From niels@article19.org Tue Mar 03 14:23:39 2015 Received: from mx1.lan ([10.10.12.44] helo=mx1.greenhost.nl) by mailman.lan with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YSmnT-0002vU-Kq for hrpc@article19.io; Tue, 03 Mar 2015 14:23:39 +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 1YSmnS-0005nK-GN for hrpc@article19.io; Tue, 03 Mar 2015 14:23:39 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2B0018002F for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 13:25:34 +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 bQlQcCMEPqZ7 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 13:25:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7780D180024 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 13:25:33 +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 rQSHjZLxEg-O for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 13:25:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.115.120.73] (5.40.111.164.static.user.ono.com [5.40.111.164]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 182A018002F for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 13:25:33 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <54F5B5D6.4080404@article19.org> Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 14:23:34 +0100 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" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 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: 503f1a2b1db20d3cc8283cfb339c155f Subject: [hrpc] new draft text for the ID 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, 03 Mar 2015 13:23:40 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear all, Based on the traffic on this list, some interviews and discussions I drafted new text for the ID. The additions are to 2. research topic and 3. Proposal. I pasted the proposed text underneath, happy to discuss. The deadline for sending in the ID is the 9th, and since we will also need to consolidate the comments and put the ID in XML it would be greatly appreciated if you could comment in the coming days (before the 7th) so we can still integrate your comments in the ID, but of course also happy to discuss afterwards and in Dallas. Looking forward to your comments, questions and suggestions. Best, Niels PS The original ID can be found here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-doria-hrpc-proposal-00 2. Research topic In a manner similar to the work done for RFC 6973 [RFC6973] on Privacy Consideration Guidelines, the premise of this research is that some standards and protocols can solidify, enable or threaten human rights, such as freedom of expression and the right to association and assembly online. RFC 6973 however asserts privacy as a subset of security, and security aims to solely serve growth of the network and communication: Development of security mechanisms is seen as a key factor in the future growth of the Internet as a motor for international commerce and communication.[RFC1984] and according to the Danvers Doctrine, there is an overwhelming consensus in the IETF that the best security should be used and standardized.[RFC3365]. At the same time: The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), the bodies which oversee architecture and standards for the Internet, are concerned by the need for increased protection of international commercial transactions on the Internet, and by the need to offer all Internet users an adequate degree of privacy. [RFC1984] This shows that security and privacy are very high on the agenda of the IETF, but a reason for this, outside of underpinning growth and trust of the network, is not given. In this research it is argued that security and privacy are (contributing to) essential human rights; such as freedom of expression, the right to information, the right to privacy, and the right to security. The Internet aims to be a global network of network that provides connectivity to all its users, just like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides rights to all citizens. This makes a clear case that the Internet is not only an enabler of human rights, but that human rights, lie at the basis of, and is ingrained in, the network. Furthermore interview will be done with the chair of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), members of the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) and chairs of selected working groups and RFC authors. To start addressing the issue, a mapping exercise analyzing Internet architecture and protocols features, vis-a-vis possible impact on human rights needs to be undertaken. [snip, leaving the examples in place] 3. Proposal Mapping the relation between human rights and protocols and architectures is a new research challenge, which will require a good amount of cross organizational cooperation to develop a consistent methodology. While the authors of this first draft are involved in both human rights advocacy and research on Internet technologies - we believe that bringing this work into the IRTF would facilitate and improve this work by bringing human rights experts together with the community of researchers and developers of Internet standards and technologies. At this point we have created a mailing list where we would like to encourage discussion of the issue and capture interest of the IRTF community. A second step would be to create a charter and ask the IRTF for a Research group to further develop methodology and investigate Human rights Protocol considerations. Assuming that the research produces useful results, the objective would evolve into the creation of a set of recommended considerations for the protection of applicable human rights. In the analysis of existing RFCs central design and technical concepts have been found which impact human rights. These concepts will form the lens for the analysis of RFCs and will be further described vis a vis their impact on human rights. The current working assumption is the following: The combination of content agnosticism, connectivity, security (as defined in RFC 3365) [RFC3365] and privacy (as defined in RFC 6973) [RFC6973] are the technical principles that underly freedom of expression on the Internet. Privacy and security are defined, so here we focus on concepts that have not been defined as considerations that are relevant for freedom of expression. This is a non-exhaustive first list of concepts, which definitions should be improved and further aligned with existing RFCs. Connectivity The Internet is the tool for providing global connectivity conform RFC1958. Therefore all protocols and standards should aim to improve connectivity, and not to limit it. Distributed To enable and strengthen connectivity, stability, and sustainability of the network, protocols and standards should be developed in a way that they can be implemented in a distributed way, if not, strong accountability mechanism should be in place. Inter-operable Standards exist to design systems that allow for other systems to interact freely and openly. Reliable Reliability ensures that a protocol will execute its function consistently and error resistant as described and function without unexpected result, also when there is an increase or decrease of throughput. A system that is reliable will have a documented way to recover from failure. Scalable Any solution should support growth of the network with more hosts, users and traffic. And have clear understanding of it's scope and ideally a proposition how it can be expanded in order to support greater capacity. Stateless / state-full If possible protocols should be implemented stateless for reliability and privacy considerations. If not, they should keep as little state as possible. Content agnostic Protocols should not treat packets/datagrams differently based on their content. Transparent Protocols should be transparent in what they can do and can not do and how it is done. Implementation of protocols should advertise it's policies on data retention for the service and which jurisdiction it falls under. Debugging A protocol should allow a user to troubleshoot and debug possible causes of malfunction and loss of reliability. Robust, robustness Protocols should be resistant to errors, involuntary legal or malicious attempts to disrupt its mode of operations. Protocols should be developed