From nobody Sun Dec 3 15:47:45 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ACC4126C23 for ; Sun, 3 Dec 2017 15:47:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 PnU0CofcrPfQ for ; Sun, 3 Dec 2017 15:47:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9415124BE8 for ; Sun, 3 Dec 2017 15:47:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from [89.234.152.51] (port=55131 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eLdz1-0003Zg-LJ; Mon, 04 Dec 2017 00:47:40 +0100 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 00:47:31 +0100 To: Andrew Sullivan ,hrpc@irtf.org From: Jefsey In-Reply-To: <20171128181604.cszih4nbzuoz23sj@mx4.yitter.info> References: <02e0869e-c056-1c97-5242-b6004b1ca197@cs.tcd.ie> <42ba3afc-5caf-1d2e-2fe8-f9f1cf92eeef@derechosdigitales.org> <20171128181604.cszih4nbzuoz23sj@mx4.yitter.info> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - irtf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Authenticated-Sender: host.presenceweb.org: jefsey@jefsey.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Message-Id: <20171203234742.E9415124BE8@ietfa.amsl.com> Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] draft-tenoever-hrpc-association-02 X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2017 23:47:44 -0000 At 19:16 28/11/2017, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >So, you might say that the nature of freedom of the Internet arises >out of a freedom of assembly that is internetworking: any arbitrary >set of network operators (you don't need ASes for this, I think) can >network their networks together, and get an internet. They get a catenet. They get an internet if they use the IETF protocol set (since the second objective of the IEN 48 project has not been met. Yet.) >The totality of that behaviour together in the world is the emergent >thing called _the_ Internet. Any given member or set of members can >refuse or fail to participate to some extent, which means that the >Internet is fuzzy. This is documented by RFC 6852. The fuzzyness comes from the lack of warranty of compatibility among global communities' standards. Nothing technical prevents balkanization. We unfortunaly opposed on that. >The individual network operators who are internetworking might meet >the definition of "assembly" you've been using, but the Internet >does not get that even transitively. I feel the best definition of the internet is Gaines' one : "we [the users] are the internet". Meaning that every human being, if having an inter-network connection, is able to dialog (end to end) with every other human being if also connected through an inter-network connection as long as their inter-connections speak TCP/IP and iDNS. That is not bad. But we were heading for much more capabilities, hence more rights and development for people, back in 1986. OK, the NTIA/miltary-industrial "status-quo" moratorium has officially ended on 10/1/2016. However, we can expect that the extended services momentum will take some years to resume. Even tough we know there are so many egos and interests against it. best jfc From nobody Mon Dec 4 10:05:23 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89742127ABE for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2017 10:05:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=ENNXbnCD; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=a4GXR/go 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 76Vn4aYA6Kpd for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2017 10:05:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05835127AD4 for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2017 10:05:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D37CBD33A for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2017 18:05:20 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1512410720; bh=7dozERxJPryKcAfs9P+HSDaTFk5Yw76qJBqIv1F9xY4=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=ENNXbnCD2pFW7gy2LHquTcuxf1hc25edtBmq05/0ZZcWzY+v9kQ0wTWZisI52XSbD mNesm7lJ6VkVM64iy+HeX6fFpRvE894CE8qXaX89h5Tc1r+dVylJUAU3Wog9kPk77p fm2SlUKKHGL12qCQNbXvLiRbBwQ0zqJjm1CgUtCw= X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8KzRR1r3-PAa for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2017 18:05:19 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:05:22 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1512410718; bh=7dozERxJPryKcAfs9P+HSDaTFk5Yw76qJBqIv1F9xY4=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=a4GXR/gohcNO3YnFlEehxWO21YgwuTSRM5wlLrOg1LrTcXd0MwJI/Qe1kp7FKuCez FMsW5m6N+/m4XaC0P1dDHX5lwyyDlntxB2lFmMV0+rjlox/NxZDbSVq7aTSHLHw1wm SZuszss63hexAG8gZsUyFlmNCTyxDs06oD8j2rtw= From: Andrew Sullivan To: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <20171204180522.6p35mhra34hif6kf@mx4.yitter.info> References: <02e0869e-c056-1c97-5242-b6004b1ca197@cs.tcd.ie> <42ba3afc-5caf-1d2e-2fe8-f9f1cf92eeef@derechosdigitales.org> <20171128181604.cszih4nbzuoz23sj@mx4.yitter.info> <20171203234742.E9415124BE8@ietfa.amsl.