From joana@varonferraz.com Tue Jan 20 16:34:32 2015 Received: from [10.10.12.45] (helo=mx2.greenhost.nl) by mailman.lan with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YDap6-00034L-LY for hrpc@article19.io; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 16:34:32 +0100 Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl ([195.190.28.81]) by mx2.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YDap6-0002vk-JH for hrpc@article19.io; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 16:34:32 +0100 Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.104.138]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YDaos-0004Kv-KE for hrpc@article19.io; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 16:34:32 +0100 Message-ID: <54BE7578.3010503@varonferraz.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:34:16 -0200 From: Joana Varon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hrpc@article19.io Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------080404040208060906080006" X-Authenticated-As-Hash: 0663834574f9da71d8f82ee71c27915bbc5237b0 X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Spam-Level: / X-Spam-Score: -0.2 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED, BAYES_50, HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1 X-Scan-Signature: 5ebdfb3adb0cb9b26707d6748f92d6b1 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 16:38:42 +0100 Subject: [hrpc] Summary ID on Human Rights presentation & next steps X-BeenThere: hrpc@article19.io X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Human Rights Protocol Consideration Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 15:34:33 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080404040208060906080006 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000905050000020100010401" --------------000905050000020100010401 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear all, Happy 2015! We hope it will bring us the opportunity for enlightening and rich debates on human rights and protocols over here. For the purpose of doing so, this is an attempt to summarize and and structure our work. So, please, find underneath (a) the summary of the session at IETF91 where we presented the Internet Draft on Human Rights considerations for Internet protocols and (b) a brainstorming of some research priorities for the coming time. At the bottom you can also find the links for the records of the session and related documents. The full transcription of the Q&A are also here attached. All comments, questions and suggestions for research methods and angles are very welcome. We are also looking for more help of researchers who are interested in helping us with researching specific RFCs to help us refine the methodology. Please, feel free to ping us on or offlist. Best, Joana and Niels * **a) Summary of the Session* An active debate about standards, protocols and human rights took place during the meeting of the Security Area Advisory Group -- SAAG at IETF 91, Hawaii. The discussion was framed by the Internet Draft "Proposal for research on human rights protocol considerations". [1] The Draft departs from the work that has been done by IETF on privacy and Internet protocols, such as RFC 6973 on Privacy Consideration guidelines [2], suggesting that some standards and protocols can solidify, enable or threaten human rights, such as freedom of expression and the right to association online. The proposal aims to establish a research group under the IRTF to study the structural relationship and impact between Internet standards and protocols and freedom of expression and association. A deeper rationale for presenting such proposal was explained during the presentation at SAAG. The presenters, who are also the authors of this note highlighted that the Internet was designed with freedom and openness of communications as core values, but were also questioning whether this a structural value that can or needs to be preserved on a technical level. As the politicization of the Internet management space increases, it is argued that IETF should have an active role to promote a more structured and holistic approach. This would allow sustained future proofing of standards and protocols to avoid ad hoc decisions following incidents or disclosures at a variety of other foras and actors= =2E The proposal raised some eyebrows and concerns about the politicization of the work of the community. Dan Harkins posed that: "doing the human rights study will likely politicize protocols. Not want the technology to have political context. I want technology to be so unpolitical as possible." This sparked a discussion with a rapid follow up by Justin, who stated that "we have to stop pretending that technology is a non-political decision", a remark that was followed by a round of applause. One of the presenters responded that the research proposal was exactly aimed at avoiding further politicization of protocols or the community, but rather give the community time in a proper process to define its position. Both John Levine and Alissa Cooper remarked that it is crucial to start of with a focus on specific human rights, because it will help keep the research manageable and help start the thinking about the balancing of different rights. The presenters reaffirmed that the primary focus will indeed be on the rights to freedom of expression and right to association. Alissa Cooper mentioned the IAB ID on filtering considerations [3] and the RFC Policy Considerations for Internet Protocols [4] as relevant sources for research. Several RFCs already make quite explicit statement about the objectives of the Internet, such as RFC1958 which mentions 'the community believes that the goal [of the Internet] is connectivity, the tool is the Internet Protocol'. It continues a bit further: 'The current exponential growth of the network seems to show that connectivity is its own reward, and is more valuable than any individual application such as mail or the World-Wide Web.' This marks the intrinsic value of connectivity which is facilitated by the Internet, both in principle, and in practice. This shows that the underlying principles of the Internet aim to preserve connectivity, which is fundamental and similar to the part of article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which defines a right to receive and to impart information. But there are also protocols that enable freedom of expression and access to information in an unprecedented way, such as HTTP. Even though there is not an explicit reference to rights in RFC7230, it does form the basis for a rights enabling architecture. The challenge of the research would be to seek out the specific protocol attribute(s) that enable that protocol to affect a specific human right. The major challenge as next step would be to developed to develop an appropriate methodology to research the existing implicit safeguards in current standards and protocols, and making them explicit. Open discussions already gave some insights for possible methodological approaches. Richard Barnes suggests: "seems that you are reading RFCs and that you are looking for statement on rights and human rights that are laid out in RFCs. You might risk irritating people at least by reading reading technical documents as political statements. I think it might be more useful to use RFCs as a window into the rights that the community that developed these RFCs presumes." Mark Nottingham also proposed a perspective of stakeholder prioritization as described in ID Representing Stakeholder Rights in Internet Protocols [5] which is as already implemented at the W3C. Other very useful remarks were made during and after the session, as well on the mailinglist [6] which are currently being used to improve the next version of the draft, possibly, to be further discussed at a Birds of Feather session in Dallas. * **b) Research priorities and next steps* The proceedings of this session lead the presenters and authors of the ID to conclude that the subject and the research raised interest in the community. Their aim is to continue the research work an produce an updated ID before the Dallas meeting. The research in the coming time will focus on documenting the specific protocol attributes that explicitly or implicitly affect specific human rights. For achieving that, a research methodology will be further developed; suggestions for the first steps consist of: a) improving the list of RFCs that possibly have attributes to the right to freedom of expression and association; b) conduct interviews at the Dallas meeting to further understand the intention that Area Directors and RFC authors have with specific protocols and how rights play a role in that; c) set a common template to analyze standards and protocols describing the exact features, functions, characteristics or entities that allow a more defined understanding on the relation between them and the right to freedom of expression and association. Nevertheless, these are just our suggestions to keep developing the ID and the work ahead of it. Comments, suggestions, hints are more then welcome and very much appreciated. *References* [1] Proposal for research on human rights protocol considerations, http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-doria-hrpc-proposal-00.txt [2] RFC 6973 on Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6973.txt [3] Technical Considerations for Internet Service Blocking and Filtering= http://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-iab-filtering-considerations-06.txt= s [4] Policy Considerations for Internet Protocols https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morris-policy-cons-00 [5] Representing Stakeholder Rights in Internet Protocols, https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-stakeholder-rights-00.txt [6] https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/hrpc * Other relevant links and information* IETF91 SAAG Agenda: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/agenda/agenda-91-saag IETF 91 SAAG minutes: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/minutes/minutes-91-saag IETF 91 SAAG audio recording: http://www.ietf.org/audio/ietf91/ietf91-coral3-20141113-1300-pm1.mp3 Presentation starts at 40:15 Presentation: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/slides/slides-91-saag-6.pdf --=20 -- Joana Varon @joana_varon https://antivigilancia.org Fingerprint=20 239D E977 32D0 28BC 297F 64B6 3B69 BDE4 016B 8E73 --------------000905050000020100010401 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear all,

Happy 2015! We hope it will bring us the opportunity for enlightening and rich debates on human rights and protocols over here.

For the purpose of doing so, this is an attempt to summarize and and structure our work. So, please, find underneath (a) the summary of the session at IETF91 where we presented the Internet Draft on Human Rights considerations for Internet protocols and (b) a brainstorming of some research priorities for the coming time.

At the bottom you can also find the links for the records of the session and related documents. The full transcription of the Q&A are also here attached.

All comments, questions and suggestions for research methods and angles are very welcome. We are also looking for more help of researchers who are interested in helping us with researching specific RFCs to help us refine the methodology. Please, feel free to ping us on or offlist.

Best,

Joana and Niels


a) Summary of the Session

An active debate about standards, protocols and human rights took place during the meeting of the Security Area Advisory Group – SAAG at IETF 91, Hawaii. The discussion was framed by the Internet Draft “Proposal for research on human rights protocol considerations”. [1]

The Draft departs from the work that has been done by IETF on privacy and Internet protocols, such as RFC 6973 on Privacy Consideration guidelines [2], suggesting that some standards and protocols can solidify, enable or threaten human rights, such as freedom of expression and the right to association online. The proposal aims to establish a research group under the IRTF to study the structural relationship and impact between Internet standards and protocols and freedom of expression and association.

A deeper rationale for presenting such proposal was explained during the presentation at SAAG. The presenters, who are also the authors of this note highlighted that the Internet was designed with freedom and openness of communications as core values, but were also questioning whether this a structural value that can or needs to be preserved on a technical level. As the politicization of the Internet management space increases, it is argued that IETF should have an active role to promote a more structured and holistic approach. This would allow sustained future proofing of standards and protocols to avoid ad hoc decisions following incidents or disclosures at a variety of other foras and actors.

The proposal raised some eyebrows and concerns about the politicization of the work of the community. Dan Harkins posed that: “doing the human rights study will likely politicize protocols. Not want the technology to have political context. I want technology to be so unpolitical as possible.” This sparked a discussion with a rapid follow up by Justin, who stated that “we have to stop pretending that technology is a non-political decision”, a remark that was followed by a round of applause. One of the presenters responded that the research proposal was exactly aimed at avoiding further politicization of protocols or the community, but rather give the community time in a proper process to define its position.

Both John Levine and Alissa Cooper remarked that it is crucial to start of with a focus on specific human rights, because it will help keep the research manageable and help start the thinking about the balancing of different rights. The presenters reaffirmed that the primary focus will indeed be on the rights to freedom of expression and right to association.   Alissa Cooper mentioned the IAB ID  on filtering considerations [3] and the RFC  Policy Considerations for Internet Protocols [4] as relevant sources for research.

Several RFCs already make quite explicit statement about the objectives of the Internet, such as RFC1958 which  mentions 'the community believes that the goal [of the Internet] is connectivity, the tool is the Internet Protocol'.  It continues a bit further: 'The current exponential growth of the network seems to show that connectivity is its own reward, and is more valuable than any individual application such as  mail or the World-Wide Web.'  This marks the intrinsic value of connectivity which is facilitated by the Internet, both in principle, and in practice.  This shows that the underlying  principles of the Internet aim to preserve connectivity, which is fundamental and similar to the part of article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which defines a right to receive and to impart information.

But there are also protocols that enable freedom of expression and access to information in an unprecedented way, such as HTTP. Even though there is not an explicit reference to rights in RFC7230, it does form the basis for a rights enabling architecture. The challenge of the research would be to seek out the specific protocol attribute(s) that enable that protocol to affect a specific human right.

The major challenge as next step would be to developed to develop an appropriate methodology to research the existing implicit safeguards in current standards and protocols, and making them explicit. Open discussions already gave some insights for possible methodological approaches. Richard Barnes suggests: “seems that you are reading RFCs and that you are looking for statement on rights and human rights that are laid out in RFCs. You might risk irritating people at least by reading reading technical documents as political statements. I think it might be more useful to use RFCs as a window into the rights that the community that developed these RFCs presumes.” Mark Nottingham also proposed a perspective of stakeholder prioritization as described in ID Representing Stakeholder Rights in Internet Protocols [5]  which is as already implemented at the W3C.

Other very useful remarks were made during and after the session, as well on the mailinglist [6] which are currently being used to improve the next version of the draft, possibly, to be further discussed at a Birds of Feather session in Dallas.

b) Research priorities and next steps

The proceedings of this session lead the presenters and authors of the ID to conclude that the subject and the research raised interest in the community. Their aim is to continue the research work an produce an updated ID before the Dallas meeting.

The research in the coming time will focus on documenting the specific protocol attributes that explicitly or implicitly affect specific human rights. For achieving that, a research methodology will be further developed; suggestions for the first steps consist of:

a) improving the list of RFCs that possibly have attributes to the right to freedom of expression and association;

b) conduct interviews at the Dallas meeting to further understand the intention that Area Directors and RFC authors have with specific protocols and how rights play a role in that;

c) set a common template to analyze standards and protocols describing the exact features, functions, characteristics or entities that allow a more defined understanding on the relation between them and the right to freedom of expression and association.

Nevertheless, these are just our suggestions to keep developing the ID and the work ahead of it. Comments, suggestions, hints are more then welcome and very much appreciated.


References
 [1] Proposal for research on human rights protocol considerations,
 http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-doria-hrpc-proposal-00.txt

 [2]  RFC 6973 on Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6973.txt

 [3] Technical Considerations for Internet Service Blocking and Filtering
 http://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-iab-filtering-considerations-06.txts

 [4]  Policy Considerations for Internet Protocols
 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morris-policy-cons-00

 [5] Representing Stakeholder Rights in Internet Protocols,
 https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-stakeholder-rights-00.txt