in a way that there is no (intransparent) kill switch. There should also be a clear description on how a protocol recovers from potential failures. End user-centric / representing stakeholder rights As proposed in draft-nottingham-stakeholder-rights-00: [QUOTE] Protocols MUST document relevant primary stakeholders and their interrelationships. [..] End-user-facing application protocols MUST prioritise their users higher than any other stakeholders. Extensions to existing protocols MUST document how they interact with the extended protocol's stakeholders. If the extended protocol's stakeholders are not yet documented, the extension MAY estimate its impact, in coordination with that protocol's community and the IESG. The burden of this documentation need not be high; if HTML can do it in a paragraph, so can most protocols. While it might be appropriate in a separate document (e.g., a requirements or use cases draft) or the protocol specification itself, documenting stakeholders in the WG charter has considerable benefits, since it clarifies their relationships up-front. [/QUOTE] - --=20 Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU9bXVAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpeKEH/3MhfM1yFG2aJf4/8ZBWwQtA rlb0iVw2mCeA9RsulzgkU7cZC3dh+24PIVsX0DmiaCJtk7YJbCzI8wQtvm8b2aD0 PnQzRbkCGHxpPKLP+GkuNr2iQCdWQ6YoY68g8up26jHco9DUaTIOw9zGFV4lApu3 d2/9DvyrF/d2lgO17c9vFVmAoE+wWdlE1CMRV2SDGcbz9Fb9xSntnJ5/+SXkNpQ+ 24BaCk73xK88mRqvk/HLUO3GCoDd3ytM5KuU0X4hQOoLVWOpyQaVOadtLQbLkNNX GB1NIalgs8ivK+8PXn4fsbKMCYLR3HcSDIzC/uiICRciznu0G82v49pZYYAVt+Y=3D =3DDKrF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie Tue Mar 03 19:40:27 2015 Received: from [10.10.12.45] (helo=mx2.greenhost.nl) by mailman.lan with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YSrk3-0003P0-1Y for hrpc@article19.io; Tue, 03 Mar 2015 19:40:27 +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 1YSrk1-0007s4-2Q for hrpc@article19.io; Tue, 03 Mar 2015 19:40:26 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A427BEDC for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 18:40:24 +0000 (GMT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie 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 ZO2F-MOWrrHW for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 18:40:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [172.28.14.119] (unknown [193.242.192.25]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BF167BED0 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 18:40:20 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <54F60011.9050906@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 18:40:17 +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=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Score: -0.7 X-Virus-Scanned: by Greenhost Virus Scanner X-Scan-Signature: 964c6a2bc69af72888bec91466701c23 Subject: [hrpc] relevant UNESCO draft document 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, 03 Mar 2015 18:40:27 -0000 Hiya, I'm at a UNESCO conference at the moment [1] and they have a draft document for which they'd like to get more technical review. [2] I'm not sure to which email address they'd like comments sent but I'll check tomorrow and send a mail here. You'll not have read the 96 pages by then most likely though:-) But it's pretty relevant to this list I think. Cheers, S. [1] http://www.unesco.org/new/en/netconference2015 [2] http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/internet_draft_study.pdf From cattekwaad@gmail.com Wed Mar 04 16:19:19 2015 Received: from [10.10.12.45] (helo=mx2.greenhost.nl) by mailman.lan with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YTB4x-0004tp-83 for hrpc@article19.io; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:19:19 +0100 Received: from mail-wi0-f171.google.com ([209.85.212.171]) by mx2.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YTB4m-0007My-5s for hrpc@article19.io; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:19:18 +0100 Received: by wiwh11 with SMTP id h11so31359682wiw.1 for ; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 07:18:56 -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 :cc:content-type; bh=afpDqqrckKObmTfvwcX2Qxks3mhf7fzL4oW7sZ4845Q=; b=Vl20LuXCkzzVWAZ2A94ZnUgqYt4svvg5dDzFCZ0AK3iFb4jgEwxx5rhgEc/fZQzbdT 1K0R5uehP9mHC5NdCNyDKFNVbkyV88pxwAFk7irpPeXXQYY9I2pGhNqpTgYZeoYUcQKK OurAwjnIhvgpTTpI/6JPzKw6PfPb9gsDPQ0lbCnv9skgsl8W5SO+s15vFiNzhHuyJLUw mTaWHGtIyYGhtOSVYB1tGdYCC8lE9hxJ0VjMXHFVGHgN67gf5CHzVDjQHOWzGaKOGdIl tUwla6w/QklXMcfvPDlC714b1zaRMBerrSomevZw35PuZ4i48h7vNxut4QwlK8670HHr I7QA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.14.66 with SMTP id n2mr55363778wic.50.1425482336831; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 07:18:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.133.101 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 07:18:56 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:18:56 +0000 Message-ID: From: Corinne Cath To: hrpc@article19.io Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04138ccd520ded051077f87b 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: 9a6f6c397fafa093da07ae37c06b7a32 Subject: Re: [hrpc] hrpc Digest, Vol 6, 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: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:19:19 -0000 --f46d04138ccd520ded051077f87b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Dear all, Just a thought: It's clear that there are privacy considerations w/ standards, and security issues, of course, and those are both human rights issues even though IT privacy and security are not usually framed within a human rights context. However, should we be even more specific in this document of what makes standards development different from any other Internet/IT engineering issues? Users interface with software and hardware more than they do with networking or encryption standards. Why are protocols / standards unique? Or perhaps more relevant, how do we justify our particular focus on them. It's a small thing - but I think it might make the document a little stronger still if we address this issue, because I feel this might be a point of critique brought up at the upcoming meeting. On that same note - I recently booked my flight to Dallas and look forward to meeting everyone who will also be attending. Best, Corinne On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 11:00 AM, 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. new draft text for the ID (Niels ten Oever) > 2. relevant UNESCO draft document (Stephen Farrell) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 14:23:34 +0100 > From: Niels ten Oever > To: "hrpc@article19.io" > Subject: [hrpc] new draft text for the ID > Message-ID: <54F5B5D6.4080404@article19.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dear all, > > Based on the traffic on this list, some interviews and discussions I > drafted new text for the ID. The additions are to 2. research topic > and 3. Proposal. I pasted the proposed text underneath, happy to discuss. > > The deadline for sending in the ID is the 9th, and since we will also > need to consolidate the comments and put the ID in XML it would be > greatly appreciated if you could comment in the coming days (before > the 7th) so we can still integrate your comments in the ID, but of > course also happy to discuss afterwards and in Dallas. > > Looking forward to your comments, questions and suggestions. > > Best, > > Niels > > PS The original ID can be found here: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-doria-hrpc-proposal-00 > > 2. Research topic > In a manner similar to the work done for RFC 6973 [RFC6973] on Privacy > Consideration Guidelines, the premise of this research is that some > standards and protocols can solidify, enable or threaten human rights, > such as freedom of expression and the right to association and > assembly online. > > RFC 6973 however asserts privacy as a subset of security, and security > aims to solely serve growth of the network and communication: > > Development of security mechanisms is seen as a key factor in the > future growth of the Internet as a motor for international commerce > and communication.[RFC1984] and according to the Danvers Doctrine, > there is an overwhelming consensus in the IETF that the best > security should be used and standardized.