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171203234742.E9415124BE8@ietfa.amsl.com> Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] draft-tenoever-hrpc-association-02 X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 18:05:22 -0000 On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 12:47:31AM +0100, Jefsey wrote: > At 19:16 28/11/2017, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > They get a catenet. They get an internet if they use the IETF protocol set > (since the second objective of the IEN 48 project has not been met. Yet.) Well, yes, to be precise you only get an internet if you're using common end-to-end protocols (not necessarily the IETF protocols, though those are the obvious candidates). > > thing called _the_ Internet. Any given member or set of members can > > refuse or fail to participate to some extent, which means that the > > Internet is fuzzy. > > This is documented by RFC 6852. The fuzzyness comes from the lack of > warranty of compatibility among global communities' standards. Nothing > technical prevents balkanization. We unfortunaly opposed on that. I'm not sure I understand why you claim what I claim is "documented" by RFC 6852, though I agree it's compatible. I agree that nothing technical prevents balkanization (or, I think a less historically-fraught way of saying this is "fragmentation"). I guess we do not agree that you can get voluntary standards that can prevent in any technical way such fragmentation: voluntary standards by nature can fragment, and the way to prevent it is to make the cost of remaining in the regime cheaper than splitting off. Cf. forking in free software. > are the internet". Meaning that every human being, if having an > inter-network connection, is able to dialog (end to end) with every other > human being if also connected through an inter-network connection as long as > their inter-connections speak TCP/IP and iDNS. By such a definition,the Internet has never existed. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From nobody Wed Dec 6 04:02:12 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88E1D126C0F for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 04:02:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 1NlDYBYau9Vp for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 04:02:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59558124207 for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 04:02:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from [89.234.152.51] (port=29011 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eMYOl-00006g-WB; Wed, 06 Dec 2017 13:02:00 +0100 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2017 13:01:52 +0100 To: Andrew Sullivan ,hrpc@irtf.org From: JFC Morfin In-Reply-To: <20171204180522.6p35mhra34hif6kf@mx4.yitter.info> References: <02e0869e-c056-1c97-5242-b6004b1ca197@cs.tcd.ie> <42ba3afc-5caf-1d2e-2fe8-f9f1cf92eeef@derechosdigitales.org> <20171128181604.cszih4nbzuoz23sj@mx4.yitter.info> <20171203234742.E9415124BE8@ietfa.amsl.com> <20171204180522.6p35mhra34hif6kf@mx4.yitter.info> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - irtf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Authenticated-Sender: host.presenceweb.org: jefsey@jefsey.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Message-Id: <20171206120203.59558124207@ietfa.amsl.com> Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] draft-tenoever-hrpc-association-02 X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2017 12:02:09 -0000 On 19:05 04/12/2017, Andrew Sullivan said: >On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 12:47:31AM +0100, Jefsey wrote: > > At 19:16 28/11/2017, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > > > They get a catenet. They get an internet if they use the IETF protocol set > > (since the second objective of the IEN 48 project has not been met. Yet.) > >Well, yes, to be precise you only get an internet if you're using >common end-to-end protocols (not necessarily the IETF protocols, >though those are the obvious candidates). Correct. In the begining of the international packet switch system (IPSS) this was true. It was also the second (1978) objective of the Internet project. > > > thing called _the_ Internet. Any given member or set of members can > > > refuse or fail to participate to some extent, which means that the > > > Internet is fuzzy. > > > > This is documented by RFC 6852. The fuzzyness comes from the lack of > > warranty of compatibility among global communities' standards. Nothing > > technical prevents balkanization. We unfortunaly opposed on that. > >I'm not sure I understand why you claim what I claim is "documented" >by RFC 6852, though I agree it's compatible. An RFC 6852 "global community" is a form of open association. It should not be only considered as a GAFA consumers flock. The matter is to see how several global communities, with different technologies can freely assemble and associate without this being disurptive. >I agree that nothing technical prevents balkanization (or, I think a less >historically-fraught way of saying this is "fragmentation"). Difficult to decide when one consider China, or the hypernet various approaches. I am considering also the SX (societal experience) issues. >I guess >we do not agree that you can get voluntary standards that can prevent >in any technical way such fragmentation: voluntary standards by nature >can fragment, and the way to prevent it is to make the cost of >remaining in the regime cheaper than splitting off. Cf. forking in >free software. This is the 1972/74 Congress' idea. It was spread all over the world as "deregulation" and "market self-regulation". RFC 6852 is based on that concept (actually the idea seems to be "more rewarding" than "cheaper"). As far as I undertsand it, IAB RFC 3869 explains why this may be detrimental and even blocking.. I only note that : - the granularity (countries in the 70s, glocal markets in 2020) is different. - I would feel better at ease if a negotiation - mutual stabilization normative process had been agreed and activated. However, my real fear is that the normative situation is becoming unmanageable. To architecturally conform one is now to master around 20.000 documents. > > are the internet". Meaning that every human being, if having an > > inter-network connection, is able to dialog (end to end) with every other > > human being if also connected through an inter-network connection > as long as > > their inter-connections speak TCP/IP and iDNS. > >By such a definition,the Internet has never existed. Never mind! We already are now deeply engaged into the hypernet ... Yet we do not know if we have the right to associate into such