 [6]  https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/hrpc

 Other relevant links and information
 IETF91 SAAG Agenda: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/agenda/agenda-91-saag
 IETF 91 SAAG minutes:
 http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/minutes/minutes-91-saag
 IETF 91 SAAG audio recording:
 http://www.ietf.org/audio/ietf91/ietf91-coral3-20141113-1300-pm1.mp3
 Presentation starts at 40:15
 Presentation: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/slides/slides-91-saag-6.pdf
-- 
--
Joana Varon
@joana_varon
https://antivigilancia.org
Fingerprint 
239D E977 32D0 28BC 297F 64B6 3B69 BDE4 016B 8E73
--------------000905050000020100010401-- --------------080404040208060906080006 Content-Type: application/msword; name="Transcription of the Q&A at SAAG IETF91 Hawaii.doc" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Transcription of the Q&A at SAAG IETF91 Hawaii.doc" 0M8R4KGxGuEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOwADAP7/CQAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAANwAAAAAA AAAAEAAAAgAAAAEAAAD+////AAAAAAAAAAD///////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////9//////////7///8EAAAABQAAAAYAAAAHAAAA CAAAADYAAAAKAAAACwAAAAwAAAANAAAADgAAAA8AAAAQAAAAEQAAABIAAAATAAAAFAAAABUA AAAWAAAAFwAAABgAAAAZAAAAGgAAABsAAAAcAAAAHQAAAB4AAAAfAAAAIAAAACEAAAAiAAAA IwAAACQAAAAlAAAAJgAAACcAAAAoAAAAKQAAACoAAAArAAAALAAAAC0AAAAuAAAALwAAADAA AAAxAAAAMgAAADMAAAA0AAAANQAAAP7////+////OAAAAP7///////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////1IA bwBvAHQAIABFAG4AdAByAHkAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAWAAUA////////////////AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAA/v///wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD///////////////8AAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD+////AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP// /////////////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP7///8AAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA////////////////AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/v///wAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAP7////+////BAAAAAUAAAAGAAAABwAAAAgA AAAJAAAACgAAAAsAAAAMAAAADQAAAA4AAAAPAAAAEAAAABEAAAASAAAAEwAAABQAAAAVAAAA FgAAABcAAAAYAAAAGQAAABoAAAAbAAAAHAAAAB0AAAAeAAAAHwAAACAAAAAhAAAAIgAAACMA AAAkAAAAJQAAACYAAAAnAAAAKAAAACkAAAAqAAAAKwAAAP7///8tAAAALgAAAC8AAAD+//// MQAAAP7///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////8BAP7/ AwoAAP////8GCQIAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGGAAAAE1pY3Jvc29mdCBXb3JkLURva3VtZW50AAoA AABNU1dvcmREb2MAEAAAAFdvcmQuRG9jdW1lbnQuOAD0ObJxAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASAB4ACgABAFsADwACAAAAAAAAAGYAABDx/wIA ZgAAAAYATgBvAHIAbQBhAGwAAAAUAAAAMSQAKiQBNyQBNSQBMyQBQSQAMwBCKgBPSgQAUUoE AENKGABtSAkEc0gJBEtIAQBQSgUAbkgECHRIBAheSgYAYUoYAF9IOQQAWAABEGEBcgFYAAAA CQBIAGUAYQBkAGkAbgBnACAAMQAAABUAAQAKJgALRgAAXoQAAF2EAABghAAAAB4AT0oEAFFK BABDSjAANQgBUEoFAF5KBgBhSjAAXAgBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABCAP4f 8v/xAEIAAAAZAEEAYgBzAGEAdAB6AC0AUwB0AGEAbgBkAGEAcgBkAHMAYwBoAHIAaQBmAHQA YQByAHQAAAAAADYA/h/y/wEBNgAAABMARgBvAG8AdABuAG8AdABlACAAQwBoAGEAcgBhAGMA dABlAHIAcwAAAAAAMgD+H/L/EQEyAAAADwBGAG8AbwB0AG4AbwB0AGUAIABhAG4AYwBoAG8A cgAAAAMASCoBADQA/h/y/yEBNAAAABIARQBuAGQAbgBvAHQAZQAgAEMAaABhAHIAYQBjAHQA ZQByAHMAAAAAADAA/h/y/zEBMAAAAA4ARQBuAGQAbgBvAHQAZQAgAGEAbgBjAGgAbwByAAAA AwBIKgEASgBVEPL/QQFKAAAADQBJAG4AdABlAHIAbgBlAHQAIABMAGkAbgBrAAAAIABCKglw aAAAgABtSP8Ac0j/AD4qAW5I/wB0SP8AX0j/ADIA/h/y/1EBMgAAABEATgB1AG0AYgBlAHIA aQBuAGcAIABTAHkAbQBiAG8AbABzAAAAAABGAP4fAQByAUYAAAAHAEgAZQBhAGQAaQBuAGcA AAANABYAE6TwABSkeAAGJAEAGABPSgcAUUoHAENKHABQSgUAXkoGAGFKHAAuAEIQAQByAS4A AAAJAFQAZQB4AHQAIABCAG8AZAB5AAAACgAXABOkAAAUpHgAAAAgAC8QcQGCASAAAAAEAEwA aQBzAHQAAAACABgABABeSggAQAAiEAEAkgFAAAAABwBDAGEAcAB0AGkAbwBuAAAADQAZABOk eAAUpHgADCQBABIAQ0oYADYIAV5KCABhShgAXQgBJgD+HwEAogEmAAAABQBJAG4AZABlAHgA AAAFABoADCQBAAQAXkoIAFYA/h8BALIBVgAAABEAUAByAGUAZgBvAHIAbQBhAHQAdABlAGQA IABUAGUAeAB0AAAACgAbABOkAAAUpAAAGABPSgkAUUoJAENKFABQSgkAXkoKAGFKFABEAB0Q AQDCAUQAAAAIAEYAbwBvAHQAbgBvAHQAZQAAABkAHABehFMBXYQAAGCErf4TpAAAFKQAAAwk AQAIAENKFABhShQAQgArEAEA0gFCAAAABwBFAG4AZABuAG8AdABlAAAAGQAdAF6EUwFdhAAA YISt/hOkAAAUpAAADCQBAAgAQ0oUAGFKFAAAAAAA7iEAAAQAAFgAAAAA/////wAIAAA6PwAA 2ksAACYAAAAnAAAAAAgAABIkAACSNgAAkkMAANxLAAAoAAAAKQAAACoAAAArAAAAAAAAAO4h AAAAAAAAAhAAAAAAAAAA7iEAAFAAAAgAAAAACwAAAEcWkAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABUAGkAbQBlAHMAIABOAGUAdwAgAFIAbwBtAGEAbgAAADUWkAEC AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABTAHkAbQBiAG8AbAAAADMmkAEA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAHIAaQBhAGwAAABHFpABAQAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAVABpAG0AZQBzACAATgBlAHcAIABS AG8AbQBhAG4AAABHFpABgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAVABp AG0AZQBzACAATgBlAHcAIABSAG8AbQBhAG4AAAA/BpABgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARABlAGoAYQBWAHUAIABTAGEAbgBzAAAAPwaQAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEwAbwBoAGkAdAAgAEgAaQBuAGQAaQAAADMmkAGA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAHIAaQBhAGwAAAA/BJABgAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATABvAGgAaQB0ACAASABpAG4AZABp AAAASTSQAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEQAZQBqAGEAVgB1 ACAAUwBhAG4AcwAgAE0AbwBuAG8AAAA/NJABgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAATABvAGgAaQB0ACAASABpAG4AZABpAAAAQgAEAAEIjRgAAMUCAABoAQAAAAA2 PTFnw00xpwAAAAABAAAAAAA0BQAAkCEAAAMASAAAAAQAg5BIAAAANAUAAJAhAAADAEgAAABI AAAAAAAAACcDACAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAASMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAgAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAP7/AAABAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAADghZ/y+U9oEKuRCAArJ7PZMAAAALAA AAAIAAAAAQAAAEgAAAAEAAAAUAAAAAgAAABkAAAACQAAAHQAAAAKAAAAgAAAAAsAAACMAAAA DAAAAJgAAAANAAAApAAAAAIAAADp/QAAHgAAAAkAAABBWE9MT1RMIAAAAAAeAAAABwAAAGdv Z29sIAAAHgAAAAMAAAAyMQAAQAAAAAD6CwAYAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAADCbNrMKtAB QAAAAIDPR05xLNABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADspQEBTSAJBAAA 8BK/AAAAAAAAMAAAAAAACAAA3EsAAA4AQ2FvbGFuODAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJBBYA MlgAAAAAAAAAAAAA7iEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD//w8AJgAAAAIA AAD//w8AKAAAAAQAAAD//w8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIgAAAAAAG4EAAAAAAAAbgQAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAbgQAABQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAggQAABQAAACWBAAAJAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA2wQAAMQC AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAugQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACfBwAAYgIAAAAAAAAAAAAAxgQAABUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAugQAAAwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgDZAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEkARQBUAEYAIAA5ADEA LAAgAFMAQQBBAEcAIABtAGUAZQB0AGkAbgBnAA0ADQBUAHIAYQBuAHMAYwByAGkAcAB0AGkA bwBuACAAbwBmACAAdABoAGUAIABRACYAQQANAAkASgB1AHMAdABpAG4AIABSAGkAYwBoAGUA cgA6ACAASQBuAHQAZQByAGUAcwB0AGkAbgBnACAAdwBvAHIAawAgAGkAbgB0AGUAcgBlAHMA dAAgAHQAbwAgAHMAZQBlACAAaABvAHcAIAB0AGgAaQBzACAAaQBzACAAZwBvAGkAbgBnACAA ZgBvAHIAdwBhAHIAZAA/ACAAVwBIAGEAdAAgAGkAcwAgAHQAaABlACAAbwB1AHQAcAB1AHQA IABvAGYAIAB0AGgAaQBzACAAdwBvAHIAawA/ACAAVwBpAGwAbAAgAGkAdAAgAGIAZQAgAGEA IABjAG8AZABpAGYAaQBjAGEAdABpAG8AbgAgAGEAbgBkACAAIABjAGwAYQBzAHMAaQBmAGkA YwBhAHQAaQBvAG4AIABvAGYAIABlAHgAaQBzAHQAaQBuAGcAIABSAEYAQwA/ACAATwByACAA dwBpAGwAbAAgAHQAaABpAHMAIABsAGUAYQBkACAAdABvACAAYQAgAEgAdQBtAGEAbgAgAFIA aQBnAGgAdABzACAAYwBvAG4AcwBpAGQAZQByAGEAdABpAG8AbgAgAHMAZQBjAHQAaQBvAG4A IABpAG4AIABSAEYAQwBzAD8AIAANACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAANAA0AIAAgACAAIAAgACAA IAAgAE4AaQBlAGwAcwA6ACAATgBvAHQAIABzAHUAcgBlACAAYgBlAGMAYQB1AHMAZQAgAHQA aABpAHMAIABpAHMAIAByAGUAcwBlAGEAcgBjAGgALgAgAFcAZQAgAHcAYQBuAHQAIAB0AG8A IABhAG4AYQBsAHkAegBlACAAdwBoAGEAdAAgAGkAcwAgAGEAbAByAGUAYQBkAHkAIAB0AGgA ZQByAGUAIABpAG4AIAB0AGgAZQAgAFIARgBDAC4AIABCAGUAYwBhAHUAcwBlACAAdABoAGUA cgBlACAAaQBzACAAYQBsAHIAZQBhAGQAeQAgAGEAIABsAG8AdAAgAG8AZgAgAGwAYQBuAGcA dQBhAGcAZQAgAG8AbgAgAHIAaQBnAGgAdABzACAAYQBuAGQAIABzAGEAZgBlAGcAdQBhAHIA ZABzAC4AIAAgAFMAbwAgAGwAZQB0ACcAcwAgAHMAZQBlACAAdwBoAGEAdAAgAGkAcwAgAHQA aABlAHIAZQAsACAAYgBlAGYAbwByAGUAIAB3AGUAIABzAGEAeQAgAHcAaABhAHQAIAB0AGgA ZQByAGUAIABzAGgAbwB1AGwAZAAgAGIAZQAgAGkAbgAgAHQAZQByAG0AcwAgAG8AZgAgAGMA bwBuAHMAaQBkAGUAcgBhAHQAaQBvAG4ALAAgAGcAdQBpAGQAZQBsAGkAbgBlAHMAIABhAG4A ZAAgAHMAYQBmAGUAZwBpAGEAcgBkAHMALgAgAFQAaABhAHQAIAB3AGgAeQAgAHcAZQAgAHQA aABpAG4AawAgAHQAaABpAHMAIABzAGgAbwB1AGwAZAAgAGYAaQB0ACAAaQBuACAAdABoAGUA IABJAFIAVABGAC4AIABXAGUAIABzAGgAbwB1AGwAZAAgAHMAZQBlACAAdwBoAGEAdAAnAHMA IAB0AGgAZQByAGUAIABpAG4AIAB0AGgAZQAgAFIARgBDACAAcwBlAHIAaQBlAHMALgAgAA0A IAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAADQANACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIABKAG8A aABuACAATABlAHYAaQBuAGUAOgAgAFIAZQBhAHMAbwBuAGEAYgBsAGUAIABpAGQAZQBhAC4A IABJAG4AIAB0AGgAaQBzACAAYwBvAG0AbQB1AG4AaQB0AHkALAAgAHMAbwBtAGUAIAByAGkA ZwBoAHQAcwAgAGEAcgBlACAAbQBvAHIAZQAgAHAAbwBwAHUAbABhAHIAIAB0AGgAYQBuACAA bwB0AGgAZQByAHMALAAgAG4AZQBlAGQAIAB0AG8AIAB0AGgAaQBuAGsAIABhAGIAbwB1AHQA IABiAGEAbABhAG4AYwBpAG4AZwAgAGkAcwBzAHUAZQBzAC4AIABUAGgAZQByAGUAIABhAHIA ZQAgAG0AYQBuAHkAIABkAGkAZgBmAGUAcgBlAG4AdAAgAHIAaQBnAGgAdABzACwAIABmAG8A cgAgAGkAbgBzAHQAYQBuAGMAZQAgAGEAcgB0AGkAYwBsAGUAMgA5ACAAdwBoAGkAYwBoACAA cwB0AGEAcgB0AHMAIAA6ACAAZQB2AGUAcgB5AG8AbgBlACAAaABhAHMAIABkAHUAdABpAGUA cwAgAHQAbwAgAHQAaABlACAAYwBvAG0AbQB1AG4AaQB0AHkAIABpAG4AIAB3AGgAaQBjAGgA IABhAGwAbwBuAGUAIAB0AGgAZQAgAGYAcgBlAGUAIABhAG4AZAAgAGYAdQBsAGwAIABkAGUA dgBlAGwAbwBwAG0AZQBuAHQAIABvAGYAIABoAGkAcwAgAHAAZQByAHMAbwBuAGEAbABpAHQA eQAgAGkAcwAgAHAAbwBzAHMAaQBiAGwAZQAuACAASQBmACAAdwBlACAAdABoAGkAbgBrACAA aABhAHIAZAAgAGEAYgBvAHUAdAAgAHQAaABlACAAYgBhAGwAYQBuAGMAaQBuAGcAIABpAHMA cwB1AGUAcwAsACAAdABoAGkAcwAgAHcAbwB1AGwAZAAgAGIAZQAgAGUAeAB0AHIAZQBtAGUA bAB5ACAAYgBlAG4AZQBmAGkAYwBpAGEAbAAuACAADQAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAADQAgACAA IAAgACAAIAAgACAAUgBpAGMAaABhAHIAZAAgAEIAYQByAG4AZQBzACAAKABBAHIAZQBhACAA RABpAHIAZQBjAHQAbwByACAAZgBvAHIAIAB0AGgAZQAgAFIAZQBhAGwALQB0AGkAbQBlACAA QQBwAHAAbABpAGMAYQB0AGkAbwBuAHMAIABhAG4AZAAgAEkAbgBmAHIAYQBzAHQAcgB1AGMA dAB1AHIAZQApACAAOgAgAEkAIABhAGcAcgBlAGUAIAB3AGkAdABoACAAcAByAGUAdgBpAG8A dQBzACAAcwBwAGUAYQBrAGUAcgBzACAAdABoAGEAdAAgAHQAaABpAHMAIABpAHMAIABpAG4A dABlAHIAZQBzAHQAaQBuAGcAIABpAGQAZQBhAC4AIABPAG4AZQAgAHMAbABpAGcAaAB0ACAA YwBoAGEAbgBnAGUAIABJACAAbQBpAGcAaAB0ACAAcwB1AGcAZwBlAHMAdAAgAC0AIABJAHQA IABzAGUAZQBtAHMAIAB0AGgAYQB0ACAAeQBvAHUAIABhAHIAZQAgAHIAZQBhAGQAaQBuAGcA IABSAEYAQwBzACAAYQBuAGQAIAB0AGgAYQB0ACAAeQBvAHUAIABhAHIAZQAgAGwAbwBvAGsA aQBuAGcAIABmAG8AcgAgAHMAdABhAHQAZQBtAGUAbgB0ACAAbwBuACAAcgBpAGcAaAB0AHMA IABhAG4AZAAgAGgAdQBtAGEAbgAgAHIAaQBnAGgAdABzACAAdABoAGEAdAAgAGEAcgBlACAA bABhAGkAZAAgAG8AdQB0ACAAaQBuACAAUgBGAEMAcwAuACAAWQBvAHUAIABtAGkAZwBoAHQA IAByAGkAcwBrACAAaQByAHIAaQB0AGEAdABpAG4AZwAgACAAcABlAG8AcABsAGUAIABhAHQA IABsAGUAYQBzAHQAIABiAHkAIAByAGUAYQBkAGkAbgBnACAAcgBlAGEAZABpAG4AZwAgAHQA ZQBjAGgAbgBpAGMAYQBsACAAZABvAGMAdQBtAGUAbgB0AHMAIABhAHMAIABwAG8AbABpAHQA aQBjAGEAbAAgAHMAdABhAHQAZQBtAGUAbgB0AHMALgAgAEkAIAB0AGgAaQBuAGsAIABpAHQA IABtAGkAZwBoAHQAIABiAGUAIABtAG8AcgBlACAAdQBzAGUAZgB1AGwAIAB0AG8AIAB1AHMA ZQAgAFIARgBDAHMAIABhAHMAIABhACAAdwBpAG4AZABvAHcAIABpAG4AdABvACAAdABoAGUA IAByAGkAZwBoAHQAcwAgAHQAaABhAHQAIAB0AGgAZQAgAGMAbwBtAG0AdQBuAGkAdAB5ACAA dABoAGEAdAAgAGQAZQB2AGUAbABvAHAAZQBkACAAdABoAGUAcwBlACAAUgBGAEMAcwAgAHAA cgBlAHMAdQBtAGUAcwAuACAAQgBlAGMAYQB1AHMAZQAgAHQAaABlAHMAZQAgAGEAcgBlACAA dABlAGMAaABuAG8AbABvAGcAaQBlAHMAIAB0AGgAYQB0ACAAYQByAGUAIABvAG4AbAB5ACAA dQBzAGUAZgB1AGwAIABpAG4AIABhACAAdwBvAHIAbABkACAAdwBoAGUAcgBlACAAdABoAGUA eQAgAGMAYQBuACAAYgBlACAAdQBzAGUAZAAgAGYAbwByACAAZgByAGUAZQAgAGEAcwBzAGUA bQBiAGwAeQAgAG8AcgAgAGYAcgBlAGUAIABjAG8AbQBtAGkAYwBhAHQAaQBvAG4ALgAgAFIA ZQBhAGQAaQBuAGcAIAByAGkAZwBoAHQAcwAgAG8AdQB0ACAAbwBmACAAdABoAGUAIABkAG8A YwB1AG0AZQBuAHQAcwAgAG0AaQBnAGgAdAAgAGIAZQAgAGwAZQBzAHMAIABpAG4AdABlAHIA ZQBzAHQAaQBuAGcAIAB0AGgAYQBuACAAcgBlAHMAZQBhAHIAYwBoAGkAbgBnACAAdABoAGUA IABhAHMAcwB1AG0AcAB0AGkAbwBuAHMAIABvAGYAIAB0AGgAZQAgAGMAbwBtAG0AdQBuAGkA dAB5AC4AIAANAA0AIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgAE4AaQBlAGwAcwA6ACAAVwBoAGEAdAAgAGkA cwAgAGIAZQBoAGkAbgBkACAAdwBpAG4AZABvAHcAPwAgAFMAaABvAHUAbABkACAAdwBlACAA aQBuAHQAZQByAHYAaQBlAHcAIABhAHUAdABoAG8AcgBzAD8AIABTAGgAbwB1AGwAZAAgAHcA ZQAgAGMAbwBtAHAAYQByAGUAIAB0AGgAZQAgAHAAcgBvAHQAbwBjAG8AbABzACAAaQBtAHAA YQBjAHQAPwAgAFcASABhAHQAIABzAGgAbwB1AGwAZAAgAGIAZQAgAHQAaABlACAAbQBlAHQA aABvAGQAbwBsAG8AZwB5ACAADQAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAADQAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAA UgBpAGMAaABhAHIAZAAgAEIAYQByAG4AZQBzADoAIABJAHQAIAB3AG8AdQBsAGQAIABiAGUA IABpAG4AdABlAHIAZQBzAHQAaQBuAGcAIAB0AG8AIAByAGUAYQBkACAAdABoAHIAbwB1AGcA aAAgAHQAaABlACAAZABvAGMAdQBtAGUAbgB0AHMAIABhAG4AZAAgAGQAZQB2AGUAbABvAHAA IABhAG4AZAAgAGgAeQBwAG8AdABoAGUAcwBpAHMAIAB0AGgAYQB0ACAAdABoAGkAcwAgAGkA cwAgAHQAaABlACAAYwBvAG0AbQBvAG4AbAB5ACAAaABlAGwAZAAgAHMAZQB0ACAAbwBmACAA YgBlAGwAaQBlAGYAcwAgAGEAYgBvAHUAdAAgAHIAaQBnAGgAdABzACAAaQBuACAAdABoAGUA IABpAG4AdABlAHIAbgBlAHQAIABjAG8AbQBtAHUAbgBpAHQAeQAgAGIAYQBzAGUAZAAgAG8A bgAgAHQAaABlAHMAZQAgAGMAbwBuAHMAZQBuAHMAdQBzACAAcwB0AGEAdABlAG0AZQBuAHQA IABpAG4AIAB0AGgAZQBzAGUAIABSAEYAQwBzACwAIABhAG4AZAAgAHQAaABlAG4AIABjAG8A bQBwAGEAcgBlACAAdABoAGEAdAAgAHcAaQB0AGgAIABpAG4AdABlAHIAdgBpAGUAdwBzACAA dwBpAHQAaAAgAHAAZQBvAHAAbABlACAAaQBuACAAdwBoAGkAYwBoACAAeQBvAHUAIABhAHMA awA6ACAAaABvAHcAIABkAG8AIAB5AG8AdQAgAGYAZQBlAGwAIABhAGIAbwB1AHQAIAB0AGgA aQBzACAAcwB0AGEAdABlAG0AZQBuAHQALAAgAGkAcwAgAHQAaABpAHMAIABzAG8AbQBlAHQA aABpAG4AZwAgAHQAaABhAHQAIABjAGEAcAB0AHUAcgBlAHMAIAB3AGgAYQB0ACAAeQBvAHUA IABiAGUAbABpAGUAZgAgAGEAYgBvAHUAdAAgAGgAdQBtAGEAbgAgAHIAaQBnAGgAdABzAC4A IABUAGgAYQB0ACAAdwBvAHUAbABkACAAYgBlACAAYQAgAHUAcwBlAGYAdQBsACAAYQBwAHAA cgBvAGEAYwBoACwAIAB3AGgAaQBjAGgAIABjAG8AdQBsAGQAIABsAGUAYQBkACAAdABvACAA YQAgAGMAbwBuAHMAZQBuAHMAeQBzACAAcwB0AGEAdABlAG0AZQBuAHQAIABhAGIAbwB1AHQA IAB3AGgAYQB0ACAAdABoAGUAIABjAG8AbQBtAHUAbgBpAHQAeQAgAHQAaABpAG4AawBzACAA YQBiAG8AdQB0ACAAdABoAGUAcwBlACAAawBpAG4AZAAgAG8AZgAgAGkAcwBzAHUAZQBzAC4A IAANACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAANACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIABTAHUAYgBpAHIAIABEAGEA cwA6ACAAVwBoAGEAdAAgAHIAZQBhAGwAbAB5ACAAbQBvAHQAaQB2AGEAdABlAGQAIAB5AG8A dQAgAHQAbwAgAGQAbwAgAHQAaABpAHMAIAByAGUAcwBlAGEAcgBjAGgAPwAgAA0ADQAgACAA IAAgACAAIAAgACAASgBvAGEAbgBhADoAIABGAGkAcgBzAHQAIABhAG4AYQBsAHkAegBpAG4A ZwAgAHQAaABlACAAdwBvAHIAawAgAG8AbgAgAHAAcgBpAHYAYQBjAHkALAAgAHcAZQAgAGgA YQBkACAAdABoAGUAIABpAGQAZQBhACAAaQB0ACAAcwBoAG8AdQBsAGQAIABnAG8AIABmAHUA cgB0AGgAZQByAC4AIABBAHMAIABhAGMAdABpAHYAaQBzAHQAcwAgAGEAbgBkACAAcgBlAHMA ZQBhAHIAYwBoAGUAcgBzACAAaQBuACAAaQBuAHQAZQByAG4AZQB0ACAAcABvAGwAaQBjAGkA ZQBzACAAdwBlACAAZQBuAGEAZwBlACAAYQAgAGwAbwB0ACAAaQBuACAAbwB0AGgAZQByACAA ZgBpAGUAbABkAHMALgAgAFcAZQAgAGYAZQBlAGwAIAB0AGgAYQB0ACAAaABlAHIAZQAgAGkA dAAgAGkAcwAgAGEAbgAgAGEAcABwAHIAbwBwAHIAaQBhAHQAZQAgAGYAbwByAHUAbQAgAGEA bgBkACAAYwBvAG0AbQB1AG4AaQB0AHkAIAB0AG8AIABhAGQAZAByAGUAcwBzACAAdABoAGUA cwBlACAAaQBzAHMAdQBlAHMAIABpAG4AIABhACAAcAByAGEAYwB0AGkAYwBhAGwAIABtAGEA bgBuAGUAcgAsACAAYQBuAGQAIABhAHYAbwBpAGQAIABwAG8AbABpAHQAaQBjAGkAegBhAHQA aQBvAG4AIABvAGYAIAB0AGgAZQAgAGYAaQBlAGwAZAAsACAAYQBuAGQAIABkAG8AaQBuAGcA IAB0AGgAaQBzACAAYQBuAGEAbAB5AHMAaQBzACAAYgBlAGYAbwByAGUAIABiAHkAIAB0AGgA aQBzACAAYwBvAG0AbQB1AG4AaQB0AHkAIAB0AGgAYQB0ACAAZABvAGUAcwAgAGMAYQByAGUA IABhAGIAbwB1AHQAIABzAHQAYQBuAGQAYQByAGQAcwAgAGEAbgBkACAAcAByAG8AdABvAGMA bwBsAHMAIABhAG4AZAAgAHQAaABlACAAZQBuAGkAZwBuAGUAZQByAGkAbgBnACAAbwBmACAA dABoAGkAbgBnAHMAIABhAG4AZAAgAGgAYQB2AGUAIABvAHUAcgAgAG8AdwBuACAAYwBvAG4A YwBsAHUAcwBpAG8AbgBzACAAaABlAHIAZQAgAGIAZQBmAG8AcgBlACAAaQBuAHAAdQB0ACAA ZgByAG8AbQAgAG8AdABoAGUAcgAgAGYAbwByAHUAbQBzACAAaABlAHIAZQAsACAAdwBlACcA bABsACAAaABhAHYAZQAgAGEAIABwAHIAbwBwAGUAcgAgAGEAbgBzAHcAZQByAC4AIAANAA0A IAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgAE4AaQBlAGwAcwA6ACAARgB1AHQAdQByAGUALQBwAHIAbwBvAGYA aQBuAGcAIAB0AGgAZQAgAHQAZQBjAGgAbgBvAGwAbwBnAGkAZQBzACAAdABoAGEAdAAgAGEA cgBlACAAYwBvAG0AaQBuAGcAIABvAHUAdAAgAG8AZgAgAHQAaABlACAAUwBEAE8AcwAsACAA YQBuAGQAIABrAGUAZQBwAGkAbgBnACAAbwB1AHQAIABvAGYAIABwAG8AbABpAHQAaQBjAHMA IABhAG4AZAAgAHQAaABpAG4AawAgAGEAYgBvAHUAdAAgAHcAaABhAHQAIAB3AGUAIAB3AGEA bgB0ACAAdwBoAGkAbABlACAAdwBlACAAaABhAHYAZQAgAHQAaABlACAAdABpAG0AZQAgAGYA bwByACAAdABoAGEAdAAuACAAUAByAGkAdgBhAGMAeQAgAGQAaQBzAGMAdQBzAHMAaQBvAG4A IABhAHQAIABvAHQAaABlAHIAIABmAG8AcgBhACAAYQAgAHYAZQByAHkAIABjAG8AbgB0AGUA bgB0AGkAbwB1AHMALAAgAGEAbgBkACAAdABoAGUAcgBlACAAaQBzACAAbQBvAHIAZQAgAHQA aABhAG4AIABwAHIAaQB2AGEAYwB5AC4AIABTAG8AIABsAGUAdAAnAHMAIAB0AGEAawBlACAA dABoAGUAIAB0AGkAbQBlACAAdwBoAGkAbABlACAAdwBlACAAaABhAHYAZQAgAGkAdAAuACAA DQANACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIABCAGEAcwBpAGwAIABEAG8AbABtAGEAdABvAHYAOgAgAEgA bwB3ACAAZABvAGUAcwAgAHQAaABpAHMAIABhAHAAcAByAG8AYQBjAGgAIABkAGUAYQBsACAA dwBpAHQAaAAgAG4AZQB0ACAAbgBlAHUAdAByAGEAbABpAHQAeQA/ACAADQANACAAIAAgACAA IAAgACAAIABOAGkAZQBsAHMAOgAgAE4AZQB1AHQAbgBlAHUAdAByAGEAbABpAHQAeQAgAGMA bwB1AGwAZAAgAGIAZQAgAGEAbgAgAG8AYgBqAGUAYwB0ACAAbwBmACAAcgBlAHMAZQBhAHIA YwBoACAAdQBuAGQAZQByACAAdABoAGkAcwAgAHIAZQBzAGUAYQByAGMAaAAsACAAYQBuAGQA IAB3AGUAJwBsAGwAIABjAG8AbgBzAGkAZABlAHIAIABpAHQAIABhAHMAIABvAG4AZQAgAG8A ZgAgAHQAaABlACAAcABhAHIAdABzACwAIAB3AGUAJwBsAGwAIABoAGEAdgBlACAAdABvACAA cwBlAGUAIABoAG8AdwAgAGkAdAAnAHMAIABzAHQAYQBuAGQAYQByAGQAaQB6AGUAZAAgAGEA bgBkACAAaQBuACAAdwBoAGkAYwBoACAAUgBGAEMAcwAgAHQAaABpAG4AcwAgAGYAYQBsAGwA cwAsACAAYQBuAGQAIAB3AGkAdABoACAAdwBoAGkAYwBoACAAbQBvAHQAaQB2AGEAdABpAG8A bgBzAC4AIABXAGUAJwBsAGwAIAByAGUAcwBlAGEAcgBjAGgAIABpAHQALAAgAGIAdQB0ACAA dwBlACAAZABvAG4AJwB0ACAAawBuAG8AdwAgAHQAaABlACAAbwB1AHQAYwBvAG0AZQBzACAA eQBlAHQALgAgAA0AIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgAA0AIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgAA0AIAAgACAA IAAgACAAIAAgAEEAbABpAHMAcwBhACAAQwBvAG8AcABlAHIAOgAgAFQAaABlAHMAZQAgAFIA RgBDAHMAIABtAGkAZwBoAHQAIABiAGUAIAByAGUAbABlAHYAYQBuAHQAIABmAG8AcgAgAHkA bwB1AC4AIABJACAAdwBvAHUAbABkACAAYQBsAHMAbwAgAHMAdQBnAGcAZQBzAHQAIAB5AG8A dQAgAGYAbwBjAHUAcwAgAG8AbgAgAG8AbgBlACAAbwByACAAdAB3AG8AIAByAGkAZwBoAHQA cwAgAGEAbgBkACAAcgBlAHMAZQBhAHIAYwBoACAAdABoAGUAbQAgAG8AbgBlACAAYQB0ACAA dABoAGUAIAB0AGkAbQBlAC4AIAANACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAA LQAgAEkAQQBCACAAZAByAGEAZgB0ACAAbwBuACAAZgBpAGwAdABlAHIAaQBuAGcAIABjAG8A bgBzAGkAZABlAHIAYQB0AGkAbwBuAHMAIABkAHIAYQBmAHQALQBpAGEAYgAtAGYAaQBsAHQA ZQByAGkAbgBnAC0AYwBvAG4AcwBpAGQAZQByAGEAdABpAG8AbgBzACAADQAgACAAIAAgACAA IAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgAC0AIABQAG8AbABpAGMAeQAgAEMAbwBuAHMAaQBkAGUA cgBhAHQAaQBvAG4AcwAgAGYAbwByACAASQBuAHQAZQByAG4AZQB0ACAAUAByAG8AdABvAGMA bwBsAHMAIAAtACAAZAByAGEAZgB0AC0AbQBvAHIAcgBpAHMALQBwAG8AbABpAGMAeQAtAGMA bwBuAHMALgAgAFQAaABpAHMAIABSAEYAQwAgAGkAcwAgAGUAeABwAGkAcgBlAGQALAAgAG4A dQB0ACAAYQBsAHMAbwAgAGwAaQBuAGsAcwAgAHAAbwBsAGkAYwB5ACAAdwBpAHQAaAAgAHQA ZQBjAGgAbgBvAGwAbwBnAHkALAAgAG0AaQBnAGgAdAAgAGIAZQAgAGkAbgB0AGUAcgBlAHMA dABpAG4AZwAgAGYAbwByACAAeQBvAHUAcgAgAHIAZQBzAGUAYQByAGMAaAAuACAADQAgACAA IAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgAFQAaABpAHMAIABtAGkAZwBoAHQAIABoAGUA bABwACAAdwBpAHQAaAAgAGMAaABvAG8AcwBpAG4AZwAgAGEAIABzAHAAZQBjAGkAZgBpAGMA IAByAGkAZwBoAHQALgAgAA0ADQAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAATgBpAGUAbABzADoAIABXAGUA IABwAGwAYQBuACAAdABvACAAcwB0AGEAcgB0ACAAdwBpAHQAaAAgAEYAbwBFACAAYQBuAGQA IABGAG8AQQAuACAADQANACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAARABhAHYAaQBkACAAUwBvAG0AZQByAHMA LQBIAGEAcgByAGkAcwA6ACAAVwBpAGwAbAAgAHkAbwB1ACAAcgBlAHMAZQBhAHIAYwBoACAA aAB1AG0AYQBuACAAcgBlAHMAcABvAG4AcwBpAGIAaQBsAGkAdABpAGUAcwAgAGEAbgBkACAA cgBpAGcAaAB0AHMAIAB0AGgAYQB0ACAAYQB1AHQAaABvAHIAcwAgAGEAcwBzAHUAbQBlACAA aAB1AG0AYQBuAHMAIABkAG8AbgAnAHQAIABoAGEAdgBlAD8AIABXAGgAZQByAGUAIABkAG8A ZQBzACAAdABoAGkAcwAgAHAAbwBsAGkAYwB5ACAAZQBuAGQAPwAgAEYAbwByACAAaQBuAHMA dABhAG4AYwBlACAAUgBpAGcAaAB0ACAAdABvACAAYgBlACAARgBvAHIAZwBvAHQAdABlAG4A LgAgAA0AIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgAEoAbwBhAG4AYQA6ACAAbQBhAHkAYgBlACAAZgBpAHIA cwB0ACAAZgBvAGMAdQBzACAAbwBuACAAYQAgAGYAcgBlAGUAZABvAG0AIABvAGYAIABhAHMA cwBvAGMAaQBhAHQAaQBvAG4AIABhAG4AZAAgAGUAeABwAHIAZQBzAHMAaQBvAG4ALgAgAA0A IAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgAE4AaQBlAGwAcwA6ACAAaAB1AG0AYQBuACAAcgBpAGcAaAB0AHMA IABjAGEAbgAgAGIAZQAgAGkAbgAgAGMAbwBuAGYAbABpAGMAdAAgAHcAaQB0AGgAIABlAGEA YwBoACAAbwB0AGgAZQByACwAIABzAG8AIAB3AGUAJwBsAGwAIABuAGUAZQBkACAAdABvACAA YwBvAG0AZQAgAHUAcAAgAHcAaQB0AGgAIABjAG8AbgBzAGkAZABlAHIAYQB0AGkAbwBuACAA dwBoAGUAbgAgAHcAZQAgAGcAZQB0ACAAdABvACAAdABoAGEAdAAgAHAAYQByAHQAIABvAGYA IAB0AGgAZQAgAHIAZQBzAGUAYQByAGMAaAAuACAADQANAA0AIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgAE8A cABlAG4AIABtAGkAYwAgADEAOgAyADIAOgAzADAAIAANACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIABEAGEA bgAgAEgAYQByAGsAaQBuAHMAOgAgAEkAIABkAG8AbgAnAHQAIAB0AGgAaQBuAGsAIAB0AGgA aQBzACAAaQBzACAAYQAgAGcAbwBvAGQAIABpAGQAZQBhAC4AIABEAG8AaQBuAGcAIAB0AGgA ZQAgAGgAdQBtAGEAbgAgAHIAaQBnAGgAdABzACAAcwB0AHUAZAB5ACAAdwBpAGwAbAAgAGwA aQBrAGUAbAB5ACAAcABvAGwAaQB0AGkAYwBpAHoAZQAgAHAAcgBvAHQAbwBjAG8AbABzAC4A IABOAG8AdAAgAHcAYQBuAHQAIAB0AGgAZQAgAHQAZQBjAGgAbgBvAGwAbwBnAHkAIAB0AG8A IABoAGEAdgBlACAAcABvAGwAaQB0AGkAYwBhAGwAIABjAG8AbgB0AGUAeAB0AC4AIABJACAA dwBhAG4AdAAgAHQAZQBjAGgAbgBvAGwAbwBnAHkAIAB0AG8AIABiAGUAIABzAG8AIAB1AG4A cABvAGwAaQB0AGkAYwBhAGwAIABhAHMAIABwAG8AcwBzAGkAYgBsAGUALgAgAA0ADQAgACAA IAAgACAAIAAgACAATgBpAGUAbABzADoAIABBAGcAcgBlAGUALAAgAGIAdQB0ACAAdABoAGEA dAAnAHMAIAB3AGgAeQAgAHcAZQAgAHcAYQBuAHQAIAB0AG8AIABkAG8AIAB0AGgAaQBzACAA cgBlAHMAZQBhAHIAYwBoAC4ALgAgAFQAaABlACAAcQB1AGUAcwB0AGkAbwBuACAAaQBzACAA aABvAHcAIABkAG8AIAB3AGUAIAB3AGEAbgB0ACAAdABvACAAZgByAGEAbQBlACAAdABoAGUA IABxAHUAZQBzAHQAaQBvAG4AcwAgAGEAbgBkACAAcgBpAGcAaAB0AHMALgAgAFIAZQBzAGUA YQByAGMAaAAgAGkAcwAgAG4AZQBlAGQAZQBkACAAdABvACAAZgBpAGcAdQByAGUAIAB0AGgA YQB0ACAAbwB1AHQALAAgAG4AbwB3ACAAdwBlACAAaABhAHYAZQAgAHQAaQBtAGUALAAgAGIA ZQB0AHQAZQByACAAdABvACAAZABvACAAaQB0ACAAbgBvAHcAIAB0AGgAYQBuACAAdQBuAGQA ZQByACAAYQAgAGwAbwB0ACAAbwBmACAAcAByAGUAcwBzAHUAcgBlAC4AIAANACAAIAAgACAA IAAgACAAIAANACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIABKAG8AYQBuAGEAOgAgAFQAaABhAG4AawAgAHkA bwB1ACwAIAB3AGUAIABlAHgAcABlAGMAdABlAGQAIAB0AGgAaQBzACAAcQB1AGUAcwB0AGkA bwBuAHMALgAgAFcAZQAgAGEAbABzAG8AIABmAGkAbgBkACAAdABoAGkAcwAgAGkAcwBzAHUA ZQAgAGkAbQBwAG8AcgB0AGEAbgB0AC4AIAANAA0AIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgAE0AYQByAGsA IABOAG8AdAB0AGkAbgBnAGgAYQBtACAAKABBAEQAIABIAFQAVABQACkAOgAgAFQAaABpAHMA IABpAHMAIABkAGEAbgBnAGUAcgBvAHUAcwAuACAASQBmACAAdwBlACAAZgBhAHYAbwByACAA bwBuAGUAIAB2AGkAZQB3ACwAIABwAGUAbwBwAGwAZQAgAHcAaQBsAGwAIABjAG8AbQBlACAA dABvACAAZQBzAHAAbwB1AHMAZQAgAHQAaABlACAAbwB0AGgAZQByAC4AIABXAGUAIABzAGgA bwB1AGwAZAAgAHQAaABpAG4AawAgAG0AbwByAGUAIABhAGIAbwB1AHQAIAB0AGgAZQAgAHMA dABhAGsAZQBoAG8AbABkAGUAcgBzACAAaQBuACAAbwB1AHIAIABwAHIAbwB0AG8AYwBvAGwA cwAgAGEAbgBkACAAdwBoAGEAdAAgAHQAaABlAGkAcgAgAHIAbwBsAGUAcwAgAGEAcgBlAC4A IABUAGgAaQBzACAAaABhAHMAIABjAG8AbQBlACAAdQBwACAAaQBuACAAbQB5ACAAdwBvAHIA awAgAGEAdAAgAFcAMwBDAC4AIABTAGkAbQBpAGwAYQByACAAYwBvAG4AYwBlAHIAbgBzACAA aQBuACAAdABoAGUAIABIAFQATQBMACAAVwBHACAAaQBuACAAVwAzAEMALgAgAFQAaABlAHIA ZQAgAHQAaABlAHkAIABtAGEAZABlACAAYQAgAHAAcgBpAG8AcgBpAHQAeQAgAG8AZgAgAGMA bwBuAHMAaQB0AHUAZQBuAGMAaQBlAHMAIAB0AGgAYQB0ACAAdwBlACcAcgBlACAAcwBlAHIA dgBpAG4AZwAsACAAYQB1AHQAaABvAHIAcwAsACAAdQBzAGUAcgBzACwAIABkAG8AYwB1AG0A ZQBuAHQAIABhAHUAdABoAG8AcgBzACwAIABlAHQAYwAuACAAVABoAGUAcwBlACAAYQByAGUA IABwAHUAdAAgAGkAbgAgAGEAbgAgAG8AcgBkAGUAcgAuACAAVABoAGkAcwAgAGgAYQBzACAA YgBlAGUAbgAgAGEAIAB2AGUAcgB5ACAAcABvAGwAaQB0AGkAYwBhAGwAIABkAGkAcwBjAHUA cwBzAGkAbwBuACAAaQBuACAASABUAE0ATAA1ACwAIABiAHUAdAAgAGkAdAAgAHIAZQBhAGwA bAB5ACAAaABlAGwAcABlAGQAIABtAG8AdgBpAG4AZwAgAHQAaABlACAAZABpAHMAYwB1AHMA cwBpAG8AbgAgAGYAbwByAHcAcgBkAC4AIAANACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIABSAGUAcAByAGUA cwBlAG4AdABpAG4AZwAgAFMAdABhAGsAZQBoAG8AbABkAGUAcgAgAFIAaQBnAGgAdABzACAA aQBuACAASQBuAHQAZQByAG4AZQB0ACAAUAByAG8AdABvAGMAbwBsAHMAIABkAHIAYQBmAHQA LQBuAG8AdAB0AGkAbgBnAGgAYQBtAC0AcwB0AGEAawBlAGgAbwBsAGQAZQByAC0AcgBpAGcA aAB0AHMAIAANACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAADQAgACAAIAAgACAA IAAgACAASgB1AHMAdABpAG4AOgAgAFcAZQAgAGgAYQB2AGUAIAB0AG8AIABzAHQAbwBwACAA cAByAGUAdABlAG4AZABpAG4AZwAgAHQAaABhAHQAIAB0AGUAYwBoAG4AbwBsAG8AZwB5ACAA aQBzACAAYQAgAG4AbwBuAC0AcABvAGwAaQB0AGkAYwBhAGwAIAANACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAA IAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAZABlAGMAaQBzAGkAbwBuACAAKABhAHAAcABsAGEAdQBzAGUA KQAgAEUAdgBlAHIAeQAgAHMAaQBuAGcAbABlACAAdABpAG0AZQAgAHkAbwB1ACAAYwBoAG8A bwBzAGUAIABhACAAcAByAG8AdABvAGMAbwBsACwAIAB0AGgAYQB0ACAAeQBvAHUAIABjAGgA bwBvAHMAZQAgAHQAbwAgAHMAZQBuAGQAIABhACAAcABhAGMAawBlAHQAIABvAG4AZQAgAHAA bABhAGMAZQAgAG8AcgAgAGEAbgBvAHQAaABlAHIALAAgAGUAdgBlAHIAeQAgAHQAaQBtAGUA IAB5AG8AdQAgAGQAZQBjAGkAZABlACAAbwBuACAAYQAgAGwAYQBuAGcAdQBhAGcAZQAsACAA cwB0AGEAYwBrACAAbwByACAAZQB4AHAAcgBlAHMAcwBpAG8AbgAgAG0AZQBjAGgAYQBuAGkA cwBtACAAbwByACAAdwBoAG8AIAB0AGgAZQAgAGUAbgBkACAAdQBzAGUAcgAgAGkAcwAgAG8A cgAgAHcAaABvACAAdABoAGUAIABjAG8AbgBzAHQAaQB0AHUAZQBuAGMAeQAgAGkAcwAsACAA YQBuAHkAIAB0AGkAbQBlACAAeQBvAHUAIABtAGEAawBlACAAYQAgAGQAZQBjAHMAaQBvAG4A LAAgAHkAbwB1ACAAbQBhAGsAZQAgAGEAIABwAG8AbABpAHQAaQBjAGEAbAAgAHMAdABhAHQA ZQBtAGUAbgB0AC4AIABXAGUAIABuAGUAZQBkACAAdABvACAAawBlAGUAcAAgAHQAaABhAHQA IABpAG4AIABtAGkAbgBkAC4AIABXAGUAIABuAGUAZQBkACAAdABvACAAcwB0AG8AcAAgAHAA cgBlAHQAZQBuAGQAaQBuAGcAIAB0AGgAYQB0ACAAdwBlACAAYQByAGUAIABsAGkAdgBpAG4A ZwAgAHQAaABhAHQAIAB3AGUAIABsAGkAdgBpAG4AZwAgAHcAaQB0AGgAIABhACAAbwB1AHIA IABuAGkAYwBlACAAaQBkAHkAbABsAGkAYwAgAHMAdABlAHIAaQBsAGkAegBlAGQAIABjAG8A bQBwAHUAdABlAHIAIABlAG4AdgByAGkAbwBuAG0AZQBuAHQAIAB0AGgAYQB0ACAAZABvAGUA cwBuACcAdAAgAG4AZQBlAGQAIAB0AG8AIABkAGUAYQBsACAAdwBpAHQAaAAgAGEAbABsACAA dABoAGUAIABzAHEAdQBpAHMAaAB5AG4AZQBzAHMAIABvAGYAIAB0AGgAZQAgAHIAZQBhAGwA IAB3AG8AcgBsAGQALgAgAA0ADQAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAVABvAG0AIABZAHUAOgAgAFAA cgBvAHQAbwBjAG8AbABzACAAYgBlAGkAbgBnACAAYQBwAG8AbABpAHQAaQBjAGEAbAAgAGkA cwAgAGEAIABmAGEAbABsAGEAYwB5ACAADQANACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIABNAGEAcgBrACAA TgA6ACAATQBhAHkAYgBlACAAZABvAGkAbgBnACAAdABoAGUAIABzAHQAYQBrAGUAaABvAGwA ZABlAHIAIABwAHIAaQBvAHIAaQB0AHkAIABsAGkAcwB0ACAAaQBuACAASABUAFQAUABiAGkA cwAuACAASQBmACAAeQBvAHUAIABzAHQAYQBjAGsAdwByAGkAdABlACAAeQBvAHUAcgAgAGMA bwBuAHMAdABpAHQAdQBlAG4AYwB5ACwAIAB0AGgAZQAgAHcAbwByAGwAZAAgAGMAYQBuACAA cwBlAGUAIAB3AGgAYQB0ACAAeQBvAHUAIABhAHIAZQAgAGQAbwBpAG4AZwAgAGEAbgBkACAA YwBvAG0AbQBlAG4AdAAgAG8AbgAgAGkAdAAuACAADQANAA0AWwBPAFQASABFAFIAIABUAE8A UABJAEMAXQAgAA0AIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgAE0AYQByAGsAIABOADoAIAAoAG4AZQB3ACAA dABvAHAAaQBjACkAIAANACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAUwBwAGwA aQB0ACAAYgByAG8AdwBzAGUAcgBzADoAIABjAG8AbQBwAHUAdABhAHQAaQBvAG4AIABpAHMA IABkAG8AbgBlACAAbwBuACAAYgBvAHgAZQBzACAAaQBuACAAdABoAGUAIABjAGwAbwB1AGQA IAANACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAQwBhAG4AIABiAGUAIAB1AHMA ZQBkACAAdABvACAATQBJAFQATQAgAFQATABTACAADQAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAA IAAgACAAIAAgAFMAdABhAHIAdABlAGQAIABhACAAcwB1AHIAdgBlAHkAIAB0AG8AIABsAG8A bwBrACAAYQB0ACAAaABvAHcAIABtAGEAbgB5ACAAYQByAGUAIABvAHUAdAAgAHQAaABlAHIA ZQAgAA0AIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIABPAG4AZQAgAHMAcABsAGkA dAAgAGIAcgBvAHcAcwBlAHIAIABpAHMAIAB2AGUAcgB5ACAAcABvAHAAdQBsAGEAcgAgAGkA bgAgAEkAbgBkAGkAYQAgACgAMgA2ACUAKQAgAA0AIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgAEsAYQB0AGgA bABlAGUAbgA6ACAAUwBvAG0AZQAgAG8AZgAgAHQAaABpAHMAIABpAHMAIABkAG8AYwB1AG0A ZQBuAHQAZQBkACAAaQBuACAAdABoAGUAIABUAEwAUwAgAGEAdAB0AGEAYwBrACAAZAByAGEA ZgB0ACAAZgByAG8AbQAgAFUAVABBACwAIAANACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAA IAAgACAAdwBhAHMAIABvAG4AIABhACAAcgBlAGMAZQBuAHQAIAB0AGUAbABlAGMAaABhAHQA LAAgAG4AZQBhAHIAaQBuAGcAIABwAHUAYgBsAGkAYwBhAHQAaQBvAG4ALgAgAA0ADQBbAC8A TwBUAEgARQBSACAAVABPAFAASQBDAF0AIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAA IAANACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAADQAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAA TABlAGUAIABIAG8AdwBhAHIAZAA6ACAAUABvAGwAaQB0AGkAYwBpAHoAYQB0AGkAbwBuACAA bwBmACAAcAByAG8AdABvAGMAbwBsAHMAIAB3AG8AdQBsAGQAIABiAGUAIABhAG4AIABlAHgA YwBlAGwAbABlAG4AdAAgAHAAbABlAG4AYQByAHkAIAB0AG8AcABpAGMALgAgAEEAbgBkACAA aQBmACAAdABoAGUAIABwAGwAZQBuAGEAcgB5ACAAdwBvAHUAbABkACAAbgBvAHQAIABiAGUA IAB0AGgAZQAgAHAAbABhAGMAZQAsACAAdABoAGUAIABJAFMATwBDACAAbAB1AG4AYwBoACAA YwBvAHUAbABkACAAYgBlACAAYQAgAHAAbABhAGMAZQAgAGYAbwByACAAdABoAGkAcwAuACAA SQAgAHcAbwB1AGwAZAAgAGwAaQBrAGUAIAB0AG8AIABzAGUAZQAgAGEAIABiAHIAbwBhAGQA ZQByACAAYQB1AGQAaQBlAG4AYwBlACAAZgBvAHIAIAB0AGgAaQBzACAAdABvAHAAaQBjAC4A IAANAA0ADQBbAE8AVABIAEUAUgAgAFQATwBQAEkAQwBdACAADQAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAA QQBsAGkAcwBzAGEAOgAgAFMAdABhAGsAZQBoAG8AbABkAGUAcgAgAHIAaQBnAGgAdABzACAA DQAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgAFcAaABpAGMAaAAgAHMAdABhAGsA ZQBoAG8AbABkAGUAcgAgAGkAcwAgAGIAZQBuAGUAZgBpAHQAdABpAG4AZwAgAGkAcwAgAGkA bQBwAGwAaQBjAGkAdAAsACAAYQBuAGQAIAB0AGgAYQB0ACcAcwAgAGcAbwBvAGQAIAANACAA IAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAWQBvAHUAIABjAGEAbgAgAHMAdQBmAGYA ZQByACAAYQAgAG0AdQBjAGgAIABnAHIAZQBhAHQAZQByACAAbABvAHMAcwAgAGkAZgAgAHkA bwB1ACAAbQBhAGsAZQAgAHQAaABlAHMAZQAgAHQAaABpAG4AZwBzACAAZQB4AHAAbABpAGMA aQB0ACAADQAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgAE8AZgAgAGMAbwB1AHIA cwBlACAAcABlAG8AcABsAGUAIABjAG8AbQBlACAAdwBpAHQAaAAgAHQAaABlAGkAcgAgAG8A dwBuACAAcAByAGkAbwByAGkAdABpAGUAcwAsACAAZwBvAGEAbABzACwAIABjAHUAcwB0AG8A bQBlAHIAcwAgAA0AIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgAE0AYQB4ACAAUAByAGkAdABpAGsAaQBuADoA IABJAGQAZQBuAHQAaQBmAHkALAAgAGQAbwBuACcAdAAgAG4AZQBjAGUAcwBzAGEAcgBpAGwA eQAgAHAAcgBpAG8AcgBpAHQAaQB6AGUAIAANACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIABTAGUAYQBuACAA TABlAG8AbgBhAHIAZAA6ACAARgBlAHcAIABuAGUAdwAgAGQAcgBhAGYAdABzACAADQAgACAA IAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgAFAASwBJAFgAIAB0AGUAeAB0AHUAcgBhAGwA IABmAG8AcgBtAGEAdAAgAA0AIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIABDAGUA cgB0AGkAZgBpAGMAYQB0AGUAIABmAHIAYQBnAG0AZQBuAHQAIABpAGQAZQBuAHQAaQBmAGkA ZQByAHMAIAANACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAATABEAEEAUAAgAFAA SwBDAFMAOQAgAHIAZQBnAGkAcwB0AHIAYQB0AGkAbwBuAHMAIAANACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAA IABKAGEAbgBhAHIAZABoAGEAbgAgAEkAeQBlAG4AZwBhAHIAOgAgAE0AaQBzAGEAbABpAGcA bgBtAGUAbgB0ACAAYgBlAHQAdwBlAGUAbgAgAGMAbwBuAHMAZQBuAHMAdQBzACAAYQBuAGQA IABjAG8AbgB0AHIAbwBsACAADQAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgAFcA ZQAgAGMAYQBuACAAZwBlAHQAIABjAG8AbgBzAGUAbgBzAHUAcwAgAGIAdQB0ACAAdwBlACAA YwBhAG4AIABjAG8AbgB0AHIAbwBsACAAdABoAGUAaQByACAAZABlAHAAbABvAHkAbQBlAG4A dAAgAA0AIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgAFIAdQBzAHMAIABIAG8AdQBzAGwAZQB5ADoAIABNAHUA bAB0AGkAcABsAGUAIABnAHIAbwB1AHAAcwAgAHAAaQBjAGsAaQBuAGcAIABkAGkAZgBmAGUA cgBlAG4AdAAgAGMAaQBwAGgAZQByACAAcwB1AGkAdABlAHMAIAANACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAA IAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAYQBuAGQAIAB3AGkAbABsACAAbABlAGEAZAAgAHQAbwAgAGkA bgB0AGUAcgBvAHAAIABpAHMAcwB1AGUAcwAuACAADQAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAA IAAgACAAIAAgAEQASQBDAEUAIABjAGgAbwBzAGUAIABhACAAYwBpAHAAaABlAHIAcwB1AGkA dABlACAAdwBpAHQAaAAgAGEAIABDAEMATQAgAG0AbwBkAGUAOwAgAA0AIAAgACAAIAAgACAA IAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIABIAFQAVABQAGIAaQBzACAAYwBoAG8AcwBlACAARwBDAE0A IAANACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAUABpAGMAawAgAG8AbgBlACwA IABwAGwAZQBhAHMAZQAgAA0AIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgAE0AYQByAGsAIABOADoAIABTAHQA YQBjAGsAIAByAGEAbgBrAGkAbgBnACAAbQBhAHkAIABoAGUAbABwACwAIABpAGYAIAB3AGUA IABnAGUAdAAgAGkAdAAgAHcAcgBvAG4AZwAgAHQAaABlACAAbQBhAHIAawBlAHQAIAB3AGkA bABsACAAZABlAGMAaQBkAGUAIAANACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAAIAAgACAA YQBuAGQAIAB0AGgAYQB0ACcAcwAgAG8AawAgAA0AWwAvAE8AVABIAEUAUgAgAFQATwBQAEkA QwBdACAADQANAFsARQBOAEQAXQAgAA0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAgAACoIAAAuCAAAPggAAEAIAABeCAAAPgoAAFAKAABUCgAAZAoAAFINAAByDQAA dg0AAIYNAACcEAAArhAAAMAQAADaFgAA3hYAAO4WAADyFwAABBgAABYYAABQHAAAYhwAAHQc AADoHAAA7BwAAPwcAAAkIQAAKCEAADghAAB6IwAAfiMAAI4jAAAQJAAAFCQAACQkAABCJgAA VCYAAGYmAAB4JgAAkCcAALInAABIKAAAaigAAMgpAADqKQAASioAAE4qAABeKgAAsioAALYq AADEKgAAJCwAADYsAADALAAA0iwAAO4tAADyLQAA9C0AAAQuAAAmLgAAOC4AAOQvAADoLwAA +C8AAMgxAADaMQAA7DEAAI4yAACSMgAAojIAAJA2AACiNgAAVjcAAHg3AACKNwAAFjgAADg4 AAA4PAAAPDwAAEw8AACsPAAAsDwAAMA8AAD2PQAA+j0AAPw9AAAYPgAAKj4AAFI+AAB0PgAA 6D4AAAo/AAA6PwAA/Pz8/Pz48Pjw+PD48Pjw8Pj48Pjw8Pjw8Pj48Pj48Pj48Pj48Pjw8PD4 8Pjw+PD4+PD4+PD48Pjw+Pj48Pjw+Pjw+PDw+Pjw+PD48PD48Pj48Pj48Pj4+Pjw+PD48PgA DjUIAFBKBABeSgQAXAgAAAY1CABcCAAABjUIAVwIAV86PwAAXD8AAMI/AADkPwAARkAAAFhA AADmQAAACEEAAGZBAABqQQAApkEAAMhBAADaQQAAjEMAAJBDAACSQwAArkMAAMBDAAD2QwAA GEQAAJREAAC2RAAAQEUAAGJFAADmRQAA+EUAAGJGAAB0RgAArkYAANBGAAD6RgAAHEcAAF5H AACARwAAskcAAMRHAABASAAAYkgAANRIAADmSAAAYkkAAIRJAADGSQAA6EkAADxKAABeSgAA gkoAAKRKAADGSgAA2EoAAGxLAACOSwAAqksAAMpLAADOSwAA2ksAAPj0+PT49Pj09PT4+PT0 9PT49Pj0+PT49Pj0+PT49Pj0+PT49Pj0+PT49Pj0+PT49Pj0+PT09PQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY1CABcCAAADjUIAFBKBABeSgQA XAgANwAIAAAsCAAALggAAGAIAABACgAAUgoAAFQKAABUDQAAdA0AAHYNAACeEAAAsBAAANwW AADeFgAA9BcAAAYYAABSHAAAZBwAAOocAADsHAAAJiEAACghAAB8IwAAfiMAABIkAAD9AAAA AAAAAAAAAAAA+wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPkAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD3AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA9QAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAPMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADxAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA7wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAO0AAAAAAAAA AAAAAADrAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA6QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOcAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADlAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAA4wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADfAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA3QAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ANsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADZAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA1wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADT AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA0QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAM8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAAB AAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAA AAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAAYEiQAABQkAABEJgAAViYAAGgmAACSJwAA SigAAMopAABMKgAATioAALQqAAC2KgAAJiwAAMIsAADwLQAA8i0AAPQtAAAoLgAA5i8AAOgv AADKMQAA3DEAAJAyAACSMgAAkjYAAP0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD7AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA+QAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAPcAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD1AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA8wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPEAAAAAAAAA AAAAAADvAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA7QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADpAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAA5wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADjAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA4QAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AN8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAADdAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA2wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANkAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADX AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA1QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAzwAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAAB AAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAA ABiSNgAAWDcAAHo3AAAYOAAAOjwAADw8AACuPAAAsDwAAPg9AAD6PQAA/D0AABo+AABUPgAA 6j4AADw/AADEPwAASEAAAOhAAABoQQAAakEAAKhBAADKQQAAjkMAAJBDAACSQwAA/QAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAPsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD5AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA9wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPUAAAAAAAAA AAAAAADzAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA8QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAO8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAADtAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAA6wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOkAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADnAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA5QAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AOMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADhAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA3wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAADb AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA2QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANcAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADVAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA0wAA AAAAAAAAAAAAANEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAA AAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAAB AAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAAGJJDAACwQwAA+EMAAJZEAABCRQAA6EUAAGRG AACwRgAA/EYAAGBHAAC0RwAAQkgAANZIAABkSQAAyEkAAD5KAACESgAAyEoAAG5LAACsSwAA zEsAAM5LAADcSwAA/QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD5AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA9wAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAPUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADzAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA8QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAO8AAAAA AAAAAAAAAADtAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA6wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOkAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADnAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAA5QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADhAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA3wAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAN0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAADbAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA2QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANcAAAAAAAAAAAAA AADVAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA0wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAA AAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAAW MAAfsIIuILDGQSGwbgQisG4EI5BuBCSQbgQyUAAAMZBoATBwAAAAADNQAAAoMgAOMAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD+/wAAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAAA AtXN1ZwuGxCTlwgAKyz5rkQAAAAF1c3VnC4bEJOXCAArLPmuXAAAABgAAAABAAAAAQAAABAA AAACAAAA6f0AABgAAAABAAAAAQAAABAAAAACAAAA6f0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFIA bwBvAHQAIABFAG4AdAByAHkAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAWAAUA//////////8BAAAABgkCAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAwAAAIAMAAAAAAAAAQBDAG8AbQBwAE8AYgBqAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABIAAgACAAAABAAAAP////8AAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAagAAAAAAAAABAE8AbABlAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACgACAP// //8DAAAA/////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAAAAUAAAA AAAAADEAVABhAGIAbABlAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOAAIA////////////////AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAwAAAAEKAAAAAAAABQBTAHUAbQBtAGEAcgB5AEkAbgBmAG8AcgBtAGEA dABpAG8AbgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACgAAgAFAAAABgAAAP////8AAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAsAAAA4AAAAAAAAABXAG8AcgBkAEQA bwBjAHUAbQBlAG4AdAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA GgACAP///////////////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAkA AAAyWAAAAAAAAAUARABvAGMAdQBtAGUAbgB0AFMAdQBtAG0AYQByAHkASQBuAGYAbwByAG0A YQB0AGkAbwBuAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA4AAIA////////////////AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMAAAAHQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD///////////// //8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD+////AAAAAAAAAAA= --------------080404040208060906080006-- From cattekwaad@gmail.com Tue Jan 20 17:04:59 2015 Received: from mx1.lan ([10.10.12.44] helo=mx1.greenhost.nl) by mailman.lan with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YDbIZ-00037J-MJ for hrpc@article19.io; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 17:04:59 +0100 Received: from mail-wi0-f171.google.com ([209.85.212.171]) by mx1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YDbIX-0005Qm-9S for hrpc@article19.io; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 17:04:59 +0100 Received: by mail-wi0-f171.google.com with SMTP id l15so16944889wiw.4 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 08:04:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=H0JIX0D+WrgfjRMlILLyRI4wQtH2f+NKHLMIj+kEpNY=; b=V3J7pNlhvM9B81JT8pVoQEBegATJSrdNSARB2bPwsTkYqlhq4uubDzlXB8L0Epkqv1 mP70+4tGy2TGH8Jgej1aTQsCh4yxaaRhd6Ro9zAU7nK/VlytNu2BQvkD82FkAB3HmN6G Mdu3HHFMpnRR3kKANJpwhB2Ux2rFcMUfMTrmRoUChmq+OkI7hey9IFt6T3r6d753WigN YSBMZmFuEAnKHmyw87D6lK0TF3+e5va+T2hC9UxF/QN4qzrzHCg63DNvTfsHQdOFffJ1 v4JOBmYi09LFmuSyvqkaUBMmyCKCTCha2owXhnBvACy5w4J2o8HoszegcHb6TJOA59c3 2xDg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.8.232 with SMTP id u8mr19101882wja.47.1421769896633; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 08:04:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.219.194 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 08:04:56 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 16:04:56 +0000 Message-ID: From: Corinne Cath To: hrpc@article19.io Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5d348ca42b63050d1799e9 X-Spam-Level: / X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, SPF_PASS autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Score: -0.1 X-Virus-Scanned: by Greenhost Virus Scanner X-Scan-Signature: 30614a4a4c7691bf7a48158e1ee8c11c Subject: Re: [hrpc] hrpc Digest, Vol 4, Issue 1 X-BeenThere: hrpc@article19.io X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Human Rights Protocol Consideration Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 16:05:00 -0000 --047d7b5d348ca42b63050d1799e9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =E2=80=8BHello all, I would love to be involved in this research! I'm currently a master student at the Oxford Internet Institute and have a background in human rights and tech. please let me know in what capacity I could be of use. Best, Corinne=E2=80=8B On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:38 PM, wrote: > Send hrpc mailing list submissions to > hrpc@article19.io > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > hrpc-request@article19.io > > You can reach the person managing the list at > hrpc-owner@article19.io > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of hrpc digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Summary ID on Human Rights presentation & next steps (Joana Varon) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:34:16 -0200 > From: Joana Varon > To: hrpc@article19.io > Subject: [hrpc] Summary ID on Human Rights presentation & next steps > Message-ID: <54BE7578.3010503@varonferraz.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1" > > Dear all, > > Happy 2015! We hope it will bring us the opportunity for enlightening > and rich debates on human rights and protocols over here. > > For the purpose of doing so, this is an attempt to summarize and and > structure our work. So, please, find underneath (a) the summary of the > session at IETF91 where we presented the Internet Draft on Human Rights > considerations for Internet protocols and (b) a brainstorming of some > research priorities for the coming time. > > At the bottom you can also find the links for the records of the session > and related documents. The full transcription of the Q&A are also here > attached. > > All comments, questions and suggestions for research methods and angles > are very welcome. We are also looking for more help of researchers who > are interested in helping us with researching specific RFCs to help us > refine the methodology. Please, feel free to ping us on or offlist. > > Best, > > Joana and Niels > > * > **a) Summary of the Session* > > An active debate about standards, protocols and human rights took place > during the meeting of the Security Area Advisory Group -- SAAG at IETF > 91, Hawaii. The discussion was framed by the Internet Draft "Proposal > for research on human rights protocol considerations". [1] > > The Draft departs from the work that has been done by IETF on privacy > and Internet protocols, such as RFC 6973 on Privacy Consideration > guidelines [2], suggesting that some standards and protocols can > solidify, enable or threaten human rights, such as freedom of expression > and the right to association online. The proposal aims to establish a > research group under the IRTF to study the structural relationship and > impact between Internet standards and protocols and freedom of > expression and association. > > A deeper rationale for presenting such proposal was explained during the > presentation at SAAG. The presenters, who are also the authors of this > note highlighted that the Internet was designed with freedom and > openness of communications as core values, but were also questioning > whether this a structural value that can or needs to be preserved on a > technical level. As the politicization of the Internet management space > increases, it is argued that IETF should have an active role to promote > a more structured and holistic approach. This would allow sustained > future proofing of standards and protocols to avoid ad hoc decisions > following incidents or disclosures at a variety of other foras and actors= . > > The proposal raised some eyebrows and concerns about the politicization > of the work of the community. Dan Harkins posed that: "doing the human > rights study will likely politicize protocols. Not want the technology > to have political context. I want technology to be so unpolitical as > possible." This sparked a discussion with a rapid follow up by Justin, > who stated that "we have to stop pretending that technology is a > non-political decision", a remark that was followed by a round of > applause. One of the presenters responded that the research proposal was > exactly aimed at avoiding further politicization of protocols or the > community, but rather give the community time in a proper process to > define its position. > > Both John Levine and Alissa Cooper remarked that it is crucial to start > of with a focus on specific human rights, because it will help keep the > research manageable and help start the thinking about the balancing of > different rights. The presenters reaffirmed that the primary focus will > indeed be on the rights to freedom of expression and right to > association. Alissa Cooper mentioned the IAB ID on filtering > considerations [3] and the RFC Policy Considerations for Internet > Protocols [4] as relevant sources for research. > > Several RFCs already make quite explicit statement about the objectives > of the Internet, such as RFC1958 which mentions 'the community believes > that the goal [of the Internet] is connectivity, the tool is the > Internet Protocol'. It continues a bit further: 'The current > exponential growth of the network seems to show that connectivity is its > own reward, and is more valuable than any individual application such > as mail or the World-Wide Web.' This marks the intrinsic value of > connectivity which is facilitated by the Internet, both in principle, > and in practice. This shows that the underlying principles of the > Internet aim to preserve connectivity, which is fundamental and similar > to the part of article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, > which defines a right to receive and to impart information. > > But there are also protocols that enable freedom of expression and > access to information in an unprecedented way, such as HTTP. Even though > there is not an explicit reference to rights in RFC7230, it does form > the basis for a rights enabling architecture. The challenge of the > research would be to seek out the specific protocol attribute(s) that > enable that protocol to affect a specific human right. > > The major challenge as next step would be to developed to develop an > appropriate methodology to research the existing implicit safeguards in > current standards and protocols, and making them explicit. Open > discussions already gave some insights for possible methodological > approaches. Richard Barnes suggests: "seems that you are reading RFCs > and that you are looking for statement on rights and human rights that > are laid out in RFCs. You might risk irritating people at least by > reading reading technical documents as political statements. I think it > might be more useful to use RFCs as a window into the rights that the > community that developed these RFCs presumes." Mark Nottingham also > proposed a perspective of stakeholder prioritization as described in ID > Representing Stakeholder Rights in Internet Protocols [5] which is as > already implemented at the W3C. > > Other very useful remarks were made during and after the session, as > well on the mailinglist [6] which are currently being used to improve > the next version of the draft, possibly, to be further discussed at a > Birds of Feather session in Dallas. > * > **b) Research priorities and next steps* > > The proceedings of this session lead the presenters and authors of the > ID to conclude that the subject and the research raised interest in the > community. Their aim is to continue the research work an produce an > updated ID before the Dallas meeting. > > The research in the coming time will focus on documenting the specific > protocol attributes that explicitly or implicitly affect specific human > rights. For achieving that, a research methodology will be further > developed; suggestions for the first steps consist of: > > a) improving the list of RFCs that possibly have attributes to the right > to freedom of expression and association; > > b) conduct interviews at the Dallas meeting to further understand the > intention that Area Directors and RFC authors have with specific > protocols and how rights play a role in that; > > c) set a common template to analyze standards and protocols describing > the exact features, functions, characteristics or entities that allow a > more defined understanding on the relation between them and the right to > freedom of expression and association. > > Nevertheless, these are just our suggestions to keep developing the ID > and the work ahead of it. Comments, suggestions, hints are more then > welcome and very much appreciated. > > > *References* > [1] Proposal for research on human rights protocol considerations, > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-doria-hrpc-proposal-00.txt > > [2] RFC 6973 on Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6973.txt > > [3] Technical Considerations for Internet Service Blocking and Filtering > http://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-iab-filtering-considerations-06.txt= s > > [4] Policy Considerations for Internet Protocols > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morris-policy-cons-00 > > [5] Representing Stakeholder Rights in Internet Protocols, > https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-stakeholder-rights-00.txt > > [6] https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > > * Other relevant links and information* > IETF91 SAAG Agenda: > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/agenda/agenda-91-saag > IETF 91 SAAG minutes: > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/minutes/minutes-91-saag > IETF 91 SAAG audio recording: > http://www.ietf.org/audio/ietf91/ietf91-coral3-20141113-1300-pm1.mp3 > Presentation starts at 40:15 > Presentation: > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/slides/slides-91-saag-6.pdf > > -- > -- > Joana Varon > @joana_varon > https://antivigilancia.org > Fingerprint > 239D E977 32D0 28BC 297F 64B6 3B69 BDE4 016B 8E73 > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.ghserv.net/pipermail/hrpc/attachments/20150120/67c01860/atta= chment.html > > > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: Transcription of the Q&A at SAAG IETF91 Hawaii.doc > Type: application/msword > Size: 29696 bytes > Desc: not available > URL: < > http://lists.ghserv.net/pipermail/hrpc/attachments/20150120/67c01860/atta= chment.doc > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@article19.io > https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > > End of hrpc Digest, Vol 4, Issue 1 > ********************************** > --=20 'The management of normality is hard work' --047d7b5d348ca42b63050d1799e9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=E2=80=8BHello all,