[RFC3365]. At the same time: > > The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet Engineering > Steering Group (IESG), the bodies which oversee architecture and > standards for the Internet, are concerned by the need for increased > protection of international commercial transactions on the Internet, > and by the need to offer all Internet users an adequate degree of > privacy. [RFC1984] > > This shows that security and privacy are very high on the agenda of > the IETF, but a reason for this, outside of underpinning growth and > trust of the network, is not given. In this research it is argued > that security and privacy are (contributing to) essential human > rights; such as freedom of expression, the right to information, the > right to privacy, and the right to security. > > The Internet aims to be a global network of network that provides > connectivity to all its users, just like the Universal Declaration of > Human Rights provides rights to all citizens. This makes a clear case > that the Internet is not only an enabler of human rights, but that > human rights, lie at the basis of, and is ingrained in, the network. > Furthermore interview will be done with the chair of the Internet > Architecture Board (IAB), members of the Internet Engineering > Steering Group (IESG) and chairs of selected working groups and RFC > authors. > > To start addressing the issue, a mapping exercise analyzing Internet > architecture and protocols features, vis-a-vis possible impact on > human rights needs to be > undertaken. > > [snip, leaving the examples in place] > > 3. Proposal > Mapping the relation between human rights and protocols and > architectures is a new research challenge, which will require a good > amount of cross organizational cooperation to develop a consistent > methodology. While the authors of this first draft are involved in > both human rights advocacy and research on Internet technologies - we > believe that bringing this work into the IRTF would facilitate and > improve this work by bringing human rights experts together with the > community of researchers and developers of Internet standards and > technologies. > > At this point we have created a mailing list where we would like to > encourage discussion of the issue and capture interest of the IRTF > community. A second step would be to create a charter and ask the > IRTF for a Research group to further develop methodology and > investigate Human rights Protocol considerations. > > Assuming that the research produces useful results, the objective > would evolve into the creation of a set of recommended considerations > for the protection of applicable human rights. > > In the analysis of existing RFCs central design and technical > concepts have been found which impact human rights. These concepts > will form the lens for the analysis of RFCs and will be further > described vis a vis their impact on human rights. > > The current working assumption is the following: > > The combination of content agnosticism, connectivity, security (as > defined in RFC 3365) [RFC3365] and privacy (as defined in RFC 6973) > [RFC6973] are the technical principles that underly freedom of > expression on the Internet. > > Privacy and security are defined, so here we focus on concepts that > have not been defined as considerations that are relevant for freedom > of expression. > > This is a non-exhaustive first list of concepts, which definitions > should be improved and further aligned with existing RFCs. > > Connectivity > The Internet is the tool for providing global connectivity conform > RFC1958. Therefore all protocols and standards should aim to improve > connectivity, and not to limit it. > > Distributed > To enable and strengthen connectivity, stability, and sustainability > of the network, protocols and standards should be developed in a way > that they can be implemented in a distributed way, if not, strong > accountability mechanism should be in place. > > Inter-operable > Standards exist to design systems that allow for other systems to > interact freely and openly. > > Reliable > Reliability ensures that a protocol will execute its function > consistently and error resistant as described and function without > unexpected result, also when there is an increase or decrease of > throughput. A system that is reliable will have a documented way to > recover from failure. > > Scalable > Any solution should support growth of the network with more hosts, > users and traffic. And have clear understanding of it's scope and > ideally a proposition how it can be expanded in order to support > greater capacity. > > Stateless / state-full > If possible protocols should be implemented stateless for reliability > and privacy considerations. If not, they should keep as little state > as possible. > > Content agnostic > Protocols should not treat packets/datagrams differently based on > their content. > > Transparent > Protocols should be transparent in what they can do and can not do and > how it is done. Implementation of protocols should advertise it's > policies on data retention for the service and which jurisdiction it > falls under. > > Debugging > A protocol should allow a user to troubleshoot and debug possible > causes of malfunction and loss of reliability. > > Robust, robustness > Protocols should be resistant to errors, involuntary legal or > malicious attempts to disrupt its mode of operations. Protocols > should be developed in a way that there is no (intransparent) kill > switch. There should also be a clear description on how a protocol > recovers from potential failures. > > End user-centric / representing stakeholder rights > As proposed in draft-nottingham-stakeholder-rights-00: > > [QUOTE] > Protocols MUST document relevant primary stakeholders and their > interrelationships. > > [..] > > End-user-facing application protocols MUST prioritise their users > higher than any other stakeholders. > Extensions to existing protocols MUST document how they interact with > the extended protocol's stakeholders. If the extended protocol's > stakeholders are not yet documented, the extension MAY estimate its > impact, in coordination with that protocol's community and the IESG. > The burden of this documentation need not be high; if HTML can do it > in a paragraph, so can most protocols. While it might be appropriate > in a separate document (e.g., a requirements or use cases draft) or > the protocol specification itself, documenting stakeholders in the WG > charter has considerable benefits, since it clarifies their > relationships up-front. > > [/QUOTE] > > > - -- > Niels ten Oever > Head of Digital > > Article 19 > www.article19.org > > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU9bXVAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpeKEH/3MhfM1yFG2aJf4/8ZBWwQtA > rlb0iVw2mCeA9RsulzgkU7cZC3dh+24PIVsX0DmiaCJtk7YJbCzI8wQtvm8b2aD0 > PnQzRbkCGHxpPKLP+GkuNr2iQCdWQ6YoY68g8up26jHco9DUaTIOw9zGFV4lApu3 > d2/9DvyrF/d2lgO17c9vFVmAoE+wWdlE1CMRV2SDGcbz9Fb9xSntnJ5/+SXkNpQ+ > 24BaCk73xK88mRqvk/HLUO3GCoDd3ytM5KuU0X4hQOoLVWOpyQaVOadtLQbLkNNX > GB1NIalgs8ivK+8PXn4fsbKMCYLR3HcSDIzC/uiICRciznu0G82v49pZYYAVt+Y= > =DKrF > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 18:40:17 +0000 > From: Stephen Farrell > To: "hrpc@article19.io" > Subject: [hrpc] relevant UNESCO draft document > Message-ID: <54F60011.9050906@cs.tcd.ie> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > > Hiya, > > I'm at a UNESCO conference at the moment [1] and they have a > draft document for which they'd like to get more technical > review. [2] > > I'm not sure to which email address they'd like comments sent > but I'll check tomorrow and send a mail here. You'll not have > read the 96 pages by then most likely though:-) But it's pretty > relevant to this list I think. > > Cheers, > S. > > > [1] http://www.unesco.org/new/en/netconference2015 > [2] > > http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/internet_draft_study.pdf > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@article19.io > https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > > End of hrpc Digest, Vol 6, Issue 1 > ********************************** > -- 'The management of normality is hard work' --f46d04138ccd520ded051077f87b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear all,