a project: remember there is nothing ultimately private in the hyperdataspace, so the technology itself will not "respect" privacy. IMHO the human rights should be more concerned by accuracy or truth than privacy. (Where the neuronal networks empathy (coherence) eventually ends? Before or after merging public and private networked data?) However, mathematically speaking, this only can be a matter of statistics: a new theme for law. This belongs to my old considerations about negentropy, net learning, agorics, multilinguistics, intellition, relations, precaution, nature of data, etc. in the datasphere/space. And therefore to the resurgence of network extended services. It took 45 years but it seems AT&T is eventually buying the Tymshare project. Without the multinational/industry/people control we had accepted. . Take care. jfc From nobody Mon Dec 18 03:54:53 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FEDE126C2F for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 03:54:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.199 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 C1mv8BYoeCTI for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 03:54:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.gn.apc.org (mail.gn.apc.org [37.220.108.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7893124B09 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 03:54:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.gn.apc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 841E0201F204 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 11:54:46 +0000 (GMT) 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 yosVI_jL8c4Q for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 11:54:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from anonymous ([10.254.254.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: avri) by mail.gn.apc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BFEA4201F242 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 11:54:30 +0000 (GMT) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 12:54:23 +0100 From: Avri To: Hrpc Message-ID: <757d5b93-bc4e-4dc7-aba3-0610480eab85@avris-iPad> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="5a37ac6f_6b8b4567_1f8e" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] HRPC, next X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 11:54:52 -0000 --5a37ac6f_6b8b4567_1f8e Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline =20 =20 Hi, =20 =20 Been quiet, reading the comments in the various messages, listening to th= e views of people on the documents. =20 =20 As far as I can tell at this point, there is strong support for draft-t= enoever-hrpc-guidelines becoming a RG document and would be glad to see i= t become one. I think this is important, not only because R=46C 8280 i= s a bit heavy, but because while 8280 does a good job of establishing a h= ypothesis and of giving a set of considerations that we can study, the wo= rk is not yet done. The hypothesis needs to be tested, and the conside= rations need to used and refined once we can determine the degree to whic= h they are useful and fit for purpose. =20 =20 =20 =20 On the other documents, I think I would like to see more comment and mor= e 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 s= till request publication. As I have often told by others, this is a re= search group and every document does not need to become a research docume= nt 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 p= ublish it. If, and when, the RG believes it is ready for publication, = I believe we can just request publication and go through the IRT=46 proce= ss (but I will confirm that). =20 =20 =20 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 ge= t the impression we have many people who think it is ready. =20 =20 =20 In terms of published work, I would also like to see the group branch ou= t into academic journals if possible, though I do not think the work has = yet reached the level were it is ready for most journals. =20 =20 =20 In terms of the group and the possible need for a new co-chair, I have s= poken to Allison but we are waiting to see what Niels=E2=80=99 final deci= sion is - he has said he was thinking of stepping down, but has not actua= lly done so, and remains the co-chair as of now. If he does step down,= while the choice is not mine but the IRT=46 Chair=E2=80=99s, I would lik= e to bring in a co-chair with the social sciences skills to bring the ben= efits of scientific rigor to the RG=E2=80=99s work. One of the hopes w= hen 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 li= nk between human rights and technology is still a theory that does not ha= ve wide acceptance. If the work is to stand the test of time, I believ= e it needs to be acceptable to all three, engineers, human rights experts= and social scientists. =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 Those are my thoughts at this point, curious to ready what thers have to = say in the continuing discussion. =20 =20 Thanks =20 Avri --5a37ac6f_6b8b4567_1f8e Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline
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 R=46C 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 hy= pothesis needs to be tested, and the considerations need to used and refi= ned 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 su= pport.  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 st= ill request publication.  As I have often told by others, this is a = research group and every document does not need to become a research docu= ment in order to prove its worth.  So at this point, I do not feel t= here 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 publi= cation, I believe we can just request publication and go through the IRT=46= process (but I will confirm that).