I would love to be involved in this resea= rch! I'm currently a master student at the Oxford Internet Institute
and have a background in human rights and tech. please let me know in = what capacity I could be of use.

Best,

Corinne=E2=80=8B

=

On Tue, Jan= 20, 2015 at 3:38 PM, <hrpc-request@article19.io> w= rote:
Send hrpc mailing list submissions = to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 hrpc@artic= le19.io

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/hrp= c
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 hr= pc-request@article19.io

You can reach the person managing the list at
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 hrpc= -owner@article19.io

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of hrpc digest..."


Today's Topics:

=C2=A0 =C2=A01. Summary ID on Human Rights presentation & next steps (J= oana Varon)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:34:16 -0200
From: Joana Varon <joana@varonf= erraz.com>
To: hrpc@article19.io
Subject: [hrpc] Summary ID on Human Rights presentation & next steps Message-ID: <54BE757= 8.3010503@varonferraz.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1"

Dear all,

Happy 2015! We hope it will bring us the opportunity for enlightening
and rich debates on human rights and protocols over here.

For the purpose of doing so, this is an attempt to summarize and and
structure our work. So, please, find underneath (a) the summary of the
session at IETF91 where we presented the Internet Draft on Human Rights
considerations for Internet protocols and (b) a brainstorming of some
research priorities for the coming time.

At the bottom you can also find the links for the records of the session and related documents. The full transcription of the Q&A are also here<= br> attached.

All comments, questions and suggestions for research methods and angles
are very welcome. We are also looking for more help of researchers who
are interested in helping us with researching specific RFCs to help us
refine the methodology. Please, feel free to ping us on or offlist.

Best,

Joana and Niels

*
**a) Summary of the Session*

An active debate about standards, protocols and human rights took place
during the meeting of the Security Area Advisory Group -- SAAG at IETF
91, Hawaii. The discussion was framed by the Internet Draft "Proposal<= br> for research on human rights protocol considerations". [1]

The Draft departs from the work that has been done by IETF on privacy
and Internet protocols, such as RFC 6973 on Privacy Consideration
guidelines [2], suggesting that some standards and protocols can
solidify, enable or threaten human rights, such as freedom of expression and the right to association online. The proposal aims to establish a
research group under the IRTF to study the structural relationship and
impact between Internet standards and protocols and freedom of
expression and association.

A deeper rationale for presenting such proposal was explained during the presentation at SAAG. The presenters, who are also the authors of this
note highlighted that the Internet was designed with freedom and
openness of communications as core values, but were also questioning
whether this a structural value that can or needs to be preserved on a
technical level. As the politicization of the Internet management space
increases, it is argued that IETF should have an active role to promote
a more structured and holistic approach. This would allow sustained
future proofing of standards and protocols to avoid ad hoc decisions
following incidents or disclosures at a variety of other foras and actors.<= br>
The proposal raised some eyebrows and concerns about the politicization
of the work of the community. Dan Harkins posed that: "doing the human=
rights study will likely politicize protocols. Not want the technology
to have political context. I want technology to be so unpolitical as
possible." This sparked a discussion with a rapid follow up by Justin,=
who stated that "we have to stop pretending that technology is a
non-political decision", a remark that was followed by a round of
applause. One of the presenters responded that the research proposal was exactly aimed at avoiding further politicization of protocols or the
community, but rather give the community time in a proper process to
define its position.

Both John Levine and Alissa Cooper remarked that it is crucial to start
of with a focus on specific human rights, because it will help keep the
research manageable and help start the thinking about the balancing of
different rights. The presenters reaffirmed that the primary focus will
indeed be on the rights to freedom of expression and right to
association.=C2=A0 =C2=A0Alissa Cooper mentioned the IAB ID=C2=A0 on filter= ing
considerations [3] and the RFC=C2=A0 Policy Considerations for Internet
Protocols [4] as relevant sources for research.

Several RFCs already make quite explicit statement about the objectives
of the Internet, such as RFC1958 which=C2=A0 mentions 'the community be= lieves
that the goal [of the Internet] is connectivity, the tool is the
Internet Protocol'.=C2=A0 It continues a bit further: 'The current<= br> exponential growth of the network seems to show that connectivity is its own reward, and is more valuable than any individual application such
as=C2=A0 mail or the World-Wide Web.'=C2=A0 This marks the intrinsic va= lue of
connectivity which is facilitated by the Internet, both in principle,
and in practice.=C2=A0 This shows that the underlying=C2=A0 principles of t= he
Internet aim to preserve connectivity, which is fundamental and similar
to the part of article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
which defines a right to receive and to impart information.

But there are also protocols that enable freedom of expression and
access to information in an unprecedented way, such as HTTP. Even though there is not an explicit reference to rights in RFC7230, it does form
the basis for a rights enabling architecture. The challenge of the
research would be to seek out the specific protocol attribute(s) that
enable that protocol to affect a specific human right.

The major challenge as next step would be to developed to develop an
appropriate methodology to research the existing implicit safeguards in
current standards and protocols, and making them explicit. Open
discussions already gave some insights for possible methodological
approaches. Richard Barnes suggests: "seems that you are reading RFCs<= br> and that you are looking for statement on rights and human rights that
are laid out in RFCs. You might risk irritating people at least by
reading reading technical documents as political statements. I think it
might be more useful to use RFCs as a window into the rights that the
community that developed these RFCs presumes." Mark Nottingham also proposed a perspective of stakeholder prioritization as described in ID
Representing Stakeholder Rights in Internet Protocols [5]=C2=A0 which is as=
already implemented at the W3C.

Other very useful remarks were made during and after the session, as
well on the mailinglist [6] which are currently being used to improve
the next version of the draft, possibly, to be further discussed at a
Birds of Feather session in Dallas.
*
**b) Research priorities and next steps*

The proceedings of this session lead the presenters and authors of the
ID to conclude that the subject and the research raised interest in the
community. Their aim is to continue the research work an produce an
updated ID before the Dallas meeting.

The research in the coming time will focus on documenting the specific
protocol attributes that explicitly or implicitly affect specific human
rights. For achieving that, a research methodology will be further
developed; suggestions for the first steps consist of:

a) improving the list of RFCs that possibly have attributes to the right to freedom of expression and association;

b) conduct interviews at the Dallas meeting to further understand the
intention that Area Directors and RFC authors have with specific
protocols and how rights play a role in that;

c) set a common template to analyze standards and protocols describing
the exact features, functions, characteristics or entities that allow a
more defined understanding on the relation between them and the right to freedom of expression and association.

Nevertheless, these are just our suggestions to keep developing the ID
and the work ahead of it. Comments, suggestions, hints are more then
welcome and very much appreciated.


*References*
=C2=A0[1] Proposal for research on human rights protocol considerations, =C2=A0http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-doria-hrpc-proposal-00.txt

=C2=A0[2]=C2=A0 RFC 6973 on Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols =C2=A0https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6973.txt

=C2=A0[3] Technical Considerations for Internet Service Blocking and Filter= ing
=C2=A0http://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-iab= -filtering-considerations-06.txts

=C2=A0[4]=C2=A0 Policy Considerations for Internet Protocols
=C2=A0https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morris-policy-cons-00

=C2=A0[5] Representing Stakeholder Rights in Internet Protocols,
=C2=A0https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-st= akeholder-rights-00.txt

=C2=A0[6]=C2=A0 https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/hrpc

* Other relevant links and information*
=C2=A0IETF91 SAAG Agenda:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/agenda/agenda-91-saag =C2=A0IETF 91 SAAG minutes:
=C2=A0http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/minutes/minutes-91-s= aag
=C2=A0IETF 91 SAAG audio recording:
=C2=A0http://www.ietf.org/audio/ietf91/ietf91-coral= 3-20141113-1300-pm1.mp3
=C2=A0Presentation starts at 40:15
=C2=A0Presentation:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/slides/slides-91-saag-= 6.pdf

--
--
Joana Varon
@joana_varon
https://antivigila= ncia.org
Fingerprint
239D E977 32D0 28BC 297F 64B6 3B69 BDE4 016B 8E73

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ghserv.net/pi= permail/hrpc/attachments/20150120/67c01860/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Transcription of the Q&A at SAAG IETF91 Hawaii.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 29696 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ghserv.net/pip= ermail/hrpc/attachments/20150120/67c01860/attachment.doc>

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
hrpc mailing list
hrpc@article19.io
https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/hrpc

End of hrpc Digest, Vol 4, Issue 1
**********************************



--



'The management of normality is hard work'
<= /div>
--047d7b5d348ca42b63050d1799e9-- From stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie Tue Jan 20 17:22:20 2015 Received: from [10.10.12.45] (helo=mx2.greenhost.nl) by mailman.lan with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YDbZM-00039Z-QB for hrpc@article19.io; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 17:22:20 +0100 Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([134.226.56.6]) by mx2.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YDbZJ-0004Lg-5N for hrpc@article19.io; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 17:22:20 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DA55BED0 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 16:22:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Tn8Hberip84h for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 16:22:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [134.226.36.180] (stephen-think.dsg.cs.tcd.ie [134.226.36.180]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7991CBECC for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 16:22:16 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <54BE80B8.2070602@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 16:22:16 +0000 From: Stephen Farrell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hrpc@article19.io Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Level: / X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Score: 0.8 X-Virus-Scanned: by Greenhost Virus Scanner X-Scan-Signature: 645486d610a00fe5591aab0f6aa1616b Subject: [hrpc] unesco study event in Paris X-BeenThere: hrpc@article19.io X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Human Rights Protocol Consideration Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 16:22:21 -0000 Hiya, And adding to the welcome flurry of traffic on this list... UNESCO are doing a study that seems relevant here and will have a conference in Paris on that March 2-4. [1] (I'll be there on some panel or other:-) Seems like it overlaps with this effort some as they are also considering how human rights and the Internet are related I think. Cheers, S. [1] http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/events/calendar-of-events/events-websites/connecting-the-dots/home/ From mallory@apc.org Tue Jan 20 18:21:39 2015 Received: from [10.10.12.45] (helo=mx2.greenhost.nl) by mailman.lan with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YDcUl-0003E1-HR for hrpc@article19.io; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 18:21:39 +0100 Received: from mail.gn.apc.org ([37.220.108.136]) by mx2.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YDcUi-0005bA-3P for hrpc@article19.io; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 18:21:39 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.gn.apc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C267A200C236 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 17:21:35 +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 2H3zasXSjvMc for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 17:21:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from anonymous ([10.254.254.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mallory) by mail.gn.apc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 75E53200C209 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 17:21:32 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <54BE8E9B.2090207@apc.org> Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 12:21:31 -0500 From: Mallory Knodel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hrpc@article19.io References: <54BE7578.3010503@varonferraz.com> In-Reply-To: <54BE7578.3010503@varonferraz.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ELheV22lqT9ccqWf7WC6RM0pjknHvs8nC" X-Spam-Level: - X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Score: -1.5 X-Virus-Scanned: by Greenhost Virus Scanner X-Scan-Signature: 55bb320f4425806547ba14d4976758db Subject: Re: [hrpc] Summary ID on Human Rights presentation & next steps X-BeenThere: hrpc@article19.io X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Human Rights Protocol Consideration Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 17:21:40 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --ELheV22lqT9ccqWf7WC6RM0pjknHvs8nC Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050401010006060908010803" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------050401010006060908010803 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi joana Congrats on sparking an interesting debate at the IETF in Hawaii. I found all comments in the transcript useful, even those that questioned the foundation of the research. In particular, I thought the suggestion to analyze RFCs carefully for assumptions of rights is a better approach than searching for overt mentions of rights. Interviews in Dallas could certainly give more weight to the findings if we take this approach. Questioning the apolitics of protocols is really a fundamental goal of this work. I think while difficult, it would also be extremely productive to continue to engage with folks in the community who feel technology should strive to be apolitical, thereby developing a very strong counterposition. Very happy to lend a hand with this work, -Mallory On 01/20/2015 10:34 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > Dear all, > > Happy 2015! We hope it will bring us the opportunity for enlightening > and rich debates on human rights and protocols over here. > > For the purpose of doing so, this is an attempt to summarize and and > structure our work. So, please, find underneath (a) the summary of the > session at IETF91 where we presented the Internet Draft on Human > Rights considerations for Internet protocols and (b) a brainstorming > of some research priorities for the coming time. > > At the bottom you can also find the links for the records of the > session and related documents. The full transcription of the Q&A are > also here attached. > > All comments, questions and suggestions for research methods and > angles are very welcome. We are also looking for more help of > researchers who are interested in helping us with researching specific > RFCs to help us refine the methodology. Please, feel free to ping us > on or offlist. > > Best, > > Joana and Niels > > * > **a) Summary of the Session* > > An active debate about standards, protocols and human rights took > place during the meeting of the Security Area Advisory Group -- SAAG > at IETF 91, Hawaii. The discussion was framed by the Internet Draft > "Proposal for research on human rights protocol considerations". [1] > > The Draft departs from the work that has been done by IETF on privacy > and Internet protocols, such as RFC 6973 on Privacy Consideration > guidelines [2], suggesting that some standards and protocols can > solidify, enable or threaten human rights, such as freedom of > expression and the right to association online. The proposal aims to > establish a research group under the IRTF to study the structural > relationship and impact between Internet standards and protocols and > freedom of expression and association. > > A deeper rationale for presenting such proposal was explained during > the presentation at SAAG. The presenters, who are also the authors of > this note highlighted that the Internet was designed with freedom and > openness of communications as core values, but were also questioning > whether this a structural value that can or needs to be preserved on a > technical level. As the politicization of the Internet management > space increases, it is argued that IETF should have an active role to > promote a more structured and holistic approach. This would allow > sustained future proofing of standards and protocols to avoid ad hoc > decisions following incidents or disclosures at a variety of other > foras and actors. > > The proposal raised some eyebrows and concerns about the > politicization of the work of the community. Dan Harkins posed that: > "doing the human rights study will likely politicize protocols. Not > want the technology to have political context. I want technology to be > so unpolitical as possible." This sparked a discussion with a rapid > follow up by Justin, who stated that "we have to stop pretending that > technology is a non-political decision", a remark that was followed by > a round of applause. One of the presenters responded that the research > proposal was exactly aimed at avoiding further politicization of > protocols or the community, but rather give the community time in a > proper process to define its position. > > Both John Levine and Alissa Cooper remarked that it is crucial to > start of with a focus on specific human rights, because it will help > keep the research manageable and help start the thinking about the > balancing of different rights. The presenters reaffirmed that the > primary focus will indeed be on the rights to freedom of expression > and right to association. Alissa Cooper mentioned the IAB ID on > filtering considerations [3] and the RFC Policy Considerations for > Internet Protocols [4] as relevant sources for research. > > Several RFCs already make quite explicit statement about the > objectives of the Internet, such as RFC1958 which mentions 'the > community believes that the goal [of the Internet] is connectivity, > the tool is the Internet Protocol'. It continues a bit further: 'The > current exponential growth of the network seems to show that > connectivity is its own reward, and is more valuable than any > individual application such as mail or the World-Wide Web.' This > marks the intrinsic value of connectivity which is facilitated by the > Internet, both in principle, and in practice. This shows that the > underlying principles of the Internet aim to preserve connectivity, > which is fundamental and similar to the part of article 19 of the > Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which defines a right to > receive and to impart information. > > But there are also protocols that enable freedom of expression and > access to information in an unprecedented way, such as HTTP. Even > though there is not an explicit reference to rights in RFC7230, it > does form the basis for a rights enabling architecture. The challenge > of the research would be to seek out the specific protocol > attribute(s) that enable that protocol to affect a specific human right= =2E > > The major challenge as next step would be to developed to develop an > appropriate methodology to research the existing implicit safeguards > in current standards and protocols, and making them explicit. Open > discussions already gave some insights for possible methodological > approaches. Richard Barnes suggests: "seems that you are reading RFCs > and that you are looking for statement on rights and human rights that > are laid out in RFCs. You might risk irritating people at least by > reading reading technical documents as political statements. I think > it might be more useful to use RFCs as a window into the rights that > the community that developed these RFCs presumes." Mark Nottingham > also proposed a perspective of stakeholder prioritization as described > in ID Representing Stakeholder Rights in Internet Protocols [5] which > is as already implemented at the W3C. > > Other very useful remarks were made during and after the session, as > well on the mailinglist [6] which are currently being used to improve > the next version of the draft, possibly, to be further discussed at a > Birds of Feather session in Dallas. > * > **b) Research priorities and next steps* > > The proceedings of this session lead the presenters and authors of the > ID to conclude that the subject and the research raised interest in > the community. Their aim is to continue the research work an produce > an updated ID before the Dallas meeting. > > The research in the coming time will focus on documenting the specific > protocol attributes that explicitly or implicitly affect specific > human rights. For achieving that, a research methodology will be > further developed; suggestions for the first steps consist of: > > a) improving the list of RFCs that possibly have attributes to the > right to freedom of expression and association; > > b) conduct interviews at the Dallas meeting to further understand the > intention that Area Directors and RFC authors have with specific > protocols and how rights play a role in that; > > c) set a common template to analyze standards and protocols describing > the exact features, functions, characteristics or entities that allow > a more defined understanding on the relation between them and the > right to freedom of expression and association. > > Nevertheless, these are just our suggestions to keep developing the ID > and the work ahead of it. Comments, suggestions, hints are more then > welcome and very much appreciated. > > > *References* > [1] Proposal for research on human rights protocol considerations, > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-doria-hrpc-proposal-00.txt > > [2] RFC 6973 on Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6973.txt > > [3] Technical Considerations for Internet Service Blocking and Filteri= ng > http://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-iab-filtering-considerations-06.t= xts > > [4] Policy Considerations for Internet Protocols > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morris-policy-cons-00 > > [5] Representing Stakeholder Rights in Internet Protocols, > https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-stakeholder-rights-00.txt > > [6] https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > > * Other relevant links and information* > IETF91 SAAG Agenda: > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/agenda/agenda-91-saag > IETF 91 SAAG minutes: > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/minutes/minutes-91-saag > IETF 91 SAAG audio recording: > http://www.ietf.org/audio/ietf91/ietf91-coral3-20141113-1300-pm1.mp3 > Presentation starts at 40:15 > Presentation: > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/slides/slides-91-saag-6.pdf > --=20 > -- > Joana Varon > @joana_varon > https://antivigilancia.org > Fingerprint=20 > 239D E977 32D0 28BC 297F 64B6 3B69 BDE4 016B 8E73 > > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@article19.io > https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/hrpc --=20 Mallory Knodel Association for Progressive Communications :: apc.org gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780 --------------050401010006060908010803 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi joana

Congrats on sparking an interesting debate at the IETF in Hawaii. I found all comments in the transcript useful, even those that questioned the foundation of the research. In particular, I thought the suggestion to analyze RFCs carefully for assumptions of rights is a better approach than searching for overt mentions of rights. Interviews in Dallas could certainly give more weight to the findings if we take this approach.

Questioning the apolitics of protocols is really a fundamental goal of this work. I think while difficult, it would also be extremely productive to continue to engage with folks in the community who feel technology should strive to be apolitical, thereby developing a very strong counterposition.

Very happy to lend a hand with this work,
-Mallory

On 01/20/2015 10:34 AM, Joana Varon wrote:
Dear all,

Happy 2015! We hope it will bring us the opportunity for enlightening and rich debates on human rights and protocols over here.

For the purpose of doing so, this is an attempt to summarize and and structure our work. So, please, find underneath (a) the summary of the session at IETF91 where we presented the Internet Draft on Human Rights considerations for Internet protocols and (b) a brainstorming of some research priorities for the coming time.

At the bottom you can also find the links for the records of the session and related documents. The full transcription of the Q&A are also here attached.

All comments, questions and suggestions for research methods and angles are very welcome. We are also looking for more help of researchers who are interested in helping us with researching specific RFCs to help us refine the methodology. Please, feel free to ping us on or offlist.

Best,

Joana and Niels


a) Summary of the Session

An active debate about standards, protocols and human rights took place during the meeting of the Security Area Advisory Group –= ; SAAG at IETF 91, Hawaii. The discussion was framed by the Internet Draft “Proposal for research on human rights protocol considerations”. [1]

The Draft departs from the work that has been done by IETF on privacy and Internet protocols, such as RFC 6973 on Privacy Consideration guidelines [2], suggesting that some standards and protocols can solidify, enable or threaten human rights, such as freedom of expression and the right to association online. The proposal aims to establish a research group under the IRTF to study the structural relationship and impact between Internet standards and protocols and freedom of expression and association.<= br>
A deeper rationale for presenting such proposal was explained during the presentation at SAAG. The presenters, who are also the authors of this note highlighted that the Internet was designed with freedom and openness of communications as core values, but were also questioning whether this a structural value that can or needs to be preserved on a technical level. As the politicization of the Internet management space increases, it is argued that IETF should have an active role to promote a more structured and holistic approach. This would allow sustained future proofing of standards and protocols to avoid ad hoc decisions following incidents or disclosures at a variety of other foras and actors.
The proposal raised some eyebrows and concerns about the politicization of the work of the community. Dan Harkins posed that: “doing the human rights study will likely politicize protocols. Not want the technology to have political context. I want technology to be so unpolitical as possible.” This spark= ed a discussion with a rapid follow up by Justin, who stated that “= ;we have to stop pretending that technology is a non-political decision”, a remark that was followed by a round of applause.= One of the presenters responded that the research proposal was exactly aimed at avoiding further politicization of protocols or the community, but rather give the community time in a proper process to define its position.

Both John Levine and Alissa Cooper remarked that it is crucial to start of with a focus on specific human rights, because it will help keep the research manageable and help start the thinking about the balancing of different rights. The presenters reaffirmed that the primary focus will indeed be on the rights to freedom of expression and right to association.   Alissa Cooper ment= ioned the IAB ID  on filtering considerations [3] and the RFC  Poli= cy Considerations for Internet Protocols [4] as relevant sources for research.

Several RFCs already make quite explicit statement about the objectives of the Internet, such as RFC1958 which  mentions 't= he community believes that the goal [of the Internet] is connectivity, the tool is the Internet Protocol'.  It continue= s a bit further: 'The current exponential growth of the network seems to show that connectivity is its own reward, and is more valuable than any individual application such as  mail or the World-Wid= e Web.'  This marks the intrinsic value of connectivity which is= facilitated by the Internet, both in principle, and in practice.&nb= sp; This shows that the underlying  principles of the Internet aim= to preserve connectivity, which is fundamental and similar to the part of article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which defines a right to receive and to impart information.

But there are also protocols that enable freedom of expression and access to information in an unprecedented way, such as HTTP. Even though there is not an explicit reference to rights in RFC7230, it does form the basis for a rights enabling architecture. The challenge of the research would be to seek out the specific protocol attribute(s) that enable that protocol to affect a specific human right.

The major challenge as next step would be to developed to develop an appropriate methodology to research the existing implicit safeguards in current standards and protocols, and making them explicit. Open discussions already gave some insights for possible methodological approaches. Richard Barnes suggests: “seems th= at you are reading RFCs and that you are looking for statement on rights and human rights that are laid out in RFCs. You might risk irritating people at least by reading reading technical documents as political statements. I think it might be more useful to use RFCs as a window into the rights that the community that developed these RFCs presumes.” Mark Nottingham also proposed a perspec= tive of stakeholder prioritization as described in ID Representing Stakeholder Rights in Internet Protocols [5]  which is as alre= ady implemented at the W3C.

Other very useful remarks were made during and after the session, as well on the mailinglist [6] which are currently being used to improve the next version of the draft, possibly, to be further discussed at a Birds of Feather session in Dallas.

b) Research priorities and next steps

The proceedings of this session lead the presenters and authors of the ID to conclude that the subject and the research raised interest in the community. Their aim is to continue the research work an produce an updated ID before the Dallas meeting.

The research in the coming time will focus on documenting the specific protocol attributes that explicitly or implicitly affect specific human rights. For achieving that, a research methodology will be further developed; suggestions for the first steps consist of:

a) improving the list of RFCs that possibly have attributes to the right to freedom of expression and association;

b) conduct interviews at the Dallas meeting to further understand the intention that Area Directors and RFC authors have with specific protocols and how rights play a role in that;

c) set a common template to analyze standards and protocols describing the exact features, functions, characteristics or entities that allow a more defined understanding on the relation between them and the right to freedom of expression and association.

Nevertheless, these are just our suggestions to keep developing the ID and the work ahead of it. Comments, suggestions, hints are more then welcome and very much appreciated.


References
 [1] Proposal for research on human rights protocol considerations,
 = http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-doria-hrpc-proposal-00.txt

 [2]  RFC 6973 on Privacy Considerations for Internet Pro= tocols
 https://www.r= fc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6973.txt

 [3] Technical Considerations for Internet Service Blocking an= d Filtering
 http://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-iab-filtering-consideratio= ns-06.txts

 [4]  Policy Considerations for Internet Protocols
 = https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morris-policy-cons-00

 [5] Representing Stakeholder Rights in Internet Protocols,  https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-stakeholder-rights-00.txt=

 [6]  https://l= ists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/hrpc

 Other relevant links and information
 IETF91 SAAG Agenda: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/agenda/agenda-91-saag
 IETF 91 SAAG minutes:
 http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/minutes/minutes-91-saag
 IETF 91 SAAG audio recording:
 http://www.ietf.org/audio/ietf91/ietf91-coral3-20141113-1300-pm1.mp3=
 Presentation starts at 40:15
 Presentation: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/slides/slides-91-saag-6.pdf= 
--=20
--
Joana Varon
@joana_varon
https://antivigilancia.org
Fingerprint=20
239D E977 32D0 28BC 297F 64B6 3B69 BDE4 016B 8E73


_______________________________________________
hrpc mailing list
h=
rpc@article19.io
https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/hrpc