Just a thought:

It's clear that there are priva= cy=20 considerations w/ standards, and security issues, of course, and those=20 are both human rights issues even though=C2=A0 IT privacy and security are = not=20 usually framed within a human rights context. However, should we be even mo= re specific in this document of what makes=C2=A0 standards development diff= erent from any other Internet/IT engineering=20 issues?

Users interface with software and hardware more than they d= o with networking or encryption standards. Why are protocols / standards=20 unique? Or perhaps more relevant, how do we justify our particular focus on= them. It's a small thing - but I think it might make the document a li= ttle stronger still if we address this issue, because I feel this might be = a point of critique brought up at the upcoming meeting.

On that same not= e - I recently booked my flight to Dallas and look forward to meeting every= one who will also be attending.

Best,

Corinne



On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 a= t 11:00 AM, <hrpc-request@article19.io> wrote:
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px= #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">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. new draft text for the ID (Niels ten Oever)
=C2=A0 =C2=A02. relevant UNESCO draft document (Stephen Farrell)


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

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 14:23:34 +0100
From: Niels ten Oever <niels@arti= cle19.org>
To: "hrpc@article19.io" = <hrpc@article19.io>
Subject: [hrpc] new draft text for the ID
Message-ID: <54F5B5D6.= 4080404@article19.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dutf-8

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dear all,

Based on the traffic on this list, some interviews and discussions I
drafted new text for the ID. The additions are to 2. research topic
and 3. Proposal. I pasted the proposed text underneath, happy to discuss.
The deadline for sending in the ID is the 9th, and since we will also
need to consolidate the comments and put the ID in XML it would be
greatly appreciated if you could comment in the coming days (before
the 7th) so we can still integrate your comments in the ID, but of
course also happy to discuss afterwards and in Dallas.

Looking forward to your comments, questions and suggestions.

Best,

Niels

PS The original ID can be found here:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-doria-hrpc-proposal-00
2.=C2=A0 Research topic
In a manner similar to the work done for RFC 6973 [RFC6973] on Privacy
Consideration Guidelines, the premise of this research is that some
standards and protocols can solidify, enable or threaten human rights,
such as freedom of expression and the right to association and
assembly online.

RFC 6973 however asserts privacy as a subset of security, and security
aims to solely serve growth of the network and communication:

Development of security mechanisms is seen as a key factor in the
future growth of the Internet as a motor for international commerce
and communication.[RFC1984]=C2=A0 and according to the Danvers Doctrine, there=C2=A0 is an overwhelming=C2=A0 consensus in the IETF that the best security=C2=A0 should be used and=C2=A0 standardized.[RFC3365]. At the same= time:

The=C2=A0 Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet Engineering Steering=C2=A0 Group (IESG), the bodies which oversee architecture and
standards for=C2=A0 the Internet, are concerned by the need for increased protection of=C2=A0 international commercial transactions on the Internet,<= br> and by the need=C2=A0 to offer all Internet users an adequate degree of
privacy. [RFC1984]

This=C2=A0 shows that security and privacy are very high on the agenda of the=C2=A0 IETF, but a reason for this, outside of underpinning growth and trust of=C2=A0 the network, is not given. In this research it is argued
that security and privacy are (contributing to) essential human
rights; such as freedom of expression, the right to information, the
right to=C2=A0 privacy, and the right to security.

The Internet aims to be a global network of network that provides
connectivity to all its users, just like the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights provides rights to all citizens. This makes a clear case
that the Internet is not only an enabler of human rights, but that
human rights, lie at the basis of, and is ingrained in, the network.
Furthermore=C2=A0 interview will be done with=C2=A0 the chair of the Intern= et
Architecture=C2=A0 Board (IAB), members of the=C2=A0 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG)=C2=A0 and chairs of selected=C2=A0 working groups and= RFC
authors.

To start addressing the issue, a mapping exercise analyzing Internet
architecture and protocols features, vis-a-vis possible impact on
human rights needs to be
undertaken.

[snip, leaving the examples in place]

3.=C2=A0 Proposal
Mapping the relation between human rights and protocols and
architectures is a new research challenge, which will require a good
amount of cross organizational cooperation to develop a consistent
methodology.=C2=A0 While the authors of this first draft are involved in both human rights advocacy and research on Internet technologies - we
believe that bringing this work into the IRTF would facilitate and
improve this work by bringing human rights experts together with the
community of researchers and developers of Internet standards and
technologies.

At this point we have created a mailing list where we would like to
encourage discussion of the issue and capture interest of the IRTF
community.=C2=A0 A second step would be to create a charter and ask the
IRTF for a Research group to further develop methodology and
investigate Human rights Protocol considerations.

Assuming that the research produces useful results, the objective
would evolve into the creation of a set of recommended considerations
for the protection of applicable human rights.

In the=C2=A0 analysis of existing RFCs central design and technical
concepts have been found which impact human rights. These concepts
will form the lens for the analysis of RFCs and will be further
described vis a vis their impact on human rights.

The current working assumption is the following:

The=C2=A0 combination of content agnosticism, connectivity, security (as defined in RFC 3365) [RFC3365] and privacy (as defined in RFC 6973)
[RFC6973] are the technical principles that underly freedom of
expression on the Internet.

Privacy and security are defined, so here we focus on concepts that
have not been defined as considerations that are relevant for freedom
of expression.

This is a non-exhaustive first list of concepts, which definitions
should be improved and further aligned with existing RFCs.

Connectivity
The Internet is the tool for providing global connectivity conform
RFC1958. Therefore all protocols and standards should aim to improve
connectivity, and not to limit it.

Distributed
To=C2=A0 enable and strengthen connectivity, stability, and sustainability<= br> of=C2=A0 the network, protocols and standards should be developed in a way<= br> that=C2=A0 they can be implemented in a distributed way, if not, strong
accountability mechanism should be in place.