As far as the association draft goes, while I agree that i= t 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 rea= dy.

In terms of pub= lished 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 n= ew co-chair, I have spoken to Allison but we are waiting to see what Niel= s=E2=80=99 final decision is - he has said he was thinking of stepping do= wn, but has not actually done so, and remains the co-chair as of now. &nb= sp;If he does step down, while the choice is not mine but the IRT=46 Chai= r=E2=80=99s, I would like to bring in a co-chair with the social sciences= skills to bring the benefits of scientific rigor to the RG=E2=80=99s wor= k.  One of the hopes when we started this group was that it could be= equally strong in Internet engineering, human rights, and social science= s. I believe that while it is crucial that work be useful to engineers, i= t is also important that it be valid from a scientific point of view - th= e notion that there is a link between human rights and technology is stil= l a theory that does not have wide acceptance.  If the work is to st= and the test of time, I believe it needs to be acceptable to all three, e= ngineers, human rights experts and social scientists.


Those are my t= houghts at this point, curious to ready what thers have to say in the con= tinuing discussion.

Thanks
Avri
--5a37ac6f_6b8b4567_1f8e-- From nobody Mon Dec 18 13:53:18 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED77612D95C for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 13:53:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 NWzSUTT4RnyT for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 13:53:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.92]) (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 387CB12D945 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 13:53:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.104.138]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eR3LV-0004NO-8J for hrpc@irtf.org; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 22:53:13 +0100 To: hrpc@irtf.org References: <757d5b93-bc4e-4dc7-aba3-0610480eab85@avris-iPad> From: Niels ten Oever Message-ID: <04ea7dbd-4a91-8ddb-5a53-fe165ee63b18@article19.org> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 22:53:07 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <757d5b93-bc4e-4dc7-aba3-0610480eab85@avris-iPad> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="cTx4SoSlbfRbgxxKs72LBb3DoFMKp84fe" X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Scan-Signature: 1a05470216d0106dc91b6ca0d322f745 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] HRPC, next X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 21:53:18 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --cTx4SoSlbfRbgxxKs72LBb3DoFMKp84fe Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="4liXMXussaehkX6Mnu4U68nwpc6k71oV6"; protected-headers="v1" From: Niels ten Oever To: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <04ea7dbd-4a91-8ddb-5a53-fe165ee63b18@article19.org> Subject: Re: [hrpc] HRPC, next References: <757d5b93-bc4e-4dc7-aba3-0610480eab85@avris-iPad> In-Reply-To: <757d5b93-bc4e-4dc7-aba3-0610480eab85@avris-iPad> --4liXMXussaehkX6Mnu4U68nwpc6k71oV6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: > Hi, >=20 > Been quiet, reading the comments in the various messages, listening to > the views of people on the documents. >=20 > As far as I can tell at this point, there is strong support > for=A0draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines becoming a RG document and would b= e > glad to see it become one. =A0I think this is important, not only becau= se > 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. =A0The hypothesis needs to be test= ed, > and the considerations need to used and refined once we can determine > the degree to which they are useful and fit for purpose. =A0 >=20 > On the other documents, I think I would like to see more comment and > more support. =A0I also do not think that finished work necessarily nee= ds > to become a RG draft. If indeed a private doc is considered ready, we > can still request publication. =A0As 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. =A0So at this point, I do not fee= l > there is a strong need for turning the 451 report into a RG draft in > order to publish it. =A0If, 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). >=20 > As far as the association draft goes, while I agree that it is not quit= e > ready for RG document status, I do believe it is one that should become= > a work item. =A0I also think the same for the anonymity draft - once I = get > the impression we have many people who think it is ready. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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=92 final decisio= n > is - he has said he was thinking of stepping down, but has not actually= > done so, and remains the co-chair as of now. =A0If he does step down, > while the choice is not mine but the IRTF Chair=92s, I would like to br= ing > in a co-chair with the social sciences skills to bring the benefits of > scientific rigor to the RG=92s work. =A0One of the hopes when we starte= d > 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 hav= e > wide acceptance. =A0If the work is to stand the test of time, I believe= it > needs to be acceptable to all three, engineers, human rights experts an= d > social scientists. >=20 >=20 > Those are my thoughts at this point, curious to ready what thers have t= o > say in the continuing discussion. >=20 > Thanks > Avri >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >=20 --4liXMXussaehkX6Mnu4U68nwpc6k71oV6-- --cTx4SoSlbfRbgxxKs72LBb3DoFMKp84fe Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEJFgLcFxK/YqUiGQ6Dtg/OkaKyLMFAlo4OMQACgkQDtg/OkaK yLNG7RAAo1y8K09zaMLYkDaH0FJvxya3si2ZzIiu0uyjGCU9xI3FAbyNv++DsZ0u 2H7E5QOKsqkE8gM+sqCuOX7R/ET2mLxdegYZzthky4E29erLlgUgsTldHGcvImU8 lOxcS59/2E5h8oKdA8m6keKJhPZHSj3ofMet0SVPDls8Wk8pBebCDRXE72n23dxi Er62sojY4cz8J1geoQWRmM/pp77rp1KdN8sPGptyIF+xNc4ro2Z9IBSsv/vuHETX eB2OMjyTgkd3seormC9GZ/yG3E2QaKOEGxeUlVAjdGkBvbnEdb67Aw4226HNdBAh NI+FxMU9h1l4ekDiWEgaNZRr4jy+j7bStQ0BSCmTgOcTo1ESUqgbxRImoujdqnnL ck7r4xlh13rCaYcBdmqxvu9nFEKts/L3nIBA5f4chdzyi4QFCO+orsuJNGu35qmu oqsWHgiUYIb7zefheI9Vj5rg1sE967P4WwTuDShKeG7/ONf859oRc6kA4arr0UDj VNwfgC6XuUbf4UwjB+xIcSg4+Uw8fOfc6Z6gScqKr3Y0OJPfP9r+DGoRypT4am4U X8d0pYaCzO7Pts10kTvPx5gGcvp2WUP81d6SuyVaaeUQ502Jr39cazZXlB9+G00L