--
Mallory Knodel
Association for Progressive Communications :: apc.org
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780
--------------050401010006060908010803-- --ELheV22lqT9ccqWf7WC6RM0pjknHvs8nC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUvo6bAAoJEAwyonG9PMeAZtUH/3SkJjh8ujilR54UEynLkPsf anrVR29kr7DantGcqIi+tZCNVktUSYZduUSkkKpL628RQ3PxL8+Waj4NpZzkbbh6 PKE44Y/0pl69nSZGujb6HLc+cINj4oL8R3Z+6mj1zSLEMXDnDxqiMJ6kSP24S3Hu xH1JUuxm2Wv+kVgb0XjYJj66ZtB9WHTtohRcVDSQE/PdagRUiAYDGKSzf/1uUOEf SpGAXQPAfs3VTlC0G8Go5t0dwML8MzGKkZpHrr2KztXrvOk7LQeGVB71N2UiLTCL Us9qLjkWwW62T0IAc22doSYcUwwi852caYqtjNxJFjtm9K71S3HYX7sJ9TGvjCI= =dt3H -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ELheV22lqT9ccqWf7WC6RM0pjknHvs8nC-- From joana@varonferraz.com Tue Jan 20 20:56:43 2015 Received: from mx1.lan ([10.10.12.44] helo=mx1.greenhost.nl) by mailman.lan with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YDeup-0003Pj-NV for hrpc@article19.io; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 20:56:43 +0100 Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl ([195.190.28.81]) by mx1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YDeup-0002Nq-L1 for hrpc@article19.io; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 20:56:43 +0100 Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.104.138]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YDeug-0003bY-W9 for hrpc@article19.io; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 20:56:43 +0100 Message-ID: <54BEB2F1.4050406@varonferraz.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 17:56:33 -0200 From: Joana Varon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hrpc@article19.io References: <54BE7578.3010503@varonferraz.com> <54BE8E9B.2090207@apc.org> In-Reply-To: <54BE8E9B.2090207@apc.org> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080102090506000309090306" X-Authenticated-As-Hash: 0663834574f9da71d8f82ee71c27915bbc5237b0 X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Spam-Level: / X-Spam-Score: -0.2 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED, BAYES_50, HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 X-Scan-Signature: b9b1c9e65b7efdd462b0181dba6609f6 Subject: Re: [hrpc] Summary ID on Human Rights presentation & next steps X-BeenThere: hrpc@article19.io X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Human Rights Protocol Consideration Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 19:56:44 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080102090506000309090306 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Mallory, Corinne et all Very thankful for the feedback and indeed every help is very welcome. I'll quickly convene with Niels and Avri to double check if we can extract a list of small activities to perform the first steps mentioned bellow: "a) improving the list of RFCs that possibly have attributes to the right to freedom of expression and association; b) conduct interviews at the Dallas meeting to further understand the intention that Area Directors and RFC authors have with specific protocols and how rights play a role in that; c) set a common template to analyze standards and protocols describing the exact features, functions, characteristics or entities that allow a more defined understanding on the relation between them and the right to freedom of expression and association." and I would say that it would be great if we could set a little task force to cover then according to your availabilities. If we manage to do so, we can hav work flowing until Dallas, while we also keep reporting our progresses and asking for comments in this list as it evolves. Are you up for a call to coordinate? best joana --=20 -- Joana Varon @joana_varon https://antivigilancia.wiki.br Fingerprint=20 239D E977 32D0 28BC 297F 64B6 3B69 BDE4 016B 8E73 On 20-01-2015 15:21, Mallory Knodel wrote: > Hi joana > > Congrats on sparking an interesting debate at the IETF in Hawaii. I > found all comments in the transcript useful, even those that > questioned the foundation of the research. In particular, I thought > the suggestion to analyze RFCs carefully for assumptions of rights is > a better approach than searching for overt mentions of rights. > Interviews in Dallas could certainly give more weight to the findings > if we take this approach. > > Questioning the apolitics of protocols is really a fundamental goal of > this work. I think while difficult, it would also be extremely > productive to continue to engage with folks in the community who feel > technology should strive to be apolitical, thereby developing a very > strong counterposition. > > Very happy to lend a hand with this work, > -Mallory > > On 01/20/2015 10:34 AM, Joana Varon wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> Happy 2015! We hope it will bring us the opportunity for enlightening >> and rich debates on human rights and protocols over here. >> >> For the purpose of doing so, this is an attempt to summarize and and >> structure our work. So, please, find underneath (a) the summary of >> the session at IETF91 where we presented the Internet Draft on Human >> Rights considerations for Internet protocols and (b) a brainstorming >> of some research priorities for the coming time. >> >> At the bottom you can also find the links for the records of the >> session and related documents. The full transcription of the Q&A are >> also here attached. >> >> All comments, questions and suggestions for research methods and >> angles are very welcome. We are also looking for more help of >> researchers who are interested in helping us with researching >> specific RFCs to help us refine the methodology. Please, feel free to >> ping us on or offlist. >> >> Best, >> >> Joana and Niels >> >> * >> **a) Summary of the Session* >> >> An active debate about standards, protocols and human rights took >> place during the meeting of the Security Area Advisory Group -- SAAG >> at IETF 91, Hawaii. The discussion was framed by the Internet Draft >> "Proposal for research on human rights protocol considerations". [1] >> >> The Draft departs from the work that has been done by IETF on privacy >> and Internet protocols, such as RFC 6973 on Privacy Consideration >> guidelines [2], suggesting that some standards and protocols can >> solidify, enable or threaten human rights, such as freedom of >> expression and the right to association online. The proposal aims to >> establish a research group under the IRTF to study the structural >> relationship and impact between Internet standards and protocols and >> freedom of expression and association. >> >> A deeper rationale for presenting such proposal was explained during >> the presentation at SAAG. The presenters, who are also the authors of >> this note highlighted that the Internet was designed with freedom and >> openness of communications as core values, but were also questioning >> whether this a structural value that can or needs to be preserved on >> a technical level. As the politicization of the Internet management >> space increases, it is argued that IETF should have an active role to >> promote a more structured and holistic approach. This would allow >> sustained future proofing of standards and protocols to avoid ad hoc >> decisions following incidents or disclosures at a variety of other >> foras and actors. >> >> The proposal raised some eyebrows and concerns about the >> politicization of the work of the community. Dan Harkins posed that: >> "doing the human rights study will likely politicize protocols. Not >> want the technology to have political context. I want technology to >> be so unpolitical as possible." This sparked a discussion with a >> rapid follow up by Justin, who stated that "we have to stop >> pretending that technology is a non-political decision", a remark >> that was followed by a round of applause. One of the presenters >> responded that the research proposal was exactly aimed at avoiding >> further politicization of protocols or the community, but rather give >> the community time in a proper process to define its position. >> >> Both John Levine and Alissa Cooper remarked that it is crucial to >> start of with a focus on specific human rights, because it will help >> keep the research manageable and help start the thinking about the >> balancing of different rights. The presenters reaffirmed that the >> primary focus will indeed be on the rights to freedom of expression >> and right to association. Alissa Cooper mentioned the IAB ID on >> filtering considerations [3] and the RFC Policy Considerations for >> Internet Protocols [4] as relevant sources for research. >> >> Several RFCs already make quite explicit statement about the >> objectives of the Internet, such as RFC1958 which mentions 'the >> community believes that the goal [of the Internet] is connectivity, >> the tool is the Internet Protocol'. It continues a bit further: 'The >> current exponential growth of the network seems to show that >> connectivity is its own reward, and is more valuable than any >> individual application such as mail or the World-Wide Web.' This >> marks the intrinsic value of connectivity which is facilitated by the >> Internet, both in principle, and in practice. This shows that the >> underlying principles of the Internet aim to preserve connectivity, >> which is fundamental and similar to the part of article 19 of the >> Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which defines a right to >> receive and to impart information. >> >> But there are also protocols that enable freedom of expression and >> access to information in an unprecedented way, such as HTTP. Even >> though there is not an explicit reference to rights in RFC7230, it >> does form the basis for a rights enabling architecture. The challenge >> of the research would be to seek out the specific protocol >> attribute(s) that enable that protocol to affect a specific human righ= t. >> >> The major challenge as next step would be to developed to develop an >> appropriate methodology to research the existing implicit safeguards >> in current standards and protocols, and making them explicit. Open >> discussions already gave some insights for possible methodological >> approaches. Richard Barnes suggests: "seems that you are reading RFCs >> and that you are looking for statement on rights and human rights >> that are laid out in RFCs. You might risk irritating people at least >> by reading reading technical documents as political statements. I >> think it might be more useful to use RFCs as a window into the rights >> that the community that developed these RFCs presumes." Mark >> Nottingham also proposed a perspective of stakeholder prioritization >> as described in ID Representing Stakeholder Rights in Internet >> Protocols [5] which is as already implemented at the W3C. >> >> Other very useful remarks were made during and after the session, as >> well on the mailinglist [6] which are currently being used to improve >> the next version of the draft, possibly, to be further discussed at a >> Birds of Feather session in Dallas. >> * >> **b) Research priorities and next steps* >> >> The proceedings of this session lead the presenters and authors of >> the ID to conclude that the subject and the research raised interest >> in the community. Their aim is to continue the research work an >> produce an updated ID before the Dallas meeting. >> >> The research in the coming time will focus on documenting the >> specific protocol attributes that explicitly or implicitly affect >> specific human rights. For achieving that, a research methodology >> will be further developed; suggestions for the first steps consist of:= >> >> a) improving the list of RFCs that possibly have attributes to the >> right to freedom of expression and association; >> >> b) conduct interviews at the Dallas meeting to further understand the >> intention that Area Directors and RFC authors have with specific >> protocols and how rights play a role in that; >> >> c) set a common template to analyze standards and protocols >> describing the exact features, functions, characteristics or entities >> that allow a more defined understanding on the relation between them >> and the right to freedom of expression and association. >> >> Nevertheless, these are just our suggestions to keep developing the >> ID and the work ahead of it. Comments, suggestions, hints are more >> then welcome and very much appreciated. >> >> >> *References* >> [1] Proposal for research on human rights protocol considerations, >> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-doria-hrpc-proposal-00.txt >> >> [2] RFC 6973 on Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6973.txt >> >> [3] Technical Considerations for Internet Service Blocking and Filter= ing >> http://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-iab-filtering-considerations-06.= txts >> >> [4] Policy Considerations for Internet Protocols >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morris-policy-cons-00 >> >> [5] Representing Stakeholder Rights in Internet Protocols, >> https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-stakeholder-rights-00.txt >> >> [6] https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >> >> * Other relevant links and information* >> IETF91 SAAG Agenda: >> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/agenda/agenda-91-saag >> IETF 91 SAAG minutes: >> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/minutes/minutes-91-saag >> IETF 91 SAAG audio recording: >> http://www.ietf.org/audio/ietf91/ietf91-coral3-20141113-1300-pm1.mp3 >> Presentation starts at 40:15 >> Presentation: >> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/slides/slides-91-saag-6.pdf >> --=20 >> -- >> Joana Varon >> @joana_varon >> https://antivigilancia.org >> Fingerprint=20 >> 239D E977 32D0 28BC 297F 64B6 3B69 BDE4 016B 8E73 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> hrpc mailing list >> hrpc@article19.io >> https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > > --=20 > Mallory Knodel > Association for Progressive Communications :: apc.org = > gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780 > > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@article19.io > https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/hrpc --------------080102090506000309090306 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear Mallory, Corinne et all

Very thankful for the feedback and indeed every help is very welcome. I'll quickly convene with Niels and Avri to double check if we can extract a list of small activities to perform the first steps mentioned bellow:

"a) improving the list of RFCs that possibly have attributes to the right to freedom of expression and association;

b) conduct interviews at the Dallas meeting to further understand the intention that Area Directors and RFC authors have with specific protocols and how rights play a role in that;

c) set a common template to analyze standards and protocols describing the exact features, functions, characteristics or entities that allow a more defined understanding on the relation between them and the right to freedom of expression and association."

and I would say that it would be great if we could set a little task force to cover then according to your availabilities. If we manage to do so, we can hav work flowing until Dallas, while we also keep reporting our progresses and asking for comments in this list as it evolves. Are you up for a call to coordinate?

best

joana

-- 
--
Joana Varon
@joana_varon
https://antivigilancia.wiki.br
Fingerprint 
239D E977 32D0 28BC 297F 64B6 3B69 BDE4 016B 8E73

On 20-01-2015 15:21, Mallory Knodel wrote:
Hi joana

Congrats on sparking an interesting debate at the IETF in Hawaii. I found all comments in the transcript useful, even those that questioned the foundation of the research. In particular, I thought the suggestion to analyze RFCs carefully for assumptions of rights is a better approach than searching for overt mentions of rights. Interviews in Dallas could certainly give more weight to the findings if we take this approach.

Questioning the apolitics of protocols is really a fundamental goal of this work. I think while difficult, it would also be extremely productive to continue to engage with folks in the community who feel technology should strive to be apolitical, thereby developing a very strong counterposition.

Very happy to lend a hand with this work,
-Mallory

On 01/20/2015 10:34 AM, Joana Varon wrote:
Dear all,

Happy 2015! We hope it will bring us the opportunity for enlightening and rich debates on human rights and protocols over here.

For the purpose of doing so, this is an attempt to summarize and and structure our work. So, please, find underneath (a) the summary of the session at IETF91 where we presented the Internet Draft on Human Rights considerations for Internet protocols and (b) a brainstorming of some research priorities for the coming time.

At the bottom you can also find the links for the records of the session and related documents. The full transcription of the Q&A are also here attached.

All comments, questions and suggestions for research methods and angles are very welcome. We are also looking for more help of researchers who are interested in helping us with researching specific RFCs to help us refine the methodology. Please, feel free to ping us on or offlist.

Best,

Joana and Niels


a) Summary of the Session

An active debate about standards, protocols and human rights took place during the meeting of the Security Area Advisory Group – SAAG at IETF 91, Hawaii. The discussion was framed by the Internet Draft “Proposal for research on human rights protocol considerations”. [1]

The Draft departs from the work that has been done by IETF on privacy and Internet protocols, such as RFC 6973 on Privacy Consideration guidelines [2], suggesting that some standards and protocols can solidify, enable or threaten human rights, such as freedom of expression and the right to association online. The proposal aims to establish a research group under the IRTF to study the structural relationship and impact between Internet standards and protocols and freedom of expression and association.

A deeper rationale for presenting such proposal was explained during the presentation at SAAG. The presenters, who are also the authors of this note highlighted that the Internet was designed with freedom and openness of communications as core values, but were also questioning whether this a structural value that can or needs to be preserved on a technical level. As the politicization of the Internet management space increases, it is argued that IETF should have an active role to promote a more structured and holistic approach. This would allow sustained future proofing of standards and protocols to avoid ad hoc decisions following incidents or disclosures at a variety of other foras and actors.

The proposal raised some eyebrows and concerns about the politicization of the work of the community. Dan Harkins posed that: “doing the human rights study will likely politicize protocols. Not want the technology to have political context. I want technology to be so unpolitical as possible.” This sparked a discussion with a rapid follow up by Justin, who stated that “we have to stop pretending that technology is a non-political decision”, a remark that was followed by a round of applause. One of the presenters responded that the research proposal was exactly aimed at avoiding further politicization of protocols or the community, but rather give the community time in a proper process to define its position.

Both John Levine and Alissa Cooper remarked that it is crucial to start of with a focus on specific human rights, because it will help keep the research manageable and help start the thinking about the balancing of different rights. The presenters reaffirmed that the primary focus will indeed be on the rights to freedom of expression and right to association.   Alissa Cooper mentioned the IAB ID  on filtering considerations [3] and the RFC  Policy Considerations for Internet Protocols [4] as relevant sources for research.

Several RFCs already make quite explicit statement about the objectives of the Internet, such as RFC1958 which  mentions 'the community believes that the goal [of the Internet] is connectivity, the tool is the Internet Protocol'.  It continues a bit further: 'The current exponential growth of the network seems to show that connectivity is its own reward, and is more valuable than any individual application such as  mail or the World-Wide Web.'  This marks the intrinsic value of connectivity which is facilitated by the Internet, both in principle, and in practice.  This shows that the underlying  principles of the Internet aim to preserve connectivity, which is fundamental and similar to the part of article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which defines a right to receive and to impart information.

But there are also protocols that enable freedom of expression and access to information in an unprecedented way, such as HTTP. Even though there is not an explicit reference to rights in RFC7230, it does form the basis for a rights enabling architecture. The challenge of the research would be to seek out the specific protocol attribute(s) that enable that protocol to affect a specific human right.

The major challenge as next step would be to developed to develop an appropriate methodology to research the existing implicit safeguards in current standards and protocols, and making them explicit. Open discussions already gave some insights for possible methodological approaches. Richard Barnes suggests: “seems that you are reading RFCs and that you are looking for statement on rights and human rights that are laid out in RFCs. You might risk irritating people at least by reading reading technical documents as political statements. I think it might be more useful to use RFCs as a window into the rights that the community that developed these RFCs presumes.” Mark Nottingham also proposed a perspective of stakeholder prioritization as described in ID Representing Stakeholder Rights in Internet Protocols [5]  which is as already implemented at the W3C.

Other very useful remarks were made during and after the session, as well on the mailinglist [6] which are currently being used to improve the next version of the draft, possibly, to be further discussed at a Birds of Feather session in Dallas.

b) Research priorities and next steps

The proceedings of this session lead the presenters and authors of the ID to conclude that the subject and the research raised interest in the community. Their aim is to continue the research work an produce an updated ID before the Dallas meeting.

The research in the coming time will focus on documenting the specific protocol attributes that explicitly or implicitly affect specific human rights. For achieving that, a research methodology will be further developed; suggestions for the first steps consist of:

a) improving the list of RFCs that possibly have attributes to the right to freedom of expression and association;

b) conduct interviews at the Dallas meeting to further understand the intention that Area Directors and RFC authors have with specific protocols and how rights play a role in that;

c) set a common template to analyze standards and protocols describing the exact features, functions, characteristics or entities that allow a more defined understanding on the relation between them and the right to freedom of expression and association.

Nevertheless, these are just our suggestions to keep developing the ID and the work ahead of it. Comments, suggestions, hints are more then welcome and very much appreciated.


References
 [1] Proposal for research on human rights protocol considerations,
 http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-doria-hrpc-proposal-00.txt

 [2]  RFC 6973 on Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6973.txt

 [3] Technical Considerations for Internet Service Blocking and Filtering
 http://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-iab-filtering-considerations-06.txts

 [4]  Policy Considerations for Internet Protocols
 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morris-policy-cons-00

 [5] Representing Stakeholder Rights in Internet Protocols,
 https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-stakeholder-rights-00.txt

 [6]  https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/hrpc

 Other relevant links and information
 IETF91 SAAG Agenda: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/agenda/agenda-91-saag
 IETF 91 SAAG minutes:
 http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/minutes/minutes-91-saag
 IETF 91 SAAG audio recording:
 http://www.ietf.org/audio/ietf91/ietf91-coral3-20141113-1300-pm1.mp3
 Presentation starts at 40:15
 Presentation: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/slides/slides-91-saag-6.pdf
-- 
--
Joana Varon
@joana_varon
https://antivigilancia.org
Fingerprint 
239D E977 32D0 28BC 297F 64B6 3B69 BDE4 016B 8E73


_______________________________________________
hrpc mailing list
hrpc@article19.io
https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/hrpc

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


_______________________________________________
hrpc mailing list
hrpc@article19.io
https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/hrpc

--------------080102090506000309090306-- From niels@article19.org Thu Jan 22 17:43:37 2015 Received: from mx1.lan ([10.10.12.44] helo=mx1.greenhost.nl) by mailman.lan with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YEKr3-0006wp-Jx for hrpc@article19.io; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 17:43:37 +0100 Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl ([195.190.28.81]) by mx1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YEKr3-0006og-Hs for hrpc@article19.io; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 17:43:37 +0100 Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.104.138]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YEKqw-0004uf-Sa for hrpc@article19.io; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 17:43:37 +0100 Message-ID: <54C128AA.4030708@article19.org> Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 16:43:22 +0000 From: Niels ten Oever User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hrpc@article19.io References: <54BE7578.3010503@varonferraz.com> <54BE8E9B.2090207@apc.org> <54BEB2F1.4050406@varonferraz.com> In-Reply-To: <54BEB2F1.4050406@varonferraz.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Authenticated-As-Hash: 3eba33aa13262785abdb786b3645e2c2473cfc72 X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Spam-Level: / X-Spam-Score: -0.2 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED, BAYES_50 autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1 X-Scan-Signature: 722402151f1a4d14534bd153d43c793f Subject: Re: [hrpc] Summary ID on Human Rights presentation & next steps X-BeenThere: hrpc@article19.io X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Human Rights Protocol Consideration Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 16:43:38 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, Thanks for the feedback and the enthusiasm! While we're trying to secure a session at the IETF in Dallas it might be useful to have a joint look at one RFC and see how we can establish it's impact on human rights. I have setup this sheet: https://www.ethercalc.org/tdeh4wx2zo, but this is hardly enough of a template/lens/methodology to analyze the RFCs. So perhaps we could all have a look at RFC7230 [0] and see how we can define its impact on human rights. Once we have done that, we might be able to distill from this a loose methodology that we can then test on other RFCs. I specifically chose an RFC that doesn't (more or less) explicitly reference rights (such as RFC1958 and RFC4924), because in my humble opinion we should try to establish the link between actual protocols and standards and their impact on rights. If we could share our reflections here that could form a useful start for a discussion. What do you think? A call will be hard to plan for me in the coming week because of travel. Looking forward to read your contemplations. Best, Niels [0] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7230 Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 On 01/20/2015 07:56 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > Dear Mallory, Corinne et all > > Very thankful for the feedback and indeed every help is very > welcome. I'll quickly convene with Niels and Avri to double check > if we can extract a list of small activities to perform the first > steps mentioned bellow: > > "a) improving the list of RFCs that possibly have attributes to > the right to freedom of expression and association; > > b) conduct interviews at the Dallas meeting to further understand > the intention that Area Directors and RFC authors have with > specific protocols and how rights play a role in that; > > c) set a common template to analyze standards and protocols > describing the exact features, functions, characteristics or > entities that allow a more defined understanding on the relation > between them and the right to freedom of expression and > association." > > and I would say that it would be great if we could set a little > task force to cover then according to your availabilities. If we > manage to do so, we can hav work flowing until Dallas, while we > also keep reporting our progresses and asking for comments in this > list as it evolves. Are you up for a call to coordinate? > > best > > joana > > -- -- Joana Varon @joana_varon https://antivigilancia.wiki.br > Fingerprint 239D E977 32D0 28BC 297F 64B6 3B69 BDE4 016B 8E73 > > > On 20-01-2015 15:21, Mallory Knodel wrote: >> Hi joana >> >> Congrats on sparking an interesting debate at the IETF in Hawaii. >> I found all comments in the transcript useful, even those that >> questioned the foundation of the research. In particular, I >> thought the suggestion to analyze RFCs carefully for assumptions >> of rights is a better approach than searching for overt mentions >> of rights. Interviews in Dallas could certainly give more weight >> to the findings if we take this approach. >> >> Questioning the apolitics of protocols is really a fundamental >> goal of this work. I think while difficult, it would also be >> extremely productive to continue to engage with folks in the >> community who feel technology should strive to be apolitical, >> thereby developing a very strong counterposition. >> >> Very happy to lend a hand with this work, -Mallory >> >> On 01/20/2015 10:34 AM, Joana Varon wrote: >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Happy 2015! We hope it will bring us the opportunity for >>> enlightening and rich debates on human rights and protocols >>> over here. >>> >>> For the purpose of doing so, this is an attempt to summarize >>> and and structure our work. So, please, find underneath (a) the >>> summary of the session at IETF91 where we presented the >>> Internet Draft on Human Rights considerations for Internet >>> protocols and (b) a brainstorming of some research priorities >>> for the coming time. >>> >>> At the bottom you can also find the links for the records of >>> the session and related documents. The full transcription of >>> the Q&A are also here attached. >>> >>> All comments, questions and suggestions for research methods >>> and angles are very welcome. We are also looking for more help >>> of researchers who are interested in helping us with >>> researching specific RFCs to help us refine the methodology. >>> Please, feel free to ping us on or offlist. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Joana and Niels >>> >>> * **a) Summary of the Session* >>> >>> An active debate about standards, protocols and human rights >>> took place during the meeting of the Security Area Advisory >>> Group – SAAG at IETF 91, Hawaii. The discussion was framed by >>> the Internet Draft “Proposal for research on human rights >>> protocol considerations”. [1] >>> >>> The Draft departs from the work that has been done by IETF on >>> privacy and Internet protocols, such as RFC 6973 on Privacy >>> Consideration guidelines [2], suggesting that some standards >>> and protocols can solidify, enable or threaten human rights, >>> such as freedom of expression and the right to association >>> online. The proposal aims to establish a research group under >>> the IRTF to study the structural relationship and impact >>> between Internet standards and protocols and freedom of >>> expression and association. >>> >>> A deeper rationale for presenting such proposal was explained >>> during the presentation at SAAG. The presenters, who are also >>> the authors of this note highlighted that the Internet was >>> designed with freedom and openness of communications as core >>> values, but were also questioning whether this a structural >>> value that can or needs to be preserved on a technical level. >>> As the politicization of the Internet management space >>> increases, it is argued that IETF should have an active role >>> to promote a more structured and holistic approach. This would >>> allow sustained future proofing of standards and protocols to >>> avoid ad hoc decisions following incidents or disclosures at a >>> variety of other foras and actors. >>> >>> The proposal raised some eyebrows and concerns about the >>> politicization of the work of the community. Dan Harkins posed >>> that: “doing the human rights study will likely politicize >>> protocols. Not want the technology to have political context. I >>> want technology to be so unpolitical as possible.” This sparked >>> a discussion with a rapid follow up by Justin, who stated that >>> “we have to stop pretending that technology is a non-political >>> decision”, a remark that was followed by a round of applause. >>> One of the presenters responded that the research proposal was >>> exactly aimed at avoiding further politicization of protocols >>> or the community, but rather give the community time in a >>> proper process to define its position. >>> >>> Both John Levine and Alissa Cooper remarked that it is crucial >>> to start of with a focus on specific human rights, because it >>> will help keep the research manageable and help start the >>> thinking about the balancing of different rights. The >>> presenters reaffirmed that the primary focus will indeed be on >>> the rights to freedom of expression and right to association. >>> Alissa Cooper mentioned the IAB ID on filtering considerations >>> [3] and the RFC Policy Considerations for Internet Protocols >>> [4] as relevant sources for research. >>> >>> Several RFCs already make quite explicit statement about the >>> objectives of the Internet, such as RFC1958 which mentions >>> 'the community believes that the goal [of the Internet] is >>> connectivity, the tool is the Internet Protocol'. It continues >>> a bit further: 'The current exponential growth of the network >>> seems to show that connectivity is its own reward, and is more >>> valuable than any individual application such as mail or the >>> World-Wide Web.' This marks the intrinsic value of >>> connectivity which is facilitated by the Internet, both in >>> principle, and in practice. This shows that the underlying >>> principles of the Internet aim to preserve connectivity, which >>> is fundamental and similar to the part of article 19 of the >>> Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which defines a right >>> to receive and to impart information. >>> >>> But there are also protocols that enable freedom of expression >>> and access to information in an unprecedented way, such as >>> HTTP. Even though there is not an explicit reference to rights >>> in RFC7230, it does form the basis for a rights enabling >>> architecture. The challenge of the research would be to seek >>> out the specific protocol attribute(s) that enable that >>> protocol to affect a specific human right. >>> >>> The major challenge as next step would be to developed to >>> develop an appropriate methodology to research the existing >>> implicit safeguards in current standards and protocols, and >>> making them explicit. Open discussions already gave some >>> insights for possible methodological approaches. Richard Barnes >>> suggests: “seems that you are reading RFCs and that you are >>> looking for statement on rights and human rights that are laid >>> out in RFCs. You might risk irritating people at least by >>> reading reading technical documents as political statements. I >>> think it might be more useful to use RFCs as a window into the >>> rights that the community that developed these RFCs presumes.” >>> Mark Nottingham also proposed a perspective of stakeholder >>> prioritization as described in ID Representing Stakeholder >>> Rights in Internet Protocols [5] which is as already >>> implemented at the W3C. >>> >>> Other very useful remarks were made during and after the >>> session, as well on the mailinglist [6] which are currently >>> being used to improve the next version of the draft, possibly, >>> to be further discussed at a Birds of Feather session in >>> Dallas. * **b) Research priorities and next steps* >>> >>> The proceedings of this session lead the presenters and authors >>> of the ID to conclude that the subject and the research raised >>> interest in the community. Their aim is to continue the >>> research work an produce an updated ID before the Dallas >>> meeting. >>> >>> The research in the coming time will focus on documenting the >>> specific protocol attributes that explicitly or implicitly >>> affect specific human rights. For achieving that, a research >>> methodology will be further developed; suggestions for the >>> first steps consist of: >>> >>> a) improving the list of RFCs that possibly have attributes to >>> the right to freedom of expression and association; >>> >>> b) conduct interviews at the Dallas meeting to further >>> understand the intention that Area Directors and RFC authors >>> have with specific protocols and how rights play a role in >>> that; >>> >>> c) set a common template to analyze standards and protocols >>> describing the exact features, functions, characteristics or >>> entities that allow a more defined understanding on the >>> relation between them and the right to freedom of expression >>> and association. >>> >>> Nevertheless, these are just our suggestions to keep developing >>> the ID and the work ahead of it. Comments, suggestions, hints >>> are more then welcome and very much appreciated. >>> >>> >>> *References* [1] Proposal for research on human rights protocol >>> considerations, >>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-doria-hrpc-proposal-00.txt >>> >>> [2] RFC 6973 on Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6973.txt >>> >>> [3] Technical Considerations for Internet Service Blocking and >>> Filtering >>> http://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-iab-filtering-considerations-06.txts >>> >>> >>> [4] Policy Considerations for Internet Protocols >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morris-policy-cons-00 >>> >>> [5] Representing Stakeholder Rights in Internet Protocols, >>> https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-stakeholder-rights-00.txt >>> >>> >>> [6] https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >>> >>> * Other relevant links and information* IETF91 SAAG Agenda: >>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/agenda/agenda-91-saag IETF >>> 91 SAAG minutes: >>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/minutes/minutes-91-saag IETF >>> 91 SAAG audio recording: >>> http://www.ietf.org/audio/ietf91/ietf91-coral3-20141113-1300-pm1.mp3 >>> >>> Presentation starts at 40:15 >>> Presentation: >>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/slides/slides-91-saag-6.pdf >>> -- -- Joana Varon @joana_varon https://antivigilancia.org >>> Fingerprint 239D E977 32D0 28BC 297F 64B6 3B69 BDE4 016B 8E73 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ hrpc mailing >>> list hrpc@article19.io >>> https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >> >> -- Mallory Knodel Association for Progressive Communications :: >> apc.org gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 >> BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ hrpc mailing >> list hrpc@article19.io >> https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > > > > _______________________________________________ hrpc mailing list > hrpc@article19.io https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUwSimAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjp4OwH/1BOqBjWT60t+mSg9715yHVU SI3UIUXC/ygdAZXl1Xtv7jXkJHyOUcICVQHld6djk/wPr8e1QJat62FP+N/etGxc 591xAq6WD3ZZ0/3GG/GMecYTEuq/y/4+kiI4GxM2QxX1fO21O2w76+kXJIE3fWP5 oKQfqSyUccKMueJ5JVEkut9a5a2rvqfFYYPH8IgZywFqKQ80BonKbQfcLh8N/X39 A3ePsDiLA7sM6XR5y1FspaturqD8yiGpj7nLc2Sr3L9TcgZZXj856j8qnh/rChK2 PUsADohmLlr4kI4p9jyJrCbYmOY5RQQJuWkWH4dKwPGg9B5XuHeJW8BsPRjykPY= =ovUy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From avri@acm.org Fri Jan 23 14:22:58 2015 Received: from [10.10.12.45] (helo=mx2.greenhost.nl) by mailman.lan with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YEeCQ-00009n-Rh for hrpc@article19.io; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:22:58 +0100 Received: from atl4mhob02.myregisteredsite.com ([209.17.115.40]) by mx2.greenhost.nl with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YEeBD-0002qi-To for hrpc@article19.io; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:22:58 +0100 Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.207]) by atl4mhob02.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t0NDLeKF014450 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 08:21:40 -0500 Received: (qmail 28488 invoked by uid 0); 23 Jan 2015 13:21:40 -0000 X-TCPREMOTEIP: 68.15.42.104 X-Authenticated-UID: avri@ella.com Received: from unknown (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (avri@ella.com@68.15.42.104) by 0 with ESMTPA; 23 Jan 2015 13:21:40 -0000 Message-ID: <54C24AE3.1010508@acm.org> Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 08:21:39 -0500 From: Avri Doria User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Eggert, Lars" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000705030003060805000307" X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 150122-2, 01/22/2015), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested X-Spam-Level: + X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Score: 1.5 X-Virus-Scanned: by Greenhost Virus Scanner X-Scan-Signature: cd688a2151aac0590452c2fa0bd26a10 Cc: hrpc@article19.io, Kathleen Moriarty Subject: [hrpc] Request to session IRTF slot in Dallas for Human Rights and Protocol Consideration X-BeenThere: hrpc@article19.io X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Human Rights Protocol Consideration Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 13:22:59 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------000705030003060805000307 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, I don't know whether it is a BoF or there is some other designation for an IRTF session for a 'RG in possible formation.' In any case, following up on the interest in the SAAG session, and afterwards, we (Joana, Niels and I) would like to request such a session. At the end of the requested session, the goal would be to discuss the formation of a RG. But we would like to make it substantive and include the following discussion items: 1) Continue the discussion on the interrelation between protocols, architectures and rights 2) Enable broad community engagement in this discussion as was discussed in Hawaii. 3) Allow this discussion to happen before politicization related to human rights and the Internet occurs. A major premise of our research goals is future-proofing protocols in relation to their effect on human rights. If we can discover a reliable set of considerations, we may avoid needing to fix as many protocols retroactively going forward. We believe that our goal, consistent with RFC1958, is for the Internet to continue to serve as a tool enabling connectivity among all people. Attacks on the Internet's ability to do this are increasing and worrisome. I think we could use a full session for the discussion, but one of the shorter slots would probably work. Lars, please let us know of any specific information you need or specific steps you would like us to take in following up on this request.= We would also be intersted in hearing from the list as to other things that might be worth adding to the such a discussion so that we can adjust the proposed 'agenda' to suit. Optimally we can evolve from the 3 of us trying to get this going to a group working on moving it forward.=20 But time was getting late for requesting a slot and we felt we needed to get this moving. Thanks avri with Joana and Niels --------------000705030003060805000307 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by atl4mhob02.myregisteredsite.com id t0NDLeKF014450 Hi,

I don't know whether it is a BoF or there is some other designation for an IRTF session for a 'RG in possible formation.'=C2= =A0 In any case, following up on the interest in the SAAG session, and afterwards, we (Joana, Niels and I) would like to request such a session.