Inter-operable
Standards exist to design systems that allow for other systems to
interact freely and openly.

Reliable
Reliability ensures that a protocol will execute its function
consistently and=C2=A0 error resistant as described and function without unexpected result, also when there is an increase or decrease of
throughput. A system that is reliable will have a documented way to
recover from failure.

Scalable
Any=C2=A0 solution should support growth of the network with more hosts, users and traffic. And have clear understanding of it's scope and
ideally a proposition how it can be expanded in order to support
greater capacity.

Stateless / state-full
If=C2=A0 possible protocols should be implemented stateless for reliability=
and privacy considerations. If not, they should keep as little state
as possible.

Content agnostic
Protocols should not treat packets/datagrams differently based on
their content.

Transparent
Protocols should be transparent in what they can do and can not do and
how it is=C2=A0 done. Implementation of protocols should advertise it's=
policies on data retention for the service and which jurisdiction it
falls under.

Debugging
A protocol should allow a user to troubleshoot and debug possible
causes of malfunction and loss of reliability.

Robust, robustness
Protocols should be resistant to errors, involuntary legal or
malicious attempts=C2=A0 to disrupt its mode of operations. Protocols
should be developed in a=C2=A0 way that there is no (intransparent) kill switch. There should also be a clear description on how a protocol
recovers from potential failures.

End user-centric / representing=C2=A0 stakeholder rights
As proposed in draft-nottingham-stakeholder-rights-00:

[QUOTE]
Protocols MUST document relevant primary stakeholders and their
interrelationships.

[..]

=C2=A0End-user-facing application protocols MUST prioritise their users
higher than any other stakeholders.
Extensions to existing protocols MUST document how they interact with
the extended protocol's stakeholders.=C2=A0 If the extended protocol= 9;s
stakeholders are not yet documented, the extension MAY estimate its
impact, in coordination with that protocol's community and the IESG. The burden of this documentation need not be high; if HTML can do it
in a paragraph, so can most protocols.=C2=A0 While it might be appropriate<= br> in a separate document (e.g., a requirements or use cases draft) or
the protocol specification itself, documenting stakeholders in the WG
charter has considerable benefits, since it clarifies their
relationships up-front.

[/QUOTE]


- --
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint=C2=A0 =C2=A0 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0678B 0= 8B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU9bXVAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpeKEH/3MhfM1yFG2aJf4/8ZBWwQtA
rlb0iVw2mCeA9RsulzgkU7cZC3dh+24PIVsX0DmiaCJtk7YJbCzI8wQtvm8b2aD0
PnQzRbkCGHxpPKLP+GkuNr2iQCdWQ6YoY68g8up26jHco9DUaTIOw9zGFV4lApu3
d2/9DvyrF/d2lgO17c9vFVmAoE+wWdlE1CMRV2SDGcbz9Fb9xSntnJ5/+SXkNpQ+
24BaCk73xK88mRqvk/HLUO3GCoDd3ytM5KuU0X4hQOoLVWOpyQaVOadtLQbLkNNX
GB1NIalgs8ivK+8PXn4fsbKMCYLR3HcSDIzC/uiICRciznu0G82v49pZYYAVt+Y=3D
=3DDKrF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



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

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 18:40:17 +0000
From: Stephen Farrell <step= hen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
To: "hrpc@article19.io" = <hrpc@article19.io>
Subject: [hrpc] relevant UNESCO draft document
Message-ID: <54F60011.9050= 906@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dutf-8


Hiya,

I'm at a UNESCO conference at the moment [1] and they have a
draft document for which they'd like to get more technical
review. [2]

I'm not sure to which email address they'd like comments sent
but I'll check tomorrow and send a mail here. You'll not have
read the 96 pages by then most likely though:-) But it's pretty
relevant to this list I think.

Cheers,
S.


[1] http://www.unesco.org/new/en/netconference2015
[2]
http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin= /MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/internet_draft_study.pdf