c9sSBzQW+tR8Ib7iAa48Yom5Dgug/OLHvpE23IUNdrgFac2lYbY= =Y6dU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --cTx4SoSlbfRbgxxKs72LBb3DoFMKp84fe-- From nobody Tue Dec 19 10:36:06 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA4F3126B6E for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 10:36:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.72 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.72 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_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=derechosdigitales.org header.b=dMxFpWWI; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=Npo5cbaj 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 97CF5lfmoa4M for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 10:36:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7448712D7F8 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 10:36:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D64642053F for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:36:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:36:01 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= derechosdigitales.org; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=uDGYkO2PPEfFIODzpayg+t6u0n42z sP3Pk1zXSygPc4=; b=dMxFpWWIiB1Jwne+5m/RhhRy3NOlC150+19z5M7hak5J3 51mdHxa9jFq0+ROs6MOetUbP1i2nbA9EA8u7eJ+FUff+r4T7v8FBfS5jAL4GCJbE qJLGszo6nwcH/AFrcouzVEvUmpq7D5vrdQZs/s3y+NNMgAbwWj7o0HPOSJApVQVI G3sWaytugOfHS8H3sw0/iD9VD6FQE8acqMoSv/aRbGVt+bWYn4/kOxxKjXCiXaKV Hw7ei6LLxJxjNL76e+UkE5+Bhu96Tj557HpRtS70veuWdphMkd77ETtCB1C/PkkL XjApW9uVZswJSFu17nL6B58jbR1cNMueUKCVK1NxA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=uDGYkO2PPEfFIODzpayg+t6u0n42z sP3Pk1zXSygPc4=; b=Npo5cbajFtGXrEfZtpABKJ0TBcxgiIQcfI/WyQND9V+Eg nmUxqBz1jVEhfvmPNgfl1bgnGIbt8aUD+JbiY+5EYvTaUahf02onnEQS3lJxH6/u c8nUjvGXXr/iJM1ITWrZJ38cbeyDSKvr0OxhWNgajsjPRWSA2DvbZypy939l7A+m bHBoP08wgX/Jus518b8S9PSYf734APYohLntKJtBRqMVOJkNBhuleREUF+kkYWhT Wx7HNiYB4E+VA61/IhBY8P+/4XM9BRxCOcOYhd/R5pdYk/I7OesXuE1aRBRkZwTc iVYEDqymYwQSqRLOkHQY3SByK8GC8FhYI2mgMVK6g== X-ME-Sender: Received: from Giselas-MacBook-Air-6.local (unknown [200.56.42.77]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 473B47E4C8 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:36:01 -0500 (EST) To: hrpc@irtf.org References: <757d5b93-bc4e-4dc7-aba3-0610480eab85@avris-iPad> <04ea7dbd-4a91-8ddb-5a53-fe165ee63b18@article19.org> From: Gisela Perez de Acha Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 12:35:57 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <04ea7dbd-4a91-8ddb-5a53-fe165ee63b18@article19.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Q1lkwtD9tk8v4gPjEUQfTqELT5UPKNrkj" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] HRPC, next X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 18:36:05 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --Q1lkwtD9tk8v4gPjEUQfTqELT5UPKNrkj Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="urHJCwPQlfPaSig4tAxRAhdoOkobImMds"; protected-headers="v1" From: Gisela Perez de Acha To: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: Subject: Re: [hrpc] HRPC, next References: <757d5b93-bc4e-4dc7-aba3-0610480eab85@avris-iPad> <04ea7dbd-4a91-8ddb-5a53-fe165ee63b18@article19.org> In-Reply-To: <04ea7dbd-4a91-8ddb-5a53-fe165ee63b18@article19.org> --urHJCwPQlfPaSig4tAxRAhdoOkobImMds Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Language: es-ES Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 P=E9rez de Acha derechosdigitales.org > Hi, >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > Where it comes to a new co-chair I think we need to look for someone wh= o > has the time, knowledge, motivation, experience and willingness to work= > on this. We received notice from one volunteer who is very interested i= n > 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. >=20 > Best, >=20 > Niels >=20 > Niels ten Oever > Head of Digital >=20 > Article 19 > www.article19.org >=20 > PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 > 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 >=20 > On 12/18/2017 12:54 PM, Avri wrote: >> 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=A0draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines becoming a RG document and would = be >> glad to see it become one. =A0I think this is important, not only beca= use >> 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 w= e >> can study, the work is not yet done. =A0The hypothesis needs to be tes= ted, >> and the considerations need to used and refined once we can determine >> the degree to which they are useful and fit for purpose. =A0 >> >> On the other documents, I think I would like to see more comment and >> more support. =A0I also do not think that finished work necessarily ne= eds >> to become a RG draft. If indeed a private doc is considered ready, we >> can still request publication. =A0As 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. =A0So at this point, I do not fe= el >> there is a strong need for turning the 451 report into a RG draft in >> order to publish it. =A0If, 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 qui= te >> ready for RG document status, I do believe it is one that should becom= e >> a work item. =A0I 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=92 final decisi= on >> is - he has said he was thinking of stepping down, but has not actuall= y >> done so, and remains the co-chair as of now. =A0If he does step down, >> while the choice is not mine but the IRTF Chair=92s, I would like to b= ring >> in a co-chair with the social sciences skills to bring the benefits of= >> scientific rigor to the RG=92s work. =A0One of the hopes when we start= ed >> 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 vali= d >> 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 ha= ve >> wide acceptance. =A0If the work is to stand the test of time, I believ= e it >> needs to be acceptable to all three, engineers, human rights experts a= nd >> social scientists. >> >> >> Those are my thoughts at this point, curious to ready what thers have = to >> say in the continuing discussion. >> >> Thanks >> Avri >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> hrpc mailing list >> hrpc@irtf.org >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >> >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >=20 --urHJCwPQlfPaSig4tAxRAhdoOkobImMds-- --Q1lkwtD9tk8v4gPjEUQfTqELT5UPKNrkj Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJaOVwSAAoJEK3mymyvegy47ZQQAKYSFo4KYIfE9KGp7Lv214gI KFtV9lQD4xZSkaDLYN/SHL1QYLr0UIjDYkUllBDPuQj6Hw8uPPU4kNaAwgy3E0BQ saOXo2Gb+VShcnuejedbOkj42ZPqvIhRUDW+HVKTPEuES/0vWDzoGEyM8HlqLdnY a6KoMd3lCenMb+mZnr6M3KIRR7ijLMkoecQcJsnqJLahTRmADJXg10xmLD4yno3H Vwq7zTv2agQ3hcXvextzPRBSykN6VlI0JJlx5I1LpPNO/9KrsdxoUrWwh65KuYJJ 0Fq7KdoFj5G2weVUJVhcJqQCEZqrnjBa5IwzekHJuE/PfBsjtGZaSX3YHGmp8YyE kZecD0iFEka0RgkgrUOYBaRhruk3dIhN0EzkD9ulEg30e/8De2LQjYDp6ljDDwxc o/qRwhyd4lBBbmOg4ROzOBpUY10FPDvXLO/roWMBrlBG6dsl88Tinqj1SWKz8K5s e5pRz0/deCzaDcToCh36kF1kMYXhoU+dj17CFRjaAWO0yvobC8XJHXlFtx4omeH1 U8hv/aR6WmGTK0GVApYKQjhpgWC62tRqsC1nQQfxx3XiY26BqxmxYK2nupAqoFPS BZX/QOVymg1izjIZyxWzvGAubTIxk1K5mv9DaUyy+DH9JvxyrEUrOmWiU119rwbE 4YoKHoNBcV6s3+K8zam8 =fvfM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Q1lkwtD9tk8v4gPjEUQfTqELT5UPKNrkj-- From nobody Wed Dec 20 03:16:26 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@irtf.org Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAF511200F3; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 03:16:24 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: IETF Meeting Session Request Tool To: Cc: hrpc-chairs@ietf.org, niels@article19.org, hrpc@irtf.org, irtf-chair@irtf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.68.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <151376858487.2601.11435511512576486155.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 03:16:24 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] hrpc - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 101 X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 11:16:25 -0000 A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Niels ten Oever, a Chair of the hrpc working group. --------------------------------------------------------- Working Group Name: Human Rights Protocol Considerations Area Name: IRTF Session Requester: Niels ten Oever Number of Sessions: 1 Length of Session(s): 2 Hours Number of Attendees: 80 Conflicts to Avoid: First Priority: quic httpbis saag dnsop Second Priority: irtfopen People who must be present: Avri Doria Niels ten Oever Resources Requested: Special Requests: Preferably not scheduled on Friday. --------------------------------------------------------- From nobody Thu Dec 21 06:36:11 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECE08126CC7 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 06:36:09 -0800 (PST) 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cdt.org 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 Yg3k6ckQULpB for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 06:36:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ua0-x234.google.com (mail-ua0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::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 10A99124D68 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 06:36:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ua0-x234.google.com with SMTP id i4so17631170uab.5 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 06:36:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cdt.org; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5BeDxUwmba+sL/Z0YLXrr2gX1XFCtGIcAiV5OoTCMTo=; b=pztpEuBA2VXT0GsbV7VQbNimCOLuRv7YVSQhI/DRUNeDslI97QmnwiO4FwB1UCR9C3 NTRFmBinaXifLdwz34yG003Q8a1caeyT6H+A/qmc68M+QgcNYmf6zdFTEZ5M8FVAMRy/ gXDiMstqGDF7QqTOE38pbeQY1ZPRIKZyYiVyY= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5BeDxUwmba+sL/Z0YLXrr2gX1XFCtGIcAiV5OoTCMTo=; b=Ta0+wGXKW1k0Iaden4JMk5sSAPoPAqUSUBzkCGvn9M2qk4al3pxBdUmA5jFTySxALv NHgj3PTAx/27c3qocwB3mj3mQQjHVgJ64+mmc1/RxpyABQP4Yaj1qki4k97Lz0RIu4ti Hyk5KwlnhHprSlar1ta2qBtxeVOMPN3zVfPp1ZTEDyxmpxk7U69QMVoiWcQeTaX8C/hg McI/B//zzvb0mtRrGm7F3gVHqYwAfNozZryx724B/6ACeOOO8qt2UhMHI+6VLLhGLYIS 7B+g2BmoYonsAsSEkfB0EeICSrrqCrTR2j0Pp6iZZOAeeYU24gxFPUL/eVMMAtg6o/5k I8TA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mIzd6Tkc0Vh+ySdjoLOLXg8yvwmDC/5lyJkSKNWUQv62PZjqDdn nGpcC6Vzo0kEGcJFUfJmQNulf3pF8fMXD4Au8HGeUQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovSe6zgRBox1Xs3MRIlVJlfPn7kKWOMqB1AyudScdATljcjDQTHDTTvic3h9cErrQ2VRdy18mrPkjdTI9kcjcI= X-Received: by 10.176.66.228 with SMTP id j91mr1314244uaj.166.1513866965684; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 06:36:05 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.103.89.70 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 06:35:45 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <757d5b93-bc4e-4dc7-aba3-0610480eab85@avris-iPad> <04ea7dbd-4a91-8ddb-5a53-fe165ee63b18@article19.org> From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 09:35:45 -0500 Message-ID: To: Gisela Perez de Acha Cc: Hrpc Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] HRPC, next X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 14:36:10 -0000 +1 On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Gisela Perez de Acha wrote: > > 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 P=C3=A9rez de Acha > derechosdigitales.org > > > > > > >> 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: >>> 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 quit= e >>> 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 ge= t >>> 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=E2=80=99 final d= ecision >>> 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=E2=80=99s, I would like= to bring >>> in a co-chair with the social sciences skills to bring the benefits of >>> scientific rigor to the RG=E2=80=99s work. One of the hopes when we st= arted >>> 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 hav= e >>> wide acceptance. If the work is to stand the test of time, I believe i= t >>> needs to be acceptable to all three, engineers, human rights experts an= d >>> social scientists. >>> >>> >>> Those are my thoughts at this point, curious to ready what thers have t= o >>> say in the continuing discussion. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Avri >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> hrpc mailing list >>> hrpc@irtf.org >>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> hrpc mailing list >> hrpc@irtf.org >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >> > > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > --=20 Joseph Lorenzo Hall Chief Technologist, Center for Democracy & Technology [https://www.cdt.org] 1401 K ST NW STE 200, Washington DC 20005-3497 e: joe@cdt.org, p: 202.407.8825, pgp: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key Fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10 1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871 From nobody Fri Dec 22 06:24:55 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5F7912EAB3 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 06:24:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.209 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.209 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 dGgfcy0TMit4 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 06:24:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.gn.apc.org (mail.gn.apc.org [37.220.108.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57C8812EAB2 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 06:24:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.gn.apc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E4DD203096A for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 14:24:48 +0000 (GMT) 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 TrP_oWstYAUu for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 14:24:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from anonymous ([10.254.254.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mallory) by mail.gn.apc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A6AF4202DBCE for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 14:24:42 +0000 (GMT) To: hrpc@irtf.org References: <757d5b93-bc4e-4dc7-aba3-0610480eab85@avris-iPad> <04ea7dbd-4a91-8ddb-5a53-fe165ee63b18@article19.org> From: Mallory Knodel Message-ID: <26c2c0d6-fea7-a33b-5de2-eeba0124c345@apc.org> Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 19:54:33 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="J1PAEXdBa7A2Hr9lqQrWF5jIAs672UORa" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] HRPC, next X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 14:24:55 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --J1PAEXdBa7A2Hr9lqQrWF5jIAs672UORa Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="goA9X85naJRpi6lLNpA8PreiSr9mCnMMq"; protected-headers="v1" From: Mallory Knodel To: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <26c2c0d6-fea7-a33b-5de2-eeba0124c345@apc.org> Subject: Re: [hrpc] HRPC, next References: <757d5b93-bc4e-4dc7-aba3-0610480eab85@avris-iPad> <04ea7dbd-4a91-8ddb-5a53-fe165ee63b18@article19.org> In-Reply-To: --goA9X85naJRpi6lLNpA8PreiSr9mCnMMq Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------7A9D1FFBDCCC7044F8E649DA" Content-Language: en-US This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------7A9D1FFBDCCC7044F8E649DA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 societ= y. 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 On 20/12/17 12:05 AM, Gisela Perez de Acha wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I have to say I was a bit shocked as well. I don't really understand th= e > 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 societ= y > 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 P=E9rez de Acha > derechosdigitales.org > > > > > > >> 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 i= n >> 3 hrpc sessions and gotten a lot of discussions on the list (also afte= r >> 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 item= s >> of the RG. >> >> Where it comes to a new co-chair I think we need to look for someone w= ho >> has the time, knowledge, motivation, experience and willingness to wor= k >> 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 tim= e: >> 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: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Been quiet, reading the comments in the various messages, listening t= o >>> the views of people on the documents. >>> >>> As far as I can tell at this point, there is strong support >>> for=A0draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines becoming a RG document and would= be >>> glad to see it become one. =A0I think this is important, not only bec= ause >>> 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. =A0The hypothesis needs to be te= sted, >>> and the considerations need to used and refined once we can determine= >>> the degree to which they are useful and fit for purpose. =A0 >>> >>> On the other documents, I think I would like to see more comment and >>> more support. =A0I also do not think that finished work necessarily n= eeds >>> to become a RG draft. If indeed a private doc is considered ready, we= >>> can still request publication. =A0As I have often told by others, thi= s is >>> a research group and every document does not need to become a researc= h >>> document in order to prove its worth. =A0So at this point, I do not f= eel >>> there is a strong need for turning the 451 report into a RG draft in >>> order to publish it. =A0If, 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 qu= ite >>> ready for RG document status, I do believe it is one that should beco= me >>> a work item. =A0I 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 wor= k >>> 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 hav= e >>> spoken to Allison but we are waiting to see what Niels=92 final decis= ion >>> is - he has said he was thinking of stepping down, but has not actual= ly >>> done so, and remains the co-chair as of now. =A0If he does step down,= >>> while the choice is not mine but the IRTF Chair=92s, I would like to = bring >>> in a co-chair with the social sciences skills to bring the benefits o= f >>> scientific rigor to the RG=92s work. =A0One of the hopes when we star= ted >>> this group was that it could be equally strong in Internet engineerin= g, >>> 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 val= id >>> 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 h= ave >>> wide acceptance. =A0If the work is to stand the test of time, I belie= ve 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 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> hrpc mailing list >>> hrpc@irtf.org >>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> hrpc mailing list >> hrpc@irtf.org >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >> > > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc --=20 Mallory Knodel Association for Progressive Communications :: apc.org gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780 --------------7A9D1FFBDCCC7044F8E649DA Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi all,

