because RFC 8280 is a bit heavy, but because while 8280 does a good job of establishing a hypothesis and of giving a set of considerations that we can study, the work is not yet done.    The hypothesis needs to be tested, and the considerations need to used and refined once we can determine the degree to which they are useful and fit for purpose.    

 On the other documents, I think I would like to see more comment and more support.    I also do not think that finished work necessarily needs to become a RG draft. If indeed a private doc is considered ready, we can still request publication.    As I have often told by others, this is a research group and every document does not need to become a research document in order to prove its worth.    So at this point, I do not feel there is a strong need for turning the 451 report into a RG draft in order to publish it.    If, and when, the RG believes it is ready for publication, I believe we can just request publication and go through the IRTF process (but I will confirm that).

 As far as the association draft goes, while I agree that it is not quite ready for RG document status, I do believe it is one that should become a work item.    I also think the same for the anonymity draft - once I get the impression we have many people who think it is ready.

 In terms of published work, I would also like to see the group branch out into academic journals if possible, though I do not think the work has yet reached the level were it is ready for most journals.

 In terms of the group and the possible need for a new co-chair, I have spoken to Allison but we are waiting to see what Niels’ final decision is - he has said he was thinking of stepping down, but has not actually done so, and remains the co-chair as of now.    If he does step down, while the choice is not mine but the IRTF Chair’s, I would like to bring in a co-chair with the social sciences skills to bring the benefits of scientific rigor to the RG’s work.    One of the hopes when we started this group was that it could be equally strong in Internet engineering, human rights, and social sciences. I believe that while it is crucial that work be useful to engineers, it is also important that it be valid from a scientific point of view - the notion that there is a link between human rights and technology is still a theory that does not have wide acceptance.    If the work is to stand the test of time, I believe it needs to be acceptable to all three, engineers, human rights experts and social scientists.

Those are my thoughts at this point, curious to ready what thers have to say in the continuing discussion.

Thanks
  
Avri

---

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 22:53:07 +0100

Hi,

I am a bit surprised by some of the remarks;
draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines did not get any discussion on the list
whereas draft-tenoever-hrpc-association has been discussed at length in
3 hrpc sessions and gotten a lot of discussions on the list (also after
last session), as well as acks for RG adoption.

Your reasoning that we can make drafts a work-item but not an RG draft
does not make a lot of sense to me since RG drafts _are_ the work items
of the RG.

Where it comes to a new co-chair I think we need to look for someone who
has the time, knowledge, motivation, experience and willingness to work
on this. We received notice from one volunteer who is very interested in
co-chairing and who has been a contributor on this list for a long time:
Mallory Knodel. So I hope we will consider her as co-chair.

Best,

Niels

Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

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

On 12/18/2017 12:54 PM, Avri wrote:
> As far as I can tell at this point, there is strong support
> for draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines becoming a RG document and would be
> glad to see it become one.  I think this is important, not only because
> RFC 8280 is a bit heavy, but because while 8280 does a good job of
> establishing a hypothesis and of giving a set of considerations that we
> can study, the work is not yet done.  The hypothesis needs to be tested,
> and the considerations need to used and refined once we can determine
> the degree to which they are useful and fit for purpose.  
> 
> On the other documents, I think I would like to see more comment and
> more support.  I also do not think that finished work necessarily needs
> to become a RG draft. If indeed a private doc is considered ready, we
> can still request publication.  As I have often told by others, this is
> a research group and every document does not need to become a research
> document in order to prove its worth.  So at this point, I do not feel
> there is a strong need for turning the 451 report into a RG draft in
> order to publish it.  If, and when, the RG believes it is ready for
> publication, I believe we can just request publication and go through
> the IRTF process (but I will confirm that).
> 
> As far as the association draft goes, while I agree that it is not quite
> ready for RG document status, I do believe it is one that should become
> a work item.  I also think the same for the anonymity draft - once I get
> the impression we have many people who think it is ready.
> 
> In terms of published work, I would also like to see the group branch
> out into academic journals if possible, though I do not think the work
> has yet reached the level were it is ready for most journals.
> 
> In terms of the group and the possible need for a new co-chair, I have
> spoken to Allison but we are waiting to see what Niels’ final decision
> is - he has said he was thinking of stepping down, but has not actually
> done so, and remains the co-chair as of now.  If he does step down,
> while the choice is not mine but the IRTF Chair’s, I would like to bring
> in a co-chair with the social sciences skills to bring the benefits of
> scientific rigor to the RG’s work.  One of the hopes when we started
> this group was that it could be equally strong in Internet engineering,
> human rights, and social sciences. I believe that while it is crucial
> that work be useful to engineers, it is also important that it be valid
> from a scientific point of view - the notion that there is a link
> between human rights and technology is still a theory that does not have
> wide acceptance.  If the work is to stand the test of time, I believe it
> needs to be acceptable to all three, engineers, human rights experts and
> social scientists.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>

---

From: Gisela Perez de Acha <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 12:35:57 -0600

Hello everyone,

I have to say I was a bit shocked as well. I don't really understand the
process for HRPC documents anymore.

First we said we needed more traction on the list, and I do believe
there has been a lot of discussion. But then, it doesn't make sense to
discuss things endlessly in HRPC if the drafts will never become
research group documents. Especially if they also fit with the RG
charter. Being new to this list and group, I have to say I feel a bit
demotivated.

That said, Mallory would make an excellent co-chair: she was the
technical coordinator at one of the most prominent digital civil society
organisations, APC, and she also has a strong human rights background. I
urge decision-makers in this process to be as transparent as possible
and take our opinions into consideration.

Cheers from Mexico,

--------
Gisela Pérez de Acha
derechosdigitales.org

---

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 09:35:45 -0500

+1

-- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
Chief Technologist, Center for Democracy & Technology [https://www.cdt.org]
1401 K ST NW STE 200, Washington DC 20005-3497
e: [email-masked], p: 202.407.8825, pgp: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key
Fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10  1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871

---

From: Mallory Knodel <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 19:54:33 +0530

Hi all,

I've been following the working group since the beginning, both
online/list and in conversations with both the chairs and authors.

I've maintained infrastructure (and fought attacks) for civil society
groups via mayfirst.org and apc.org over the last 8 years, and I'm a
board member of equalit.ie, who provides DDOS protection for civil society.

I'm looking forward to facilitating discussion, helping organise
sessions and building on the important work already done-- such as by
applying, testing and improving the guidelines on rfc8280 with the draft
docs. It helps a great deal that my new employer allows me to put a
significant amount of time to this. (I'm moving from APC to ARTICLE 19
on 2 January.)

I would really value the opportunity to work closely with Avri as
co-chair. And I welcome any questions from the group.

Very much looking forward to seeing you all at IETF101 in London and to
discussion on the list.

Best,

-Mallory

-- 
Mallory Knodel
Association for Progressive Communications :: apc.org <https://apc.org>
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780