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

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

End of hrpc Digest, Vol 6, Issue 1
**********************************



--



'The management of normality is hard work'
<= /div>
--f46d04138ccd520ded051077f87b-- From niels@article19.org Wed Mar 04 22:00:44 2015 Received: from mx1.lan ([10.10.12.44] helo=mx1.greenhost.nl) by mailman.lan with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YTGPM-0005JO-2s for hrpc@article19.io; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 22:00:44 +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 1YTGPL-0005f9-Mj for hrpc@article19.io; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 22:00:43 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7068014404 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 21:02:42 +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 o_woMVb0oHVU for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 21:02:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAEF414411 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 21:02:41 +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 sIJRx7JhgPyb for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 21:02:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.18] (81.202.49.19.dyn.user.ono.com [81.202.49.19]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6BC8F14404 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 21:02:41 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <54F77278.4060202@article19.org> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 22:00:40 +0100 From: Niels ten Oever User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hrpc@article19.io References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 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: 4cc6a862e0a753e674eb374334b394fd Subject: [hrpc] Scope (was: Re: hrpc Digest, Vol 6, 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: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 21:00:44 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Corinne, Thanks for this. Great that you will be coming to Dallas! On 03/04/2015 04:18 PM, Corinne Cath wrote: > Dear all, >=20 > Just a thought: >=20 > It's clear that there are privacy considerations w/ standards, and=20 > security issues, of course, and those are both human rights issues > even though IT privacy and security are not usually framed within > a human rights context. Not sure, what about the Human Rights Council resolution "on the promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet", the the resolution "The right to privacy in the digital age" by the UN general assembly and the NETmundial outcome document? > However, should we be even more specific in this document of what > makes standards development different from any other Internet/IT > engineering issues? >=20 > Users interface with software and hardware more than they do with=20 > networking or encryption standards. Why are protocols / standards=20 > unique? Or perhaps more relevant, how do we justify our particular > focus on them. Protocols are the standards for the exchange of information. So they ensure that systems can communicate with each other, but also shape the way in which that is done, what is possible, and what is not. That is the unique and important role of standards in the ecosystem. In other words: Protocols and standards form the basis of the the Internet, they define what the Internet is and how it works. I think that's why we're focusing on them, > It's a small thing - but I think it might make the document a=20 > little stronger still if we address this issue, because I feel > this might be a point of critique brought up at the upcoming > meeting. >=20 Always happy to consider text proposals for the ID of course. Best, Niels -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU93J4AAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpILgH/R8Mjo8b0uUsPAiZmeF6To1q +IecdmAsN1K3BlVruw13VxBhUB7r/p5Gke1XWZkRkI8DPdM4cAmbGTyITjl0LT1Z oh62HFemZnN0edl52AG08/jPFDZ7HS5PgFflPNJFv0JBlkKnUUkS5z3ckFhS7yL7 U0mNhVX6EZEmWKn60iBmkM1yhgh71Un9lcsMBt3kcyAuHEY3FvYPi/f0jr5igVc7 5yYlCQWuGzC8DeVaeqWWTKouOCUPlforsKUZES6GmMvXE9JqkragpK6nVSFSQ/1K kn4Rl7bl571T/zRP9TQD18Wc/AScMvgkhQZ4bpfYO6Tzet4gKWea7v4u5K3S6bg=3D =3DtjbA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From niels@article19.org Mon Mar 09 16:39:42 2015 Received: from mx1.lan ([10.10.12.44] helo=mx1.greenhost.nl) by mailman.lan with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YUzmQ-0005F1-LZ for hrpc@article19.io; Mon, 09 Mar 2015 16:39:42 +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 1YUzmQ-0006WA-9J for hrpc@article19.io; Mon, 09 Mar 2015 16:39:42 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47662C0008 for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 15:41:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.899 tagged_above=-10 required=6.6 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1, BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 0KHmH9NEWh1U for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 15:41:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 582AAC0009 for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 15:41:47 +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 weyoo2pESat1 for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 15:41:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.34] (fil75-2-78-192-151-37.fbxo.proxad.net [78.192.151.37]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DDB01CC03D for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 15:41:46 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <54FDBEB8.8050205@article19.org> Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 16:39:36 +0100 From: Niels ten Oever User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "hrpc@article19.io" References: <20150309152157.24740.19765.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150309152157.24740.19765.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20150309152157.24740.19765.