At the end of the requested session, the goal would be to discuss the formation of a RG.=C2=A0 But we would like to make it substanti= ve and include the following discussion items:

1) Continue the discussio= n on the interrelation between protocols, architectures and rights

2) Enable broad community engagement in this discussion as was discussed in Hawaii.

3) Allow this discussion to happen before politicization related to human rights and the Internet occurs.

A major premise of our research goals is future-proofing protocols in relation to their effect on human rights. If we can discover a reliable set of considerations, we may avoid needing to fix as many protocols retroactively going forward. We believe that our goal, consistent with RFC1958, is for the Internet to continue to serve as a tool enabling connectivity among all people. Attacks on the Internet's ability to do this are increasing and worrisome.

I think we could use a full session for the discussion, but one of the shorter slots would probably work.

Lars, please let us know of any specific information you need or specific steps you would like us to take in following up on this request.

We would also be intersted in hearing from the list as to other things that might be worth adding to the such a discussion so that we can adjust the proposed 'agenda' to suit. Optimally we can evolve from the 3 of us trying to get this going to a group working on moving it forward.=C2=A0 But time was getting late for requesting a slot and we felt we needed to get this moving.

Thanks

avri
with Joana and Niels
 --------------000705030003060805000307-- From avri@acm.org Fri Jan 23 14:58:36 2015 Received: from mx1.lan ([10.10.12.44] helo=mx1.greenhost.nl) by mailman.lan with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YEeku-0000Cw-2n for hrpc@article19.io; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:58:36 +0100 Received: from atl4mhob02.myregisteredsite.com ([209.17.115.40]) by mx1.greenhost.nl with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YEeki-0003OZ-2u for hrpc@article19.io; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:58:36 +0100 Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.210]) by atl4mhob02.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t0NDwKM6024721 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 08:58:20 -0500 Received: (qmail 27734 invoked by uid 0); 23 Jan 2015 13:58:20 -0000 X-TCPREMOTEIP: 68.15.42.104 X-Authenticated-UID: avri@ella.com Received: from unknown (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (avri@ella.com@68.15.42.104) by 0 with ESMTPA; 23 Jan 2015 13:58:19 -0000 Message-ID: <54C2537A.2010803@acm.org> Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 08:58:18 -0500 From: Avri Doria User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Eggert, Lars" References: <54C24AE3.1010508@acm.org> <9B2D62E6-8B59-4CBC-8F55-8BC2F6B6E5A8@netapp.com> In-Reply-To: <9B2D62E6-8B59-4CBC-8F55-8BC2F6B6E5A8@netapp.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080404070601000704060800" X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 150122-2, 01/22/2015), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested X-Spam-Level: + X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Score: 1.5 X-Virus-Scanned: by Greenhost Virus Scanner X-Scan-Signature: 3a195eeb8bac4edf9758d037a4331094 Cc: "hrpc@article19.io" , Kathleen Moriarty Subject: Re: [hrpc] Request to session IRTF slot in Dallas for Human Rights and Protocol Consideration X-BeenThere: hrpc@article19.io X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Human Rights Protocol Consideration Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 13:58:36 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080404070601000704060800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 =20 Hi, Thanks for the really fast response. I really appreciate the approach you take on 'proposed RG's, and really did not want to have to work on a charter just yet. My first approach at answers regarding the session. * what kind of meeting do you want to hold in Dallas (on the agenda, or o= ff) On the agenda, as I think it would be good to reach out to other who might be interested. I think a 90 minute slot would be good for this first session. I have personal conflict I would like to avoid in scheduling, the IANA transiton subject. Additionally we should avoid conflict with the SAAG meeting as there is where we found many interested in the discussion at the last meeting and any meetings dealing with privacy consideration issues. We can build a conflict list over the next days if people need to add some. * do you have a mailing list? Yes, hrpc@article19.io * do you have a group of people with energy to make the group successful?= Not sure yet. There are at least 3 of us committed to the work and a bunch of others who have shown interest. There appeared to be interest in continuing the discussion at the SAAG meeting, but it is still early to know. What I do believe is that we need to continue the approach that started there and see if we can build something. * do you have some description of the group? (below is an OK start) I would use this as a start. A major premise of our research goals is future-proofing protocols in relation to their effect on human rights. If we can discover a reliable set of considerations, we may avoid needing to fix as many protocols retroactively going forward. We believe that our goal, consistent with RFC1958, is for the Internet to continue to serve as a tool enabling connectivity among all people. Attacks on the Internet's ability to do this are increasing and worrisome. Some of the topics we want to discuss: 1) Continue the discussion on the interrelation between protocols, architectures and rights 2) Enable broad community engagement in this discussion as was discussed in Hawaii. 3) Allow this discussion to happen before politicization related to human rights and the Internet occurs. 4) Discuss methods for doing the work. Thanks avri On 23-Jan-15 08:31, Eggert, Lars wrote: > Hi, > > On 2015-1-23, at 14:21, Avri Doria wrote: >> I don't know whether it is a BoF or there is some other designation for an IRTF session for a 'RG in possible formation.' In any case, following up on the interest in the SAAG session, and afterwards, we (Joana, Niels and I) would like to request such a session. > > I'm happy to have that discussion. I do note that we will need to conclude this in the next few days, because scheduling for rooms for Dallas will begin. > >> At the end of the requested session, the goal would be to discuss the formation of a RG. > > That's not quite how I handle this in the IRTF. For folks that come with an idea for a new RG, I'm willing to give them meeting rooms at IETF meetings for a year, and (if they like) have the meeting listed on the agenda as a "proposed RG" meeting. (It is also possible to have some of these meetings off the agenda, i.e., with invitations handled by the proponents of the group.) The instructions to the proponents are basically "go and pretend you are an RG", in other words, invite the people you want to invite, have the discussions you want to have and don't worry about the charter text. > > After that year has passed, I sit down with the proponents, the IRSG and IAB and we discuss if the proposed group is off to a good start. > > The reason I'm doing it this way is that I've seen to many new RGs in the past focus on charter text, get it perfect and then die on the starting line because of lack of energy or lack of community building by the proponents. So I've decided to front-load that, and fine tune the charter afterwards. > > Of course you will need some sort of text to explain the group to new people, so they can determine if it's for them, but it doesn't need to be as formal as a charter. > > So: > > * what kind of meeting do you want to hold in Dallas (on the agenda, or off) > > * do you have a mailing list? > > * do you have a group of people with energy to make the group successfu= l? > > * do you have some description of the group? (below is an OK start) > > >> But we would like to make it substantive and include the following discussion items: >> >> 1) Continue the discussion on the interrelation between protocols, architectures and rights >> >> 2) Enable broad community engagement in this discussion as was discussed in Hawaii. >> >> 3) Allow this discussion to happen before politicization related to human rights and the Internet occurs. >> >> A major premise of our research goals is future-proofing protocols in relation to their effect on human rights. If we can discover a reliable set of considerations, we may avoid needing to fix as many protocols retroactively going forward. We believe that our goal, consistent with RFC1958, is for the Internet to continue to serve as a tool enabling connectivity among all people. Attacks on the Internet's ability to do this are increasing and worrisome. >> >> I think we could use a full session for the discussion, but one of the shorter slots would probably work. > > If you want an "on the agenda" meeting, you need to determine how many hours it should be (1h, 1.5h, 2h, 2.5h) and you need to determine your list of conflicts with other RGs and WGs. > > If you want an "off the agenda" meeting, those are not scheduled in parallel to WG and RG sessions, so it would need to be breakfast, lunch or evening time. > >> Lars, please let us know of any specific information you need or specific steps you would like us to take in following up on this request.= > > See above. > >> We would also be intersted in hearing from the list as to other things that might be worth adding to the such a discussion so that we can adjust the proposed 'agenda' to suit. Optimally we can evolve from the 3 of us trying to get this going to a group working on moving it forward. But time was getting late for requesting a slot and we felt we needed to get this moving. > > Heads up: I may not make it to Dallas for personal reasons. I should know for sure in a few weeks. But since we're not deciding on the formal chartering of the group in Dallas, that's OK. I will be able to go to your future meetings. > > Lars > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) =20 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUwlN5AAoJEOo+L8tCe36HxhIIAJ/7D9whDcXOb29m2jCMAODJ 1ISwRBuMydLshS2ZlqiwMs5v9uU4vxk0fKC5o2X08EJ95yTwNtZ11I2Pj8Vt8w4d hiXvKbSW+7N0W2SncuVcf69HjMcsCzXh8n0QAwW99efqtSuYBhLstFfZzMKia2CF q0gRqTUqY7wwv+tAgv9M8GhFnMmUH/3UKz5eceOG7Dli3urAbasUFkObNIkhYH5x /GFIFj8UDyY0Jkw/xEvVMesQaoqERMe5+5A9oF53aYhJ/QT0C5J1O6sDsB9gvjNK ijNSjocbKWpNKywdH8+l1wx+dR/6Sw7eDW1RBtAQFyz83Go8yGp0ivqin/iu9lo=3D =3DT48r -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------080404070601000704060800 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by atl4mhob02.myregisteredsite.com id t0NDwKM6024721
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
=A0
Hi,

Thanks for the really fast response.=A0 I really appreciate the approach you take on 'proposed RG's, and really did not want to have to work on a charter just yet.

My first approach at answers regarding the session.

* what kind of meeting do you want to hold in Dallas (on the agenda, or off)

On the agenda, as I think it would be good to reach out to other who might be interested.

I think a 90 minute slot would be good for this first session.

I have personal conflict I would like to avoid in scheduling, the IANA transiton subject.=A0 Additionally we should avoid conflict with the SAAG meeting as there is where we found many interested in the discussion at the last meeting and any meetings dealing with privacy consideration issues.=A0 We can build a conflict list over the next days if people need to add some.

* do you have a mailing list?

Yes, hrpc@article19.io <hrpc@article19.io>

* do you have a group of people with energy to make the group successful?

Not sure yet.=A0 There are at least 3 of us committed to the work and a bunch of others who have shown interest.=A0 There appeared to be interest in continuing the discussion at the SAAG meeting, but it is still early to know.=A0 What I do believe is that we need to continue the approach that started there and see if we can build something.
* do you have some description of the group? (below is an OK start)
I would use this=A0 as a start.

A major premise of our research goals is future-proofing protocols in relation to their effect on human rights. If we can discover a reliable set of considerations, we may avoid needing to fix as many protocols retroactively going forward. We believe that our goal, consistent with RFC1958, is for the Internet to continue to serve as a tool enabling connectivity among all people. Attacks on the Internet's ability to do this are increasing and worrisome.

Some of the topics we want to discuss:

1) Continue the discussion on the interrelation between protocols, architectures and rights

2) Enable broad community engagement in this discussion as was discussed in Hawaii.

3) Allow this discussion to happen before politicization related to human rights and the Internet occurs.

4) Discuss methods for doing the work.

Thanks

avri


On 23-Jan-15 08:31, Eggert, Lars wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2015-1-23, at 14:21, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
>> I don't know whether it is a BoF or there is some other designation for an IRTF session for a 'RG in possible formation.'=A0 In any case, following up on the interest in the SAAG session, and afterwards, we (Joana, Niels and I) would like to request such a session.
>
> I'm happy to have that discussion. I do note that we will need to conclude this in the next few days, because scheduling for rooms for Dallas will begin.
>
>> At the end of the requested session, the goal would be to discuss the formation of a RG.
>
> That's not quite how I handle this in the IRTF. For folks that come with an idea for a new RG, I'm willing to give them meeting rooms at IETF meetings for a year, and (if they like) have the meeting listed on the agenda as a "proposed RG" meeting. (It is also possible to have some of these meetings off the agenda, i.e., with invitations handled by the proponents of the group.) The instructions to the proponents are basically "go and pretend you are an RG", in other words, invite the people you want to invite, have the discussions you want to have and don't worry about the charter text.
>
> After that year has passed, I sit down with the proponents, the IRSG and IAB and we discuss if the proposed group is off to a good start.
>
> The reason I'm doing it this way is that I've seen to many new RGs in the past focus on charter text, get it perfect and then die on the starting line because of lack of energy or lack of community building by the proponents. So I've decided to front-load that, and fine tune the charter afterwards.
>
> Of course you will need some sort of text to explain the group to new people, so they can determine if it's for them, but it doesn't need to be as formal as a charter.
>
> So:
>
> * what kind of meeting do you want to hold in Dallas (on the agenda, or off)
>
> * do you have a mailing list?
>
> * do you have a group of people with energy to make the group successful?
>
> * do you have some description of the group? (below is an OK start)
>
>
>>=A0 But we would like to make it substantive and include th= e following discussion items:
>>
>> 1) Continue the discussion on the interrelation between protocols, architectures and rights
>>
>> 2) Enable broad community engagement in this discussion as was discussed in Hawaii.
>>
>> 3) Allow this discussion to happen before politicization related to human rights and the Internet occurs.
>>
>> A major premise of our research goals is future-proofing protocols in relation to their effect on human rights. If we can discover a reliable set of considerations, we may avoid needing to fix as many protocols retroactively going forward. We believe that our goal, consistent with RFC1958, is for the Internet to continue to serve as a tool enabling connectivity among all people. Attacks on the Internet's ability to do this are increasing and worrisome.<= br> >>
>> I think we could use a full session for the discussion, but one of the shorter slots would probably work.
>
> If you want an "on the agenda" meeting, you need to determine how many hours it should be (1h, 1.5h, 2h, 2.5h) and you need to determine your list of conflicts with other RGs and WGs.
>
> If you want an "off the agenda" meeting, those are not scheduled in parallel to WG and RG sessions, so it would need to be breakfast, lunch or evening time.
>
>> Lars, please let us know of any specific information you need or specific steps you would like us to take in following up on this request.
>
> See above.
>
>> We would also be intersted in hearing from the list as to other things that might be worth adding to the such a discussion so that we can adjust the proposed 'agenda' to suit. Optimally we can evolve from the 3 of us trying to get this going to a group working on moving it forward.=A0 But time was getting late for requesting a slot and we felt we needed to get this moving.
>
> Heads up: I may not make it to Dallas for personal reasons. I should know for sure in a few weeks. But since we're not deciding on the formal chartering of the group in Dallas, that's OK. I will be able to go to your future meetings.
>
> Lars
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
=A0
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUwlN5AAoJEOo+L8tCe36HxhIIAJ/7D9whDcXOb29m2jCMAODJ
1ISwRBuMydLshS2ZlqiwMs5v9uU4vxk0fKC5o2X08EJ95yTwNtZ11I2Pj8Vt8w4d
hiXvKbSW+7N0W2SncuVcf69HjMcsCzXh8n0QAwW99efqtSuYBhLstFfZzMKia2CF
q0gRqTUqY7wwv+tAgv9M8GhFnMmUH/3UKz5eceOG7Dli3urAbasUFkObNIkhYH5x
/GFIFj8UDyY0Jkw/xEvVMesQaoqERMe5+5A9oF53aYhJ/QT0C5J1O6sDsB9gvjNK
ijNSjocbKWpNKywdH8+l1wx+dR/6Sw7eDW1RBtAQFyz83Go8yGp0ivqin/iu9lo=3D
=3DT48r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------080404070601000704060800-- From lars@netapp.com Fri Jan 23 14:32:52 2015 Received: from [10.10.12.45] (helo=mx2.greenhost.nl) by mailman.lan with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YEeM0-0000Ap-SC for hrpc@article19.io; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:32:52 +0100 Received: from mx142.netapp.com ([216.240.21.19]) by mx2.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YEeL9-00039e-9S for hrpc@article19.io; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:32:52 +0100 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,453,1418112000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="16346581" Received: from hioexcmbx08-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.122.105.41]) by mx142-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 23 Jan 2015 05:31:55 -0800 Received: from HIOEXCMBX07-PRD.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.40) by hioexcmbx08-prd.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.29; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 05:31:55 -0800 Received: from HIOEXCMBX07-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([::1]) by hioexcmbx07-prd.hq.netapp.com ([fe80::d8c:be2b:9e16:f915%21]) with mapi id 15.00.0995.031; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 05:31:55 -0800 From: "Eggert, Lars" To: Avri Doria Thread-Topic: Request to session IRTF slot in Dallas for Human Rights and Protocol Consideration Thread-Index: AQHQNw+Lbi/pjRLIh0izuhYIBsonqpzOOeQA Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 13:31:54 +0000 Message-ID: <9B2D62E6-8B59-4CBC-8F55-8BC2F6B6E5A8@netapp.com> References: <54C24AE3.1010508@acm.org> In-Reply-To: <54C24AE3.1010508@acm.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.4) x-originating-ip: [10.122.56.79] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4B15F533-E4EB-4728-A6FE-0B08382BBC11"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Level: ---- X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_PASS, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Score: -4.3 X-Virus-Scanned: by Greenhost Virus Scanner X-Scan-Signature: 8c99c374a8d12108ecfc332d37a9628a X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:16:29 +0100 Cc: "hrpc@article19.io" , Kathleen Moriarty Subject: Re: [hrpc] Request to session IRTF slot in Dallas for Human Rights and Protocol Consideration X-BeenThere: hrpc@article19.io X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Human Rights Protocol Consideration Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 13:32:53 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_4B15F533-E4EB-4728-A6FE-0B08382BBC11 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi, On 2015-1-23, at 14:21, Avri Doria wrote: > I don't know whether it is a BoF or there is some other designation = for an IRTF session for a 'RG in possible formation.' In any case, = following up on the interest in the SAAG session, and afterwards, we = (Joana, Niels and I) would like to request such a session. I'm happy to have that discussion. I do note that we will need to = conclude this in the next few days, because scheduling for rooms for = Dallas will begin. > At the end of the requested session, the goal would be to discuss the = formation of a RG. That's not quite how I handle this in the IRTF. For folks that come with = an idea for a new RG, I'm willing to give them meeting rooms at IETF = meetings for a year, and (if they like) have the meeting listed on the = agenda as a "proposed RG" meeting. (It is also possible to have some of = these meetings off the agenda, i.e., with invitations handled by the = proponents of the group.) The instructions to the proponents are = basically "go and pretend you are an RG", in other words, invite the = people you want to invite, have the discussions you want to have and = don't worry about the charter text. After that year has passed, I sit down with the proponents, the IRSG and = IAB and we discuss if the proposed group is off to a good start. The reason I'm doing it this way is that I've seen to many new RGs in = the past focus on charter text, get it perfect and then die on the = starting line because of lack of energy or lack of community building by = the proponents. So I've decided to front-load that, and fine tune the = charter afterwards. Of course you will need some sort of text to explain the group to new = people, so they can determine if it's for them, but it doesn't need to = be as formal as a charter. So: * what kind of meeting do you want to hold in Dallas (on the agenda, or = off) * do you have a mailing list? * do you have a group of people with energy to make the group = successful? * do you have some description of the group? (below is an OK start) > But we would like to make it substantive and include the following = discussion items: >=20 > 1) Continue the discussion on the interrelation between protocols, = architectures and rights >=20 > 2) Enable broad community engagement in this discussion as was = discussed in Hawaii. >=20 > 3) Allow this discussion to happen before politicization related to = human rights and the Internet occurs. >=20 > A major premise of our research goals is future-proofing protocols in = relation to their effect on human rights. If we can discover a reliable = set of considerations, we may avoid needing to fix as many protocols = retroactively going forward. We believe that our goal, consistent with = RFC1958, is for the Internet to continue to serve as a tool enabling = connectivity among all people. Attacks on the Internet's ability to do = this are increasing and worrisome. >=20 > I think we could use a full session for the discussion, but one of the = shorter slots would probably work. If you want an "on the agenda" meeting, you need to determine how many = hours it should be (1h, 1.5h, 2h, 2.5h) and you need to determine your = list of conflicts with other RGs and WGs. If you want an "off the agenda" meeting, those are not scheduled in = parallel to WG and RG sessions, so it would need to be breakfast, lunch = or evening time. > Lars, please let us know of any specific information you need or = specific steps you would like us to take in following up on this = request. See above. > We would also be intersted in hearing from the list as to other things = that might be worth adding to the such a discussion so that we can = adjust the proposed 'agenda' to suit. Optimally we can evolve from the 3 = of us trying to get this going to a group working on moving it forward. = But time was getting late for requesting a slot and we felt we needed to = get this moving. Heads up: I may not make it to Dallas for personal reasons. I should = know for sure in a few weeks. But since we're not deciding on the formal = chartering of the group in Dallas, that's OK. I will be able to go to = your future meetings. Lars --Apple-Mail=_4B15F533-E4EB-4728-A6FE-0B08382BBC11 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQCVAwUBVMJNStZcnpRveo1xAQITwQP/cp8y+KZUu1lwkUi5uqByaTBIygoaXN/J 9D9iy8oJbasUAHxcs3FuVi+4BKFhgTFzmJHlhmI7V9ry3ejvuum92ACOayDQLr6j d5u36tGKNrOQnT8WjwkIE9bXPLBmc6U4/dXJVmNeza4eEP48lVHO7I1YJLKATJYF qbWkMhB/yPs= =aeV8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_4B15F533-E4EB-4728-A6FE-0B08382BBC11-- From lars@netapp.com Fri Jan 23 15:26:14 2015 Received: from mx1.lan ([10.10.12.44] helo=mx1.greenhost.nl) by mailman.lan with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YEfBe-0000GJ-JW for hrpc@article19.io; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:26:14 +0100 Received: from mx143.netapp.com ([216.240.21.24]) by mx1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YEfB8-0004TR-JE for hrpc@article19.io; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:26:14 +0100 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,454,1418112000"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="16971100" Received: from hioexcmbx04-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.122.105.37]) by mx143-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 23 Jan 2015 06:25:40 -0800 Received: from HIOEXCMBX07-PRD.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.40) by hioexcmbx04-prd.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.29; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 06:25:39 -0800 Received: from HIOEXCMBX07-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([::1]) by hioexcmbx07-prd.hq.netapp.com ([fe80::d8c:be2b:9e16:f915%21]) with mapi id 15.00.0995.031; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 06:25:39 -0800 From: "Eggert, Lars" To: Avri Doria Thread-Topic: Request to session IRTF slot in Dallas for Human Rights and Protocol Consideration Thread-Index: AQHQNw+Lbi/pjRLIh0izuhYIBsonqpzOOeQAgAAHYACAAAehAA== Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:25:39 +0000 Message-ID: References: <54C24AE3.1010508@acm.org> <9B2D62E6-8B59-4CBC-8F55-8BC2F6B6E5A8@netapp.com> <54C2537A.2010803@acm.org> In-Reply-To: <54C2537A.2010803@acm.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.4) x-originating-ip: [10.122.56.79] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B7C82F61-40C2-4ACC-B7FC-21DCC7A2ABD0"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Level: ---- X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_PASS, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Score: -4.3 X-Virus-Scanned: by Greenhost Virus Scanner X-Scan-Signature: 9318004691e4a668603df0d3bd1fe54e Cc: "hrpc@article19.io" , Kathleen Moriarty Subject: Re: [hrpc] Request to session IRTF slot in Dallas for Human Rights and Protocol Consideration X-BeenThere: hrpc@article19.io X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Human Rights Protocol Consideration Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:26:15 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_B7C82F61-40C2-4ACC-B7FC-21DCC7A2ABD0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_65A60C89-89AE-45A6-98A9-E2634E0C5C1F" --Apple-Mail=_65A60C89-89AE-45A6-98A9-E2634E0C5C1F Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Hi Avri, in order for me to set this up in the datatracker (so you can request a = session), please send me this information: * group name * group acronym * chairs other than you * how to subscribe to the list (URL) * any other URLs for the proposed group Lars On 2015-1-23, at 14:58, Avri Doria wrote: >=20 >=20 > Signed PGP part > Hi, >=20 > Thanks for the really fast response. I really appreciate the approach > you take on 'proposed RG's, and really did not want to have to work on = a > charter just yet. >=20 > My first approach at answers regarding the session. >=20 > * what kind of meeting do you want to hold in Dallas (on the agenda, = or off) >=20 > On the agenda, as I think it would be good to reach out to other who > might be interested. >=20 > I think a 90 minute slot would be good for this first session. >=20 > I have personal conflict I would like to avoid in scheduling, the IANA > transiton subject. Additionally we should avoid conflict with the = SAAG > meeting as there is where we found many interested in the discussion = at > the last meeting and any meetings dealing with privacy consideration > issues. We can build a conflict list over the next days if people = need > to add some. >=20 > * do you have a mailing list? >=20 > Yes, hrpc@article19.io > >=20 > * do you have a group of people with energy to make the group = successful? >=20 > Not sure yet. There are at least 3 of us committed to the work and a > bunch of others who have shown interest. There appeared to be = interest > in continuing the discussion at the SAAG meeting, but it is still = early > to know. What I do believe is that we need to continue the approach > that started there and see if we can build something. >=20 > * do you have some description of the group? (below is an OK start) >=20 > I would use this as a start. >=20 > A major premise of our research goals is future-proofing protocols in > relation to their effect on human rights. If we can discover a = reliable > set of considerations, we may avoid needing to fix as many protocols > retroactively going forward. We believe that our goal, consistent with > RFC1958, is for the Internet to continue to serve as a tool enabling > connectivity among all people. Attacks on the Internet's ability to do > this are increasing and worrisome. >=20 > Some of the topics we want to discuss: >=20 > 1) Continue the discussion on the interrelation between protocols, > architectures and rights >=20 > 2) Enable broad community engagement in this discussion as was = discussed > in Hawaii. >=20 > 3) Allow this discussion to happen before politicization related to > human rights and the Internet occurs. >=20 > 4) Discuss methods for doing the work. >=20 > Thanks >=20 > avri >=20 >=20 > On 23-Jan-15 08:31, Eggert, Lars wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 2015-1-23, at 14:21, Avri Doria > wrote: > >> I don't know whether it is a BoF or there is some other designation > for an IRTF session for a 'RG in possible formation.' In any case, > following up on the interest in the SAAG session, and afterwards, we > (Joana, Niels and I) would like to request such a session. > > > > I'm happy to have that discussion. I do note that we will need to > conclude this in the next few days, because scheduling for rooms for > Dallas will begin. > > > >> At the end of the requested session, the goal would be to discuss = the > formation of a RG. > > > > That's not quite how I handle this in the IRTF. For folks that come > with an idea for a new RG, I'm willing to give them meeting rooms at > IETF meetings for a year, and (if they like) have the meeting listed = on > the agenda as a "proposed RG" meeting. (It is also possible to have = some > of these meetings off the agenda, i.e., with invitations handled by = the > proponents of the group.) The instructions to the proponents are > basically "go and pretend you are an RG", in other words, invite the > people you want to invite, have the discussions you want to have and > don't worry about the charter text. > > > > After that year has passed, I sit down with the proponents, the IRSG > and IAB and we discuss if the proposed group is off to a good start. > > > > The reason I'm doing it this way is that I've seen to many new RGs = in > the past focus on charter text, get it perfect and then die on the > starting line because of lack of energy or lack of community building = by > the proponents. So I've decided to front-load that, and fine tune the > charter afterwards. > > > > Of course you will need some sort of text to explain the group to = new > people, so they can determine if it's for them, but it doesn't need to > be as formal as a charter. > > > > So: > > > > * what kind of meeting do you want to hold in Dallas (on the agenda, > or off) > > > > * do you have a mailing list? > > > > * do you have a group of people with energy to make the group = successful? > > > > * do you have some description of the group? (below is an OK start) > > > > > >> But we would like to make it substantive and include the following > discussion items: > >> > >> 1) Continue the discussion on the interrelation between protocols, > architectures and rights > >> > >> 2) Enable broad community engagement in this discussion as was > discussed in Hawaii. > >> > >> 3) Allow this discussion to happen before politicization related to > human rights and the Internet occurs. > >> > >> A major premise of our research goals is future-proofing protocols = in > relation to their effect on human rights. If we can discover a = reliable > set of considerations, we may avoid needing to fix as many protocols > retroactively going forward. We believe that our goal, consistent with > RFC1958, is for the Internet to continue to serve as a tool enabling > connectivity among all people. Attacks on the Internet's ability to do > this are increasing and worrisome. > >> > >> I think we could use a full session for the discussion, but one of > the shorter slots would probably work. > > > > If you want an "on the agenda" meeting, you need to determine how = many > hours it should be (1h, 1.5h, 2h, 2.5h) and you need to determine your > list of conflicts with other RGs and WGs. > > > > If you want an "off the agenda" meeting, those are not scheduled in > parallel to WG and RG sessions, so it would need to be breakfast, = lunch > or evening time. > > > >> Lars, please let us know of any specific information you need or > specific steps you would like us to take in following up on this = request. > > > > See above. > > > >> We would also be intersted in hearing from the list as to other > things that might be worth adding to the such a discussion so that we > can adjust the proposed 'agenda' to suit. Optimally we can evolve from > the 3 of us trying to get this going to a group working on moving it > forward. But time was getting late for requesting a slot and we felt = we > needed to get this moving. > > > > Heads up: I may not make it to Dallas for personal reasons. I should > know for sure in a few weeks. But since we're not deciding on the = formal > chartering of the group in Dallas, that's OK. I will be able to go to > your future meetings. > > > > Lars > > --Apple-Mail=_65A60C89-89AE-45A6-98A9-E2634E0C5C1F Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Hi Avri,

in= order for me to set this up in the datatracker (so you can request a = session), please send me this information:

* group name
* = group acronym
* chairs other than you
* how to subscribe to the list (URL)
* = any other URLs for the proposed group

Lars


On = 2015-1-23, at 14:58, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:


Signed PGP part
Hi,

Thanks for the really = fast response.  I really appreciate the = approach
you take on 'proposed RG's, and really did not = want to have to work on a
charter just yet.