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

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

On 20/12/17 12:05 AM, Gisela Perez de Acha wrote:
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 P=E9rez de Acha
derechosdigitales.org







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
w=
ww.article19.org

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

On 12/18/2017 12:54 PM, Avri wrote:

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=A0draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines becoming a RG document and would be
glad to see it become one. =A0I 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. =A0The 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. =A0

On the other documents, I think I would like to see more comment and
more support. =A0I 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. =A0As 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. =A0So 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. =A0If, 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. =A0I also think the same for the anonymity draft - once I ge=
t
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=92 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. =A0If he does step down,
while the choice is not mine but the IRTF Chair=92s, I would like to brin=
g
in a co-chair with the social sciences skills to bring the benefits of
scientific rigor to the RG=92s work. =A0One 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. =A0If the work is to stand the test of time, I believe i=
t
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


_______________________________________________
hrpc mailing list
hrpc@=
irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc




_______________________________________________
hrpc mailing list
hrpc@=
irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc



      

      

      

      
_______________________________________________
hrpc mailing list
hrpc@=
irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc


    

    

    
-- 

      Mallory Knodel

      Association for Progressive Communications :: apc.org

      gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C
      C780

  


--------------7A9D1FFBDCCC7044F8E649DA--

--goA9X85naJRpi6lLNpA8PreiSr9mCnMMq--

--J1PAEXdBa7A2Hr9lqQrWF5jIAs672UORa
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

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJaPRWmAAoJEAwyonG9PMeA1sYH/2bG3asGhB99RGo/iavHjYhX
R4PG/hooeuhAjUZsimj5nbaAjADzRQeW6LVNPu0grWwMFrrWtXNskdjq89LWl2Wr
Sm+Gd1MNVpOtyJpbx3/+HCCLBzHHQphLrdRQ679SUtU4WjsIfCbUvi4t77qYGUZ8
cWbfRgHX/EOPlcY9CKtsPnVk1lZ7k6I/Sy1oYrr/fRSOUctpD+qGo3LEsdaS4HXe
4mfP8qADnM0z727zG+GxHcKypQo+Z3ylUJZvVtLp4l150OLD5vS1gntZfB6ROAC4
jfD3NkAfKUJIotl4sDuyqum2l7SgloSmuUEJBESa9j13vzy8HxWacKoBF35OarA=
=Z6c+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--J1PAEXdBa7A2Hr9lqQrWF5jIAs672UORa--