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Level: / X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40, SPF_NEUTRAL, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Score: 0.8 X-Virus-Scanned: by Greenhost Virus Scanner X-Scan-Signature: bc82d6a2e188773012c482ed32290af0 Subject: [hrpc] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-doria-hrpc-proposal-01.txt 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: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 15:39:43 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear all, A new version of the ID was just published, please find the links to the ID and the diff underneath. Looking forward to discuss! Best, Niels - -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-doria-hrpc-proposal-01.txt Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 08:21:57 -0700 From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Avri Doria , Joana Varon , Joana Varon , Niels ten Oever , Niels ten Oever , Avri Doria A new version of I-D, draft-doria-hrpc-proposal-01.txt has been successfully submitted by Avri Doria and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-doria-hrpc-proposal Revision: 01 Title: Proposal for research on human rights protocol considerations Document date: 2015-03-09 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 13 URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-doria-hrpc-proposal-01.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-doria-hrpc-proposal/ Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-doria-hrpc-proposal-01 Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-doria-hrpc-proposal-01 Abstract: Work has been done on privacy issues that should be considered when creating an Internet protocol. This draft suggests that similar considerations may apply for other human rights such as freedom of expression or freedom of association. A proposal is made for work in the IRTF researching the possible connections between human rights and Internet standards and protocols. The goal is to create an informational RFC concerning human rights protocol considerations. Discussion on this draft at: hrpc@article19.io Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. The IETF Secretariat -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU/b64AAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpUA0H/iuFkNAjKNPEdkC7TZZq4w9v DcGPdImsLKtRhOLLxVq+7rf8RPJqjzVh1/f4Ep6lyGjPi9mB0gDXCQ0flxBqsetw 9rpeQNndZ1sA7bO35+FXK0cI182CNFU8iJePZT6crle7ql/b/YIHUOXRY805ccK/ 9GfGC5HPhVqvILynND+3OjGnTXb7xnzTzbedMaR14UCnTQRwSJgDEAx3bI0jQ9/I LhzuPwPYbZTtd5Ek2QeieIbuMLy5vVfEFYG7QOwz73al/5YEKbEa9wZy12tvNi1+ E9k4lVZwnm7NNXweXOxSOZeAHW6GVCHACsWg1k0cZDz/HeXKY9v42DU79IdFPZc=3D =3Day2+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From joana@varonferraz.com Mon Mar 09 16:57:08 2015 Received: from mx1.lan ([10.10.12.44] helo=mx1.greenhost.nl) by mailman.lan with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YV03I-0005GM-AP for hrpc@article19.io; Mon, 09 Mar 2015 16:57:08 +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 1YV03I-0007O4-7o for hrpc@article19.io; Mon, 09 Mar 2015 16:57:08 +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 1YV03C-0002WF-Ge for hrpc@article19.io; Mon, 09 Mar 2015 16:57:08 +0100 Message-ID: <54FDC2CE.6070909@varonferraz.com> Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 12:57:02 -0300 From: Joana Varon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hrpc@article19.io References: <20150309152157.24740.19765.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54FDBEB8.8050205@article19.org> In-Reply-To: <54FDBEB8.8050205@article19.org> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050507010504000208090303" X-Authenticated-As-Hash: 0663834574f9da71d8f82ee71c27915bbc5237b0 X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Spam-Level: - X-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED, BAYES_20, HTML_MESSAGE, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1 X-Scan-Signature: 07bd28db4874ba8a664e5b7397826079 Subject: Re: [hrpc] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-doria-hrpc-proposal-01.txt 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: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 15:57:08 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------050507010504000208090303 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear all, In a correlated note: thanks for your inputs in this list. They have helped us a lot to be able to develop the ID further.=20 Please, note that the IETF hrpc session to discuss the next steps of the draft is scheduled for *Friday, March, 27th from 11:50 to 13:20*. It would be lovely if you could join us in person to keep this conversation going. So, please, consider adding it to your schedule. :) Our next task is to set up a good agenda and methodology for that debate, so, if there is any particular aspect of the draft that you would want to be highlighted in that session, please, feel free to suggest. We shall come up with a structure for your inputs asap. Kind regards, Joana --=20 -- Joana Varon @joana_varon Fingerprint 239D E977 32D0 28BC 297F 64B6 3B69 BDE4 016B 8E73 On 09-03-2015 12:39, Niels ten Oever wrote: > Dear all, > > A new version of the ID was just published, please find the links to > the ID and the diff underneath. > > Looking forward to discuss! > > Best, > > Niels > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-doria-hrpc-proposal-01.txt > Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 08:21:57 -0700 > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org > To: Avri Doria , Joana Varon , > Joana Varon , Niels ten Oever > , Niels ten Oever , Avri > Doria > > > A new version of I-D, draft-doria-hrpc-proposal-01.txt > has been successfully submitted by Avri Doria and posted to the > IETF repository. > > Name: draft-doria-hrpc-proposal > Revision: 01 > Title: Proposal for research on human rights protocol > considerations > Document date: 2015-03-09 > Group: Individual Submission > Pages: 13 > URL: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-doria-hrpc-proposal-01.txt > Status: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-doria-hrpc-proposal/ > Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-doria-hrpc-proposal-01= > Diff: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-doria-hrpc-proposal-01 > > Abstract: > Work has been done on privacy issues that should be considered when > creating an Internet protocol. This draft suggests that similar > considerations may apply for other human rights such as freedom of > expression or freedom of association. A proposal is made for work i= n > the IRTF researching the possible connections between human rights > and Internet standards and protocols. The goal is to create an > informational RFC concerning human rights protocol considerations. > > Discussion on this draft at: hrpc@article19.io > > > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > The IETF Secretariat > > > > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@article19.io > https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/hrpc --------------050507010504000208090303 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear all,