My first approach at answers regarding the = session.

* what kind of meeting do you want = to hold in Dallas (on the agenda, or off)

On = the agenda, as I think it would be good to reach out to other who
might be interested.

I think a = 90 minute slot would be good for this first session.

I have personal conflict I would like to avoid in scheduling, = the IANA
transiton subject.  Additionally we should = avoid conflict with the SAAG
meeting as there is where we = found many interested in the discussion at
the last = meeting and any meetings dealing with privacy consideration
issues.  We can build a conflict = list over the next days if people need
to add some.

* do you have a mailing list?

Yes, hrpc@article19.io <hrpc@article19.io>

* do you have a group of people with energy to = make the group successful?

Not sure = yet.  There are at least 3 of us = committed to the work and a
bunch of others who have shown = interest.  There appeared to be = interest
in continuing the discussion at the SAAG meeting, = but it is still early
to know.  What I do believe is that = we need to continue the approach
that started there and = see if we can build something.

* do you = have some description of the group? (below is an OK start)

I would use this  as a start.
A major premise of our research goals is future-proofing = protocols in
relation to their effect on human rights. If = we can discover a reliable
set of considerations, we may = avoid needing to fix as many protocols
retroactively going = forward. We believe that our goal, consistent with
RFC1958, = is for the Internet to continue to serve as a tool enabling
connectivity among all people. Attacks on the Internet's = ability to do
this are increasing and worrisome.

Some of the topics we want to discuss:

1) Continue the discussion on the = interrelation between protocols,
architectures and = rights

2) Enable broad community engagement = in this discussion as was discussed
in Hawaii.

3) Allow this discussion to happen before = politicization related to
human rights and the Internet = occurs.

4) Discuss methods for doing the = work.

Thanks

avri


On 23-Jan-15 = 08:31, Eggert, Lars wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On = 2015-1-23, at 14:21, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
>> I = don't know whether it is a BoF or there is some other designation
for an IRTF session for a 'RG in possible formation.'  In any case,
following up on the interest in the SAAG session, and = afterwards, we
(Joana, Niels and I) would like to request = such a session.
>
> I'm happy to have that = discussion. I do note that we will need to
conclude this = in the next few days, because scheduling for rooms for
Dallas will begin.
>
>> At = the end of the requested session, the goal would be to discuss the
formation of a RG.
>
> That's not quite how I = handle this in the IRTF. For folks that come
with an idea = for a new RG, I'm willing to give them meeting rooms at
IETF= meetings for a year, and (if they like) have the meeting listed on
the agenda as a "proposed RG" meeting. (It is also possible = to have some
of these meetings off the agenda, i.e., with = invitations handled by the
proponents of the group.) The = instructions to the proponents are
basically "go and = pretend you are an RG", in other words, invite the
people = you want to invite, have the discussions you want to have and
don't worry about the charter text.
>
> After = that year has passed, I sit down with the proponents, the IRSG
and IAB and we discuss if the proposed group is off to a good = start.
>
> The reason I'm doing it = this way is that I've seen to many new RGs in
the past = focus on charter text, get it perfect and then die on the
starting line because of lack of energy or lack of community = building by
the proponents. So I've decided to front-load = that, and fine tune the
charter afterwards.
>
> Of course you will need = some sort of text to explain the group to new
people, so = they can determine if it's for them, but it doesn't need to
be as formal as a charter.
>
> So:
>
> * what kind of meeting do = you want to hold in Dallas (on the agenda,
or off)
>
> * do you have a mailing = list?
>
> * do you have a group of = people with energy to make the group successful?
>
> * do = you have some description of the group? (below is an OK start)
>
>
>>  But we would like to make = it substantive and include the following
discussion = items:
>>
>> 1) Continue the discussion = on the interrelation between protocols,
architectures and = rights
>>
>> 2) Enable broad community = engagement in this discussion as was
discussed in = Hawaii.
>>
>> 3) Allow this discussion to = happen before politicization related to
human rights and = the Internet occurs.
>>
>> A major premise of our = research goals is future-proofing protocols in
relation to = their effect on human rights. If we can discover a reliable
set of considerations, we may avoid needing to fix as many = protocols
retroactively going forward. We believe that our = goal, consistent with
RFC1958, is for the Internet to = continue to serve as a tool enabling
connectivity among = all people. Attacks on the Internet's ability to do
this = are increasing and worrisome.
>>
>> I = think we could use a full session for the discussion, but one of
the shorter slots would probably work.
>
> If you = want an "on the agenda" meeting, you need to determine how many
hours it should be (1h, 1.5h, 2h, 2.5h) and you need to = determine your
list of conflicts with other RGs and = WGs.
>
> If you want an "off the = agenda" meeting, those are not scheduled in
parallel to WG = and RG sessions, so it would need to be breakfast, lunch
or = evening time.
>
>> Lars, please let us know of = any specific information you need or
specific steps you = would like us to take in following up on this request.
>
> See above.
>
>> We would also be intersted = in hearing from the list as to other
things that might be = worth adding to the such a discussion so that we
can = adjust the proposed 'agenda' to suit. Optimally we can evolve from
the 3 of us trying to get this going to a group working on = moving it
forward.  But time was getting late = for requesting a slot and we felt we
needed to get this = moving.
>
> Heads up: I may not make it = to Dallas for personal reasons. I should
know for sure in = a few weeks. But since we're not deciding on the formal
chartering of the group in Dallas, that's OK. I will be able = to go to
your future meetings.
>
> Lars
>

= --Apple-Mail=_65A60C89-89AE-45A6-98A9-E2634E0C5C1F-- --Apple-Mail=_B7C82F61-40C2-4ACC-B7FC-21DCC7A2ABD0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQCVAwUBVMJZ4NZcnpRveo1xAQKcaAP/fvYeZCtd+QmJdV1Vee5OiTfaZ4Ua/4zb 0aD5Qf+tXpZRn+SinNSBIJ83AzzAjYFkGgbJvk7Let8b0m/1z8V4ZRE2n4S2973v xmaIc7ggfN5InCmz9td6fCzIirAG3bwscDoZ2Pq6WxfaUUkCwE6QujEITsSFUKdF bg7Cn5uJAsM= =xJre -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_B7C82F61-40C2-4ACC-B7FC-21DCC7A2ABD0-- From stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie Fri Jan 23 15:35:44 2015 Received: from [10.10.12.45] (helo=mx2.greenhost.nl) by mailman.lan with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YEfKp-0000Hy-Tn for hrpc@article19.io; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:35:43 +0100 Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([134.226.56.6]) by mx2.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YEfJy-0005aY-Ic for hrpc@article19.io; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:35:43 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 222D9BEF1; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:34:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZVA2UTSiwsq9; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:34:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [134.226.36.180] (stephen-think.dsg.cs.tcd.ie [134.226.36.180]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3C200BEAA; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:34:43 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <54C25C02.3020500@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:34:42 +0000 From: Stephen Farrell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Eggert, Lars" , Avri Doria References: <54C24AE3.1010508@acm.org> <9B2D62E6-8B59-4CBC-8F55-8BC2F6B6E5A8@netapp.com> <54C2537A.2010803@acm.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Level: / X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Score: 0.8 X-Virus-Scanned: by Greenhost Virus Scanner X-Scan-Signature: 4c6e9116b9ad1e3c2304ae6adbe1e50f Cc: "hrpc@article19.io" , Kathleen Moriarty Subject: Re: [hrpc] Request to session IRTF slot in Dallas for Human Rights and Protocol Consideration X-BeenThere: hrpc@article19.io X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Human Rights Protocol Consideration Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:35:44 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 23/01/15 14:25, Eggert, Lars wrote: > Hi Avri, > > in order for me to set this up in the datatracker (so you can > request a session), please send me this information: > > * group name * group acronym * chairs other than you * how to > subscribe to the list (URL) * any other URLs for the proposed > group There's an I-D isn't there? I'd include that URL too:-) S > > Lars > > > On 2015-1-23, at 14:58, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> >> Signed PGP part Hi, >> >> Thanks for the really fast response. I really appreciate the >> approach you take on 'proposed RG's, and really did not want to >> have to work on a charter just yet. >> >> My first approach at answers regarding the session. >> >> * what kind of meeting do you want to hold in Dallas (on the >> agenda, or off) >> >> On the agenda, as I think it would be good to reach out to other >> who might be interested. >> >> I think a 90 minute slot would be good for this first session. >> >> I have personal conflict I would like to avoid in scheduling, the >> IANA transiton subject. Additionally we should avoid conflict >> with the SAAG meeting as there is where we found many interested >> in the discussion at the last meeting and any meetings dealing >> with privacy consideration issues. We can build a conflict list >> over the next days if people need to add some. >> >> * do you have a mailing list? >> >> Yes, hrpc@article19.io >> > >> >> * do you have a group of people with energy to make the group >> successful? >> >> Not sure yet. There are at least 3 of us committed to the work >> and a bunch of others who have shown interest. There appeared to >> be interest in continuing the discussion at the SAAG meeting, but >> it is still early to know. What I do believe is that we need to >> continue the approach that started there and see if we can build >> something. >> >> * do you have some description of the group? (below is an OK >> start) >> >> I would use this as a start. >> >> A major premise of our research goals is future-proofing >> protocols in relation to their effect on human rights. If we can >> discover a reliable set of considerations, we may avoid needing >> to fix as many protocols retroactively going forward. We believe >> that our goal, consistent with RFC1958, is for the Internet to >> continue to serve as a tool enabling connectivity among all >> people. Attacks on the Internet's ability to do this are >> increasing and worrisome. >> >> Some of the topics we want to discuss: >> >> 1) Continue the discussion on the interrelation between >> protocols, architectures and rights >> >> 2) Enable broad community engagement in this discussion as was >> discussed in Hawaii. >> >> 3) Allow this discussion to happen before politicization related >> to human rights and the Internet occurs. >> >> 4) Discuss methods for doing the work. >> >> Thanks >> >> avri >> >> >> On 23-Jan-15 08:31, Eggert, Lars wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 2015-1-23, at 14:21, Avri Doria >> > wrote: >>>> I don't know whether it is a BoF or there is some other >>>> designation >> for an IRTF session for a 'RG in possible formation.' In any >> case, following up on the interest in the SAAG session, and >> afterwards, we (Joana, Niels and I) would like to request such a >> session. >>> >>> I'm happy to have that discussion. I do note that we will need >>> to >> conclude this in the next few days, because scheduling for rooms >> for Dallas will begin. >>> >>>> At the end of the requested session, the goal would be to >>>> discuss the >> formation of a RG. >>> >>> That's not quite how I handle this in the IRTF. For folks that >>> come >> with an idea for a new RG, I'm willing to give them meeting rooms >> at IETF meetings for a year, and (if they like) have the meeting >> listed on the agenda as a "proposed RG" meeting. (It is also >> possible to have some of these meetings off the agenda, i.e., >> with invitations handled by the proponents of the group.) The >> instructions to the proponents are basically "go and pretend you >> are an RG", in other words, invite the people you want to invite, >> have the discussions you want to have and don't worry about the >> charter text. >>> >>> After that year has passed, I sit down with the proponents, the >>> IRSG >> and IAB and we discuss if the proposed group is off to a good >> start. >>> >>> The reason I'm doing it this way is that I've seen to many new >>> RGs in >> the past focus on charter text, get it perfect and then die on >> the starting line because of lack of energy or lack of community >> building by the proponents. So I've decided to front-load that, >> and fine tune the charter afterwards. >>> >>> Of course you will need some sort of text to explain the group >>> to new >> people, so they can determine if it's for them, but it doesn't >> need to be as formal as a charter. >>> >>> So: >>> >>> * what kind of meeting do you want to hold in Dallas (on the >>> agenda, >> or off) >>> >>> * do you have a mailing list? >>> >>> * do you have a group of people with energy to make the group >>> successful? >>> >>> * do you have some description of the group? (below is an OK >>> start) >>> >>> >>>> But we would like to make it substantive and include the >>>> following >> discussion items: >>>> >>>> 1) Continue the discussion on the interrelation between >>>> protocols, >> architectures and rights >>>> >>>> 2) Enable broad community engagement in this discussion as >>>> was >> discussed in Hawaii. >>>> >>>> 3) Allow this discussion to happen before politicization >>>> related to >> human rights and the Internet occurs. >>>> >>>> A major premise of our research goals is future-proofing >>>> protocols in >> relation to their effect on human rights. If we can discover a >> reliable set of considerations, we may avoid needing to fix as >> many protocols retroactively going forward. We believe that our >> goal, consistent with RFC1958, is for the Internet to continue to >> serve as a tool enabling connectivity among all people. Attacks >> on the Internet's ability to do this are increasing and >> worrisome. >>>> >>>> I think we could use a full session for the discussion, but >>>> one of >> the shorter slots would probably work. >>> >>> If you want an "on the agenda" meeting, you need to determine >>> how many >> hours it should be (1h, 1.5h, 2h, 2.5h) and you need to determine >> your list of conflicts with other RGs and WGs. >>> >>> If you want an "off the agenda" meeting, those are not >>> scheduled in >> parallel to WG and RG sessions, so it would need to be breakfast, >> lunch or evening time. >>> >>>> Lars, please let us know of any specific information you need >>>> or >> specific steps you would like us to take in following up on this >> request. >>> >>> See above. >>> >>>> We would also be intersted in hearing from the list as to >>>> other >> things that might be worth adding to the such a discussion so >> that we can adjust the proposed 'agenda' to suit. Optimally we >> can evolve from the 3 of us trying to get this going to a group >> working on moving it forward. But time was getting late for >> requesting a slot and we felt we needed to get this moving. >>> >>> Heads up: I may not make it to Dallas for personal reasons. I >>> should >> know for sure in a few weeks. But since we're not deciding on the >> formal chartering of the group in Dallas, that's OK. I will be >> able to go to your future meetings. >>> >>> Lars >>> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUwlv+AAoJEC88hzaAX42iXyQH/0EblWb4DdVJzdnchZUl8t6Z OvUcrG3yLBQCEVvU4XaZBMweuGTl4iuhbg3nMnMDNyQI9A3QxXHly6jUcJQKElod ZPxi8D9TBJpOwlHhrVI85PSISHUudcoX+i2AyeDV5PAKctMNLmljp9NtJadalsrC HmN+h/BzOkrbeLu10hAZ1zMWhOPYmYdTGkLvnOeOIoAFEkvT97P292Abe8duuYRq CDcDGbPvSosD9pg8MksdpDtJhoOMc4hlelnIdcM3hbk7K6octAWNhhEXn1lNT3WI vuDdWspLZ4s7QRQcvrlVHeJlx4u6Z0pJlNhCPp9JsmOc2PTjOiVbec6j32cXEgs= =O1Bu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From niels@article19.org Fri Jan 23 16:03:24 2015 Received: from mx1.lan ([10.10.12.44] helo=mx1.greenhost.nl) by mailman.lan with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YEflb-0000M4-Tn for hrpc@article19.io; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 16:03:23 +0100 Received: from vps784.greenhost.nl ([213.108.108.114] helo=mail.article19.io) by mx1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YEflA-0005xj-K8 for hrpc@article19.io; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 16:03:23 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 555F419C00B for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:03:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 tagged_above=-10 required=6.6 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1, BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.article19.io ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.article19.io [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id aBwKYTjmXlXn; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:03:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B47D19C00A; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:03:35 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.article19.io Received: from mail.article19.io ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.article19.io [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id yKUoUkGzWPfE; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:03:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.200.131] (unknown [110.55.115.58]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A9FF019C007; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:03:31 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <54C26294.8080800@article19.org> Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:02:44 +0000 From: Niels ten Oever User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Eggert, Lars" , Avri Doria References: <54C24AE3.1010508@acm.org> <9B2D62E6-8B59-4CBC-8F55-8BC2F6B6E5A8@netapp.com> <54C2537A.2010803@acm.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Level: + X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50, SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Score: 1.6 X-Virus-Scanned: by Greenhost Virus Scanner X-Scan-Signature: 6819b1e11a0bfca853cb5292ba4954a6 Cc: "hrpc@article19.io" , Kathleen Moriarty Subject: Re: [hrpc] Request to session IRTF slot in Dallas for Human Rights and Protocol Consideration X-BeenThere: hrpc@article19.io X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Human Rights Protocol Consideration Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:03:24 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Lars, Please find underneath the information you requested. * group name Human Rights Protocol Considerations * group acronym hrpc * chairs other than you Joana Varon, Niels ten Oever * how to subscribe to the list (URL) https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/hrpc * any other URLs for the proposed group https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-doria-hrpc-proposal-00 Best, Niels Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 On 01/23/2015 02:25 PM, Eggert, Lars wrote: > Hi Avri, > > in order for me to set this up in the datatracker (so you can > request a session), please send me this information: > > * group name * group acronym * chairs other than you * how to > subscribe to the list (URL) * any other URLs for the proposed > group > > Lars > > > On 2015-1-23, at 14:58, Avri Doria > wrote: >> >> >> Signed PGP part Hi, >> >> Thanks for the really fast response. I really appreciate the >> approach you take on 'proposed RG's, and really did not want to >> have to work on a charter just yet. >> >> My first approach at answers regarding the session. >> >> * what kind of meeting do you want to hold in Dallas (on the >> agenda, or off) >> >> On the agenda, as I think it would be good to reach out to other >> who might be interested. >> >> I think a 90 minute slot would be good for this first session. >> >> I have personal conflict I would like to avoid in scheduling, the >> IANA transiton subject. Additionally we should avoid conflict >> with the SAAG meeting as there is where we found many interested >> in the discussion at the last meeting and any meetings dealing >> with privacy consideration issues. We can build a conflict list >> over the next days if people need to add some. >> >> * do you have a mailing list? >> >> Yes, hrpc@article19.io >> > >> >> * do you have a group of people with energy to make the group >> successful? >> >> Not sure yet. There are at least 3 of us committed to the work >> and a bunch of others who have shown interest. There appeared to >> be interest in continuing the discussion at the SAAG meeting, but >> it is still early to know. What I do believe is that we need to >> continue the approach that started there and see if we can build >> something. >> >> * do you have some description of the group? (below is an OK >> start) >> >> I would use this as a start. >> >> A major premise of our research goals is future-proofing >> protocols in relation to their effect on human rights. If we can >> discover a reliable set of considerations, we may avoid needing >> to fix as many protocols retroactively going forward. We believe >> that our goal, consistent with RFC1958, is for the Internet to >> continue to serve as a tool enabling connectivity among all >> people. Attacks on the Internet's ability to do this are >> increasing and worrisome. >> >> Some of the topics we want to discuss: >> >> 1) Continue the discussion on the interrelation between >> protocols, architectures and rights >> >> 2) Enable broad community engagement in this discussion as was >> discussed in Hawaii. >> >> 3) Allow this discussion to happen before politicization related >> to human rights and the Internet occurs. >> >> 4) Discuss methods for doing the work. >> >> Thanks >> >> avri >> >> >> On 23-Jan-15 08:31, Eggert, Lars wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 2015-1-23, at 14:21, Avri Doria > > wrote: >>>> I don't know whether it is a BoF or there is some other >>>> designation >> for an IRTF session for a 'RG in possible formation.' In any >> case, following up on the interest in the SAAG session, and >> afterwards, we (Joana, Niels and I) would like to request such a >> session. >>> >>> I'm happy to have that discussion. I do note that we will need >>> to >> conclude this in the next few days, because scheduling for rooms >> for Dallas will begin. >>> >>>> At the end of the requested session, the goal would be to >>>> discuss the >> formation of a RG. >>> >>> That's not quite how I handle this in the IRTF. For folks that >>> come >> with an idea for a new RG, I'm willing to give them meeting rooms >> at IETF meetings for a year, and (if they like) have the meeting >> listed on the agenda as a "proposed RG" meeting. (It is also >> possible to have some of these meetings off the agenda, i.e., >> with invitations handled by the proponents of the group.) The >> instructions to the proponents are basically "go and pretend you >> are an RG", in other words, invite the people you want to invite, >> have the discussions you want to have and don't worry about the >> charter text. >>> >>> After that year has passed, I sit down with the proponents, the >>> IRSG >> and IAB and we discuss if the proposed group is off to a good >> start. >>> >>> The reason I'm doing it this way is that I've seen to many new >>> RGs in >> the past focus on charter text, get it perfect and then die on >> the starting line because of lack of energy or lack of community >> building by the proponents. So I've decided to front-load that, >> and fine tune the charter afterwards. >>> >>> Of course you will need some sort of text to explain the group >>> to new >> people, so they can determine if it's for them, but it doesn't >> need to be as formal as a charter. >>> >>> So: >>> >>> * what kind of meeting do you want to hold in Dallas (on the >>> agenda, >> or off) >>> >>> * do you have a mailing list? >>> >>> * do you have a group of people with energy to make the group >> successful? >>> >>> * do you have some description of the group? (below is an OK >>> start) >>> >>> >>>> But we would like to make it substantive and include the >>>> following >> discussion items: >>>> >>>> 1) Continue the discussion on the interrelation between >>>> protocols, >> architectures and rights >>>> >>>> 2) Enable broad community engagement in this discussion as >>>> was >> discussed in Hawaii. >>>> >>>> 3) Allow this discussion to happen before politicization >>>> related to >> human rights and the Internet occurs. >>>> >>>> A major premise of our research goals is future-proofing >>>> protocols in >> relation to their effect on human rights. If we can discover a >> reliable set of considerations, we may avoid needing to fix as >> many protocols retroactively going forward. We believe that our >> goal, consistent with RFC1958, is for the Internet to continue to >> serve as a tool enabling connectivity among all people. Attacks >> on the Internet's ability to do this are increasing and >> worrisome. >>>> >>>> I think we could use a full session for the discussion, but >>>> one of >> the shorter slots would probably work. >>> >>> If you want an "on the agenda" meeting, you need to determine >>> how many >> hours it should be (1h, 1.5h, 2h, 2.5h) and you need to determine >> your list of conflicts with other RGs and WGs. >>> >>> If you want an "off the agenda" meeting, those are not >>> scheduled in >> parallel to WG and RG sessions, so it would need to be breakfast, >> lunch or evening time. >>> >>>> Lars, please let us know of any specific information you need >>>> or >> specific steps you would like us to take in following up on this >> request. >>> >>> See above. >>> >>>> We would also be intersted in hearing from the list as to >>>> other >> things that might be worth adding to the such a discussion so >> that we can adjust the proposed 'agenda' to suit. Optimally we >> can evolve from the 3 of us trying to get this going to a group >> working on moving it forward. But time was getting late for >> requesting a slot and we felt we needed to get this moving. >>> >>> Heads up: I may not make it to Dallas for personal reasons. I >>> should >> know for sure in a few weeks. But since we're not deciding on the >> formal chartering of the group in Dallas, that's OK. I will be >> able to go to your future meetings. >>> >>> Lars >>> > > > > _______________________________________________ hrpc mailing list > hrpc@article19.io https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUwmKUAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpLcQH/1ZnCoEMr7uKZbyPinLrBnF2 KNNp2dM5qeV8bwW9KaRmP26mCicUvQJkJxFP8O5GunhiQPqe1eYqMUbkQwTh/MFI rxca11wd3wdBAu2slAkyKitThqZ3p0zx0syfaZ+TukIW70IwV6f4I4ZKb7/kADup C9xUOnD4UsmXSU1ky53v24bP+u+CSGg5GFJIEcCOsjN5lg78xF0BSzlxReZWBwdu Lz2y00r1ynh7pKLNqlj6fl/zOON5Yz0HLVY+lMfb0XPMwuYp59+N0JYlfyDzhmYi 4ubryooFfcYAiDjkXzfwZy8uFUtUOalkQeTQcI8+Yw1dto0/3Ay8xNOCizMhBpQ= =28Uz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From lars@netapp.com Fri Jan 23 16:05:36 2015 Received: from [10.10.12.45] (helo=mx2.greenhost.nl) by mailman.lan with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YEfnk-0000Mh-9l for hrpc@article19.io; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 16:05:36 +0100 Received: from mx141.netapp.com ([216.240.21.12]) by mx2.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YEfnQ-0006yW-Lv for hrpc@article19.io; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 16:05:36 +0100 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,454,1418112000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="17305863" Received: from hioexcmbx03-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.122.105.36]) by mx141-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 23 Jan 2015 07:05:13 -0800 Received: from HIOEXCMBX07-PRD.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.40) by hioexcmbx03-prd.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.29; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 07:05:13 -0800 Received: from HIOEXCMBX07-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([::1]) by hioexcmbx07-prd.hq.netapp.com ([fe80::d8c:be2b:9e16:f915%21]) with mapi id 15.00.0995.031; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 07:05:13 -0800 From: "Eggert, Lars" To: Niels ten Oever Thread-Topic: [hrpc] Request to session IRTF slot in Dallas for Human Rights and Protocol Consideration Thread-Index: AQHQNw+Lbi/pjRLIh0izuhYIBsonqpzOOeQAgAAHYACAAAehAIAACmAAgAAArgA= Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:05:12 +0000 Message-ID: <9118BDDC-9292-4182-BD56-08FC75F0A434@netapp.com> References: <54C24AE3.1010508@acm.org> <9B2D62E6-8B59-4CBC-8F55-8BC2F6B6E5A8@netapp.com> <54C2537A.2010803@acm.org> <54C26294.8080800@article19.org> In-Reply-To: <54C26294.8080800@article19.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.4) x-originating-ip: [10.122.56.79] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2A4F5477-B82F-4701-9A91-476C07235D57"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Level: ---- X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_PASS, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Score: -4.3 X-Virus-Scanned: by Greenhost Virus Scanner X-Scan-Signature: b6240588abfaeb0bdffc9b6551375bec Cc: "hrpc@article19.io" , Kathleen Moriarty Subject: Re: [hrpc] Request to session IRTF slot in Dallas for Human Rights and Protocol Consideration X-BeenThere: hrpc@article19.io X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Human Rights Protocol Consideration Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:05:36 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_2A4F5477-B82F-4701-9A91-476C07235D57 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 On 2015-1-23, at 16:02, Niels ten Oever wrote: > Please find underneath the information you requested. >=20 > * group name > Human Rights Protocol Considerations >=20 > * group acronym > hrpc >=20 > * chairs other than you > Joana Varon, Niels ten Oever Three chairs is a bit uncommon. I'd prefer two, if that is possible. = (How you organize the work is up to you.) > * how to subscribe to the list (URL) > https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >=20 > * any other URLs for the proposed group > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-doria-hrpc-proposal-00 Thanks, Lars >=20 > Best, >=20 > Niels >=20 > Niels ten Oever > Head of Digital >=20 > Article 19 > www.article19.org >=20 > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 >=20 > On 01/23/2015 02:25 PM, Eggert, Lars wrote: > > Hi Avri, > > > > in order for me to set this up in the datatracker (so you can > > request a session), please send me this information: > > > > * group name * group acronym * chairs other than you * how to > > subscribe to the list (URL) * any other URLs for the proposed > > group > > > > Lars > > > > > > On 2015-1-23, at 14:58, Avri Doria > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> Signed PGP part Hi, > >> > >> Thanks for the really fast response. I really appreciate the > >> approach you take on 'proposed RG's, and really did not want to > >> have to work on a charter just yet. > >> > >> My first approach at answers regarding the session. > >> > >> * what kind of meeting do you want to hold in Dallas (on the > >> agenda, or off) > >> > >> On the agenda, as I think it would be good to reach out to other > >> who might be interested. > >> > >> I think a 90 minute slot would be good for this first session. > >> > >> I have personal conflict I would like to avoid in scheduling, the > >> IANA transiton subject. Additionally we should avoid conflict > >> with the SAAG meeting as there is where we found many interested > >> in the discussion at the last meeting and any meetings dealing > >> with privacy consideration issues. We can build a conflict list > >> over the next days if people need to add some. > >> > >> * do you have a mailing list? > >> > >> Yes, hrpc@article19.io > >> > > >> > >> * do you have a group of people with energy to make the group > >> successful? > >> > >> Not sure yet. There are at least 3 of us committed to the work > >> and a bunch of others who have shown interest. There appeared to > >> be interest in continuing the discussion at the SAAG meeting, but > >> it is still early to know. What I do believe is that we need to > >> continue the approach that started there and see if we can build > >> something. > >> > >> * do you have some description of the group? (below is an OK > >> start) > >> > >> I would use this as a start. > >> > >> A major premise of our research goals is future-proofing > >> protocols in relation to their effect on human rights. If we can > >> discover a reliable set of considerations, we may avoid needing > >> to fix as many protocols retroactively going forward. We believe > >> that our goal, consistent with RFC1958, is for the Internet to > >> continue to serve as a tool enabling connectivity among all > >> people. Attacks on the Internet's ability to do this are > >> increasing and worrisome. > >> > >> Some of the topics we want to discuss: > >> > >> 1) Continue the discussion on the interrelation between > >> protocols, architectures and rights > >> > >> 2) Enable broad community engagement in this discussion as was > >> discussed in Hawaii. > >> > >> 3) Allow this discussion to happen before politicization related > >> to human rights and the Internet occurs. > >> > >> 4) Discuss methods for doing the work. > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> avri > >> > >> > >> On 23-Jan-15 08:31, Eggert, Lars wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> On 2015-1-23, at 14:21, Avri Doria >> > wrote: > >>>> I don't know whether it is a BoF or there is some other > >>>> designation > >> for an IRTF session for a 'RG in possible formation.' In any > >> case, following up on the interest in the SAAG session, and > >> afterwards, we (Joana, Niels and I) would like to request such a > >> session. > >>> > >>> I'm happy to have that discussion. I do note that we will need > >>> to > >> conclude this in the next few days, because scheduling for rooms > >> for Dallas will begin. > >>> > >>>> At the end of the requested session, the goal would be to > >>>> discuss the > >> formation of a RG. > >>> > >>> That's not quite how I handle this in the IRTF. For folks that > >>> come > >> with an idea for a new RG, I'm willing to give them meeting rooms > >> at IETF meetings for a year, and (if they like) have the meeting > >> listed on the agenda as a "proposed RG" meeting. (It is also > >> possible to have some of these meetings off the agenda, i.e., > >> with invitations handled by the proponents of the group.) The > >> instructions to the proponents are basically "go and pretend you > >> are an RG", in other words, invite the people you want to invite, > >> have the discussions you want to have and don't worry about the > >> charter text. > >>> > >>> After that year has passed, I sit down with the proponents, the > >>> IRSG > >> and IAB and we discuss if the proposed group is off to a good > >> start. > >>> > >>> The reason I'm doing it this way is that I've seen to many new > >>> RGs in > >> the past focus on charter text, get it perfect and then die on > >> the starting line because of lack of energy or lack of community > >> building by the proponents. So I've decided to front-load that, > >> and fine tune the charter afterwards. > >>> > >>> Of course you will need some sort of text to explain the group > >>> to new > >> people, so they can determine if it's for them, but it doesn't > >> need to be as formal as a charter. > >>> > >>> So: > >>> > >>> * what kind of meeting do you want to hold in Dallas (on the > >>> agenda, > >> or off) > >>> > >>> * do you have a mailing list? > >>> > >>> * do you have a group of people with energy to make the group > >> successful? > >>> > >>> * do you have some description of the group? (below is an OK > >>> start) > >>> > >>> > >>>> But we would like to make it substantive and include the > >>>> following > >> discussion items: > >>>> > >>>> 1) Continue the discussion on the interrelation between > >>>> protocols, > >> architectures and rights > >>>> > >>>> 2) Enable broad community engagement in this discussion as > >>>> was > >> discussed in Hawaii. > >>>> > >>>> 3) Allow this discussion to happen before politicization > >>>> related to > >> human rights and the Internet occurs. > >>>> > >>>> A major premise of our research goals is future-proofing > >>>> protocols in > >> relation to their effect on human rights. If we can discover a > >> reliable set of considerations, we may avoid needing to fix as > >> many protocols retroactively going forward. We believe that our > >> goal, consistent with RFC1958, is for the Internet to continue to > >> serve as a tool enabling connectivity among all people. Attacks > >> on the Internet's ability to do this are increasing and > >> worrisome. > >>>> > >>>> I think we could use a full session for the discussion, but > >>>> one of > >> the shorter slots would probably work. > >>> > >>> If you want an "on the agenda" meeting, you need to determine > >>> how many > >> hours it should be (1h, 1.5h, 2h, 2.5h) and you need to determine > >> your list of conflicts with other RGs and WGs. > >>> > >>> If you want an "off the agenda" meeting, those are not > >>> scheduled in > >> parallel to WG and RG sessions, so it would need to be breakfast, > >> lunch or evening time. > >>> > >>>> Lars, please let us know of any specific information you need > >>>> or > >> specific steps you would like us to take in following up on this > >> request. > >>> > >>> See above. > >>> > >>>> We would also be intersted in hearing from the list as to > >>>> other > >> things that might be worth adding to the such a discussion so > >> that we can adjust the proposed 'agenda' to suit. Optimally we > >> can evolve from the 3 of us trying to get this going to a group > >> working on moving it forward. But time was getting late for > >> requesting a slot and we felt we needed to get this moving. > >>> > >>> Heads up: I may not make it to Dallas for personal reasons. I > >>> should > >> know for sure in a few weeks. But since we're not deciding on the > >> formal chartering of the group in Dallas, that's OK. I will be > >> able to go to your future meetings. > >>> > >>> Lars > >>> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ hrpc mailing list > > hrpc@article19.io https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > > >=20 --Apple-Mail=_2A4F5477-B82F-4701-9A91-476C07235D57 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQCVAwUBVMJjJtZcnpRveo1xAQLlAQP/RfVMxzbnwO8kq4y3pA8qoVyxjvGY5s+X YY7wASb7OXBCi3y8iVqoom39HVi7sZGRkYBuuPm/BUGbVmdvyNQ+ppX2+/DIbSiu xUWTzvwVpwirzZw8a6J2yABrnV33tpNiWpojGjkUWJQ0Q4bdvhVh+XpgWvCfUnBi CVKdmWGIYQ4= =rt3v -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_2A4F5477-B82F-4701-9A91-476C07235D57-- From lars@netapp.com Fri Jan 23 16:12:27 2015 Received: from mx1.lan ([10.10.12.44] helo=mx1.greenhost.nl) by mailman.lan with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YEfuN-0000NS-Kr for hrpc@article19.io; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 16:12:27 +0100 Received: from mx143.netapp.com ([216.240.21.24]) by mx1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YEftX-0006Mr-J7 for hrpc@article19.io; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 16:12:27 +0100 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,454,1418112000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="16991642" Received: from hioexcmbx06-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.122.105.39]) by mx143-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 23 Jan 2015 07:11:29 -0800 Received: from HIOEXCMBX07-PRD.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.40) by hioexcmbx06-prd.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.29; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 07:11:29 -0800 Received: from HIOEXCMBX07-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([::1]) by hioexcmbx07-prd.hq.netapp.com ([fe80::d8c:be2b:9e16:f915%21]) with mapi id 15.00.0995.031; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 07:11:29 -0800 From: "Eggert, Lars" To: Niels ten Oever Thread-Topic: [hrpc] Request to session IRTF slot in Dallas for Human Rights and Protocol Consideration Thread-Index: AQHQNw+Lbi/pjRLIh0izuhYIBsonqpzOOeQAgAAHYACAAAehAIAACmAAgAAArgCAAAHBgA== Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:11:28 +0000 Message-ID: References: <54C24AE3.1010508@acm.org> <9B2D62E6-8B59-4CBC-8F55-8BC2F6B6E5A8@netapp.com> <54C2537A.2010803@acm.org> <54C26294.8080800@article19.org> <9118BDDC-9292-4182-BD56-08FC75F0A434@netapp.com> In-Reply-To: <9118BDDC-9292-4182-BD56-08FC75F0A434@netapp.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.4) x-originating-ip: [10.122.56.79] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4DACA0A3-51D5-4534-AC96-FCA20C3669F5"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Level: ---- X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_PASS, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Score: -4.3 X-Virus-Scanned: by Greenhost Virus Scanner X-Scan-Signature: dfea3049d3b923820beb462d65569822 Cc: "hrpc@article19.io" , Kathleen Moriarty Subject: Re: [hrpc] Request to session IRTF slot in Dallas for Human Rights and Protocol Consideration X-BeenThere: hrpc@article19.io X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Human Rights Protocol Consideration Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:12:28 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_4DACA0A3-51D5-4534-AC96-FCA20C3669F5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Hi, there is now https://datatracker.ietf.org/rg/hrpc/charter/ I made Avri and Niels chairs, mostly because Joana didn't have a = datatracker account. (We can change this.) This should either of you request an on-the-agenda session for Dallas = via https://datatracker.ietf.org/secr/sreq/ Please note = http://www.ietf.org/meeting/important-dates-2015.html#ietf92; the = deadline for requests is 2015-02-06. Lars --Apple-Mail=_4DACA0A3-51D5-4534-AC96-FCA20C3669F5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQCVAwUBVMJkn9ZcnpRveo1xAQKgBgP/d5tTnBIh2vemGl1BnegC+zD7trg5Z8su nB2DhRbYeJLkt0kQB2hoPuq7WQ2bS4mloF2+SXvz6i8CjVWwsKg20gf0+lREuFWO HqlP9UVJTaWAGHUa3k5Qo535bbswwMMyZSVCTMnZzYykIgOBJ33Fy9yMFhUNUGjI Jclk6lRaHjM= =bbEd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_4DACA0A3-51D5-4534-AC96-FCA20C3669F5-- From niels@article19.org Fri Jan 23 16:32:17 2015 Received: from mx1.lan ([10.10.12.44] helo=mx1.greenhost.nl) by mailman.lan with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YEgDZ-0000PP-D8 for hrpc@article19.io; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 16:32:17 +0100 Received: from vps784.greenhost.nl ([213.108.108.114] helo=mail.article19.io) by mx1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YEgDO-0007EJ-OQ for hrpc@article19.io; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 16:32:17 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 925FE19C02C for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:32:47 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 tagged_above=-10 required=6.6 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1, BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.article19.io ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.article19.io [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id PAUHKHyLGtqJ for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:32:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A81619C039 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:32:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.article19.io Received: from mail.article19.io ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.article19.io [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id AkYWwUj9qjjm for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:32:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.200.131] (unknown [110.55.115.58]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E0C9919C02C for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:32:43 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <54C2696C.8050900@article19.org> Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:31:56 +0000 From: Niels ten Oever User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hrpc@article19.io References: <54C24AE3.1010508@acm.org> <9B2D62E6-8B59-4CBC-8F55-8BC2F6B6E5A8@netapp.com> <54C2537A.2010803@acm.org> In-Reply-To: <54C2537A.2010803@acm.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Level: + X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50, SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Score: 1.6 X-Virus-Scanned: by Greenhost Virus Scanner X-Scan-Signature: 5c4dd3f97b5f9360f98ddb363e9ef1fb Subject: Re: [hrpc] Request to session IRTF slot in Dallas for Human Rights and Protocol Consideration X-BeenThere: hrpc@article19.io X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Human Rights Protocol Consideration Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:32:17 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, I was wondering whether a longer session might be beneficial as well. So we get to discuss and further some ideas, and not only comment on them? Or would that need more of a workshop set-up? I would propose going for 120 minutes, we can always stop earlier, no ? I like this description: > A major premise of our research goals is future-proofing protocols > in relation to their effect on human rights. If we can discover a > reliable set of considerations, we may avoid needing to fix as many > protocols retroactively going forward. We believe that our goal, > consistent with RFC1958, is for the Internet to continue to serve > as a tool enabling connectivity among all people. Attacks on the > Internet's ability to do this are increasing and worrisome. But are we not politicizing this issue with the last sentence? It can also be said that recent attacks have not been on connectivity but on privacy, no? Just thinking in terms of strategy and inclusion of the community in this discussion. Furthermore, we haven't formally established the relationship between Freedom of Expression and connectivity yet. Or is this something we can simply assume? Best, Niels Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 On 01/23/2015 01:58 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >=20 > Hi, >=20 > Thanks for the really fast response. I really appreciate the > approach you take on 'proposed RG's, and really did not want to > have to work on a charter just yet. >=20 > My first approach at answers regarding the session. >=20 > * what kind of meeting do you want to hold in Dallas (on the > agenda, or off) >=20 > On the agenda, as I think it would be good to reach out to other > who might be interested. >=20 > I think a 90 minute slot would be good for this first session. >=20 > I have personal conflict I would like to avoid in scheduling, the > IANA transiton subject. Additionally we should avoid conflict with > the SAAG meeting as there is where we found many interested in the > discussion at the last meeting and any meetings dealing with > privacy consideration issues. We can build a conflict list over > the next days if people need to add some. >=20 > * do you have a mailing list? >=20 > Yes, hrpc@article19.io >=20 > * do you have a group of people with energy to make the group > successful? >=20 > Not sure yet. There are at least 3 of us committed to the work and > a bunch of others who have shown interest. There appeared to be > interest in continuing the discussion at the SAAG meeting, but it > is still early to know. What I do believe is that we need to > continue the approach that started there and see if we can build > something. >=20 > * do you have some description of the group? (below is an OK > start) >=20 > I would use this as a start. >=20 > A major premise of our research goals is future-proofing protocols > in relation to their effect on human rights. If we can discover a > reliable set of considerations, we may avoid needing to fix as many > protocols retroactively going forward. We believe that our goal, > consistent with RFC1958, is for the Internet to continue to serve > as a tool enabling connectivity among all people. Attacks on the > Internet's ability to do this are increasing and worrisome. >=20 > Some of the topics we want to discuss: >=20 > 1) Continue the discussion on the interrelation between protocols,=20 > architectures and rights >=20 > 2) Enable broad community engagement in this discussion as was > discussed in Hawaii. >=20 > 3) Allow this discussion to happen before politicization related > to human rights and the Internet occurs. >=20 > 4) Discuss methods for doing the work. >=20 > Thanks >=20 > avri >=20 >=20 > On 23-Jan-15 08:31, Eggert, Lars wrote: >> Hi, >=20 >> On 2015-1-23, at 14:21, Avri Doria wrote: >>> I don't know whether it is a BoF or there is some other >>> designation > for an IRTF session for a 'RG in possible formation.' In any > case, following up on the interest in the SAAG session, and > afterwards, we (Joana, Niels and I) would like to request such a > session. >=20 >> I'm happy to have that discussion. I do note that we will need >> to > conclude this in the next few days, because scheduling for rooms > for Dallas will begin. >=20 >>> At the end of the requested session, the goal would be to >>> discuss the > formation of a RG. >=20 >> That's not quite how I handle this in the IRTF. For folks that >> come > with an idea for a new RG, I'm willing to give them meeting rooms > at IETF meetings for a year, and (if they like) have the meeting > listed on the agenda as a "proposed RG" meeting. (It is also > possible to have some of these meetings off the agenda, i.e., with > invitations handled by the proponents of the group.) The > instructions to the proponents are basically "go and pretend you > are an RG", in other words, invite the people you want to invite, > have the discussions you want to have and don't worry about the > charter text. >=20 >> After that year has passed, I sit down with the proponents, the >> IRSG > and IAB and we discuss if the proposed group is off to a good > start. >=20 >> The reason I'm doing it this way is that I've seen to many new >> RGs in > the past focus on charter text, get it perfect and then die on the=20 > starting line because of lack of energy or lack of community > building by the proponents. So I've decided to front-load that, and > fine tune the charter afterwards. >=20 >> Of course you will need some sort of text to explain the group to >> new > people, so they can determine if it's for them, but it doesn't need > to be as formal as a charter. >=20 >> So: >=20 >> * what kind of meeting do you want to hold in Dallas (on the >> agenda, > or off) >=20 >> * do you have a mailing list? >=20 >> * do you have a group of people with energy to make the group >> successful? >=20 >> * do you have some description of the group? (below is an OK >> start) >=20 >=20 >>> But we would like to make it substantive and include the >>> following > discussion items: >>>=20 >>> 1) Continue the discussion on the interrelation between >>> protocols, > architectures and rights >>>=20 >>> 2) Enable broad community engagement in this discussion as was > discussed in Hawaii. >>>=20 >>> 3) Allow this discussion to happen before politicization >>> related to > human rights and the Internet occurs. >>>=20 >>> A major premise of our research goals is future-proofing >>> protocols in > relation to their effect on human rights. If we can discover a > reliable set of considerations, we may avoid needing to fix as many > protocols retroactively going forward. We believe that our goal, > consistent with RFC1958, is for the Internet to continue to serve > as a tool enabling connectivity among all people. Attacks on the > Internet's ability to do this are increasing and worrisome. >>>=20 >>> I think we could use a full session for the discussion, but one >>> of > the shorter slots would probably work. >=20 >> If you want an "on the agenda" meeting, you need to determine how >> many > hours it should be (1h, 1.5h, 2h, 2.5h) and you need to determine > your list of conflicts with other RGs and WGs. >=20 >> If you want an "off the agenda" meeting, those are not scheduled >> in > parallel to WG and RG sessions, so it would need to be breakfast, > lunch or evening time. >=20 >>> Lars, please let us know of any specific information you need >>> or > specific steps you would like us to take in following up on this > request. >=20 >> See above. >=20 >>> We would also be intersted in hearing from the list as to >>> other > things that might be worth adding to the such a discussion so that > we can adjust the proposed 'agenda' to suit. Optimally we can > evolve from the 3 of us trying to get this going to a group working > on moving it forward. But time was getting late for requesting a > slot and we felt we needed to get this moving. >=20 >> Heads up: I may not make it to Dallas for personal reasons. I >> should > know for sure in a few weeks. But since we're not deciding on the > formal chartering of the group in Dallas, that's OK. I will be able > to go to your future meetings. >=20 >> Lars >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ hrpc mailing list=20 > hrpc@article19.io https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >=20 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUwmlsAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpp1cH/172/3oWSoDtGpRTQ3Q/Fx9P YL7OgY2YaoMaZVze7QP9mzpG03Usg2X8aPSMN/WTpNZEQ8hKUA5gkPchkfgZgS2L EjwWus7uS0S1Y8f/UWLEq+oyCoYchXltBWnsM21yrDKTfcNE9piF/1cw/rflLMNt q3zz5TKzddzH41+0r7RfA3hmXvsETA0k8CrNr0IuoSJVaW714tBPaPdM9rX9JuB4 Gsig7T8B/IPb/s+gAE+Y3HPuUbAdppwRzlOt5rjzb34wRwYZKBLRkwll8kPfWyPT NU2wP0M2gP6mpHLZLlrx99gDoVyhB9cJmUJK8XjIdpON/CXJ95UpL6BuDEDm0S4=3D =3DbGEd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From niels@article19.org Fri Jan 23 16:32:17 2015 Received: from mx1.lan ([10.10.12.44] helo=mx1.greenhost.nl) by mailman.lan with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YEgDZ-0000PU-K4 for hrpc@article19.io; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 16:32:17 +0100 Received: from vps784.greenhost.nl ([213.108.108.114] helo=mail.article19.io) by mx1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YEgDP-0007EN-NO for hrpc@article19.io; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 16:32:17 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 868AA19C039 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:32:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 tagged_above=-10 required=6.6 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1, BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.article19.io ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.article19.io [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id j-XNmm1HbxuO for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:32:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E6F419C032 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:32:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.article19.io Received: from mail.article19.io ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.article19.io [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id dKmn5aCy2CZ0 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:32:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.200.131] (unknown [121.96.255.162]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D19C42F00CB for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:32:43 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <54C2696C.2090705@article19.org> Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:31:56 +0000 From: Niels ten Oever User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hrpc@article19.io References: <54C24AE3.1010508@acm.org> <9B2D62E6-8B59-4CBC-8F55-8BC2F6B6E5A8@netapp.com> <54C2537A.2010803@acm.org> In-Reply-To: <54C2537A.2010803@acm.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Level: + X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50, SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Score: 1.6 X-Virus-Scanned: by Greenhost Virus Scanner X-Scan-Signature: 5c4dd3f97b5f9360f98ddb363e9ef1fb Subject: Re: [hrpc] Request to session IRTF slot in Dallas for Human Rights and Protocol Consideration X-BeenThere: hrpc@article19.io X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Human Rights Protocol Consideration Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:32:17 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, I was wondering whether a longer session might be beneficial as well. So we get to discuss and further some ideas, and not only comment on them? Or would that need more of a workshop set-up? I would propose going for 120 minutes, we can always stop earlier, no ? I like this description: > A major premise of our research goals is future-proofing protocols > in relation to their effect on human rights. If we can discover a > reliable set of considerations, we may avoid needing to fix as many > protocols retroactively going forward. We believe that our goal, > consistent with RFC1958, is for the Internet to continue to serve > as a tool enabling connectivity among all people. Attacks on the > Internet's ability to do this are increasing and worrisome. But are we not politicizing this issue with the last sentence? It can also be said that recent attacks have not been on connectivity but on privacy, no? Just thinking in terms of strategy and inclusion of the community in this discussion. Furthermore, we haven't formally established the relationship between Freedom of Expression and connectivity yet. Or is this something we can simply assume? Best, Niels Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 On 01/23/2015 01:58 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >=20 > Hi, >=20 > Thanks for the really fast response. I really appreciate the > approach you take on 'proposed RG's, and really did not want to > have to work on a charter just yet. >=20 > My first approach at answers regarding the session. >=20 > * what kind of meeting do you want to hold in Dallas (on the > agenda, or off) >=20 > On the agenda, as I think it would be good to reach out to other > who might be interested. >=20 > I think a 90 minute slot would be good for this first session. >=20 > I have personal conflict I would like to avoid in scheduling, the > IANA transiton subject. Additionally we should avoid conflict with > the SAAG meeting as there is where we found many interested in the > discussion at the last meeting and any meetings dealing with > privacy consideration issues. We can build a conflict list over > the next days if people need to add some. >=20 > * do you have a mailing list? >=20 > Yes, hrpc@article19.io >=20 > * do you have a group of people with energy to make the group > successful? >=20 > Not sure yet. There are at least 3 of us committed to the work and > a bunch of others who have shown interest. There appeared to be > interest in continuing the discussion at the SAAG meeting, but it > is still early to know. What I do believe is that we need to > continue the approach that started there and see if we can build > something. >=20 > * do you have some description of the group? (below is an OK > start) >=20 > I would use this as a start. >=20 > A major premise of our research goals is future-proofing protocols > in relation to their effect on human rights. If we can discover a > reliable set of considerations, we may avoid needing to fix as many > protocols retroactively going forward. We believe that our goal, > consistent with RFC1958, is for the Internet to continue to serve > as a tool enabling connectivity among all people. Attacks on the > Internet's ability to do this are increasing and worrisome. >=20 > Some of the topics we want to discuss: >=20 > 1) Continue the discussion on the interrelation between protocols,=20 > architectures and rights >=20 > 2) Enable broad community engagement in this discussion as was > discussed in Hawaii. >=20 > 3) Allow this discussion to happen before politicization related > to human rights and the Internet occurs. >=20 > 4) Discuss methods for doing the work. >=20 > Thanks >=20 > avri >=20 >=20 > On 23-Jan-15 08:31, Eggert, Lars wrote: >> Hi, >=20 >> On 2015-1-23, at 14:21, Avri Doria wrote: >>> I don't know whether it is a BoF or there is some other >>> designation > for an IRTF session for a 'RG in possible formation.' In any > case, following up on the interest in the SAAG session, and > afterwards, we (Joana, Niels and I) would like to request such a > session. >=20 >> I'm happy to have that discussion. I do note that we will need >> to > conclude this in the next few days, because scheduling for rooms > for Dallas will begin. >=20 >>> At the end of the requested session, the goal would be to >>> discuss the > formation of a RG. >=20 >> That's not quite how I handle this in the IRTF. For folks that >> come > with an idea for a new RG, I'm willing to give them meeting rooms > at IETF meetings for a year, and (if they like) have the meeting > listed on the agenda as a "proposed RG" meeting. (It is also > possible to have some of these meetings off the agenda, i.e., with > invitations handled by the proponents of the group.) The > instructions to the proponents are basically "go and pretend you > are an RG", in other words, invite the people you want to invite, > have the discussions you want to have and don't worry about the > charter text. >=20 >> After that year has passed, I sit down with the proponents, the >> IRSG > and IAB and we discuss if the proposed group is off to a good > start. >=20 >> The reason I'm doing it this way is that I've seen to many new >> RGs in > the past focus on charter text, get it perfect and then die on the=20 > starting line because of lack of energy or lack of community > building by the proponents. So I've decided to front-load that, and > fine tune the charter afterwards. >=20 >> Of course you will need some sort of text to explain the group to >> new > people, so they can determine if it's for them, but it doesn't need > to be as formal as a charter. >=20 >> So: >=20 >> * what kind of meeting do you want to hold in Dallas (on the >> agenda, > or off) >=20 >> * do you have a mailing list? >=20 >> * do you have a group of people with energy to make the group >> successful? >=20 >> * do you have some description of the group? (below is an OK >> start) >=20 >=20 >>> But we would like to make it substantive and include the >>> following > discussion items: >>>=20 >>> 1) Continue the discussion on the interrelation between >>> protocols, > architectures and rights >>>=20 >>> 2) Enable broad community engagement in this discussion as was > discussed in Hawaii. >>>=20 >>> 3) Allow this discussion to happen before politicization >>> related to > human rights and the Internet occurs. >>>=20 >>> A major premise of our research goals is future-proofing >>> protocols in > relation to their effect on human rights. If we can discover a > reliable set of considerations, we may avoid needing to fix as many > protocols retroactively going forward. We believe that our goal, > consistent with RFC1958, is for the Internet to continue to serve > as a tool enabling connectivity among all people. Attacks on the > Internet's ability to do this are increasing and worrisome. >>>=20 >>> I think we could use a full session for the discussion, but one >>> of > the shorter slots would probably work. >=20 >> If you want an "on the agenda" meeting, you need to determine how >> many > hours it should be (1h, 1.5h, 2h, 2.5h) and you need to determine > your list of conflicts with other RGs and WGs. >=20 >> If you want an "off the agenda" meeting, those are not scheduled >> in > parallel to WG and RG sessions, so it would need to be breakfast, > lunch or evening time. >=20 >>> Lars, please let us know of any specific information you need >>> or > specific steps you would like us to take in following up on this > request. >=20 >> See above. >=20 >>> We would also be intersted in hearing from the list as to >>> other > things that might be worth adding to the such a discussion so that > we can adjust the proposed 'agenda' to suit. Optimally we can > evolve from the 3 of us trying to get this going to a group working > on moving it forward. But time was getting late for requesting a > slot and we felt we needed to get this moving. >=20 >> Heads up: I may not make it to Dallas for personal reasons. I >> should > know for sure in a few weeks. But since we're not deciding on the > formal chartering of the group in Dallas, that's OK. I will be able > to go to your future meetings. >=20 >> Lars >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ hrpc mailing list=20 > hrpc@article19.io https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >=20 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUwmlsAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpp1cH/172/3oWSoDtGpRTQ3Q/Fx9P YL7OgY2YaoMaZVze7QP9mzpG03Usg2X8aPSMN/WTpNZEQ8hKUA5gkPchkfgZgS2L EjwWus7uS0S1Y8f/UWLEq+oyCoYchXltBWnsM21yrDKTfcNE9piF/1cw/rflLMNt q3zz5TKzddzH41+0r7RfA3hmXvsETA0k8CrNr0IuoSJVaW714tBPaPdM9rX9JuB4 Gsig7T8B/IPb/s+gAE+Y3HPuUbAdppwRzlOt5rjzb34wRwYZKBLRkwll8kPfWyPT NU2wP0M2gP6mpHLZLlrx99gDoVyhB9cJmUJK8XjIdpON/CXJ95UpL6BuDEDm0S4=3D =3DbGEd -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----