In a correlated note: thanks for your inputs in this list. They have helped us a lot to be able to develop the ID further. 

Please, note that the IETF hrpc session to discuss the next steps of the draft is scheduled for Friday, March, 27th from 11:50 to 13:20. It would be lovely if you could join us in person to keep this conversation going. So, please, consider adding it to your schedule. :)

Our next task is to set up a good agenda and methodology for that debate, so, if there is any particular aspect of the draft that you would want to be highlighted in that session, please, feel free to suggest. We shall come up with a structure for your inputs asap.

Kind regards,

Joana

--
--
Joana Varon
@joana_varon
Fingerprint
239D E977 32D0 28BC 297F 64B6 3B69 BDE4 016B 8E73

On 09-03-2015 12:39, Niels ten Oever wrote:
Dear all,

A new version of the ID was just published, please find the links to
the ID and the diff underneath.

Looking forward to discuss!

Best,

Niels

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-doria-hrpc-proposal-01.txt
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 08:21:57 -0700
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>, Joana Varon <joana@varonferraz.com>,
Joana Varon <joana@varonferraz.com>, Niels ten Oever
<niels@article19.org>, Niels ten Oever <niels@article19.org>, Avri
Doria <avri@acm.org>


A new version of I-D, draft-doria-hrpc-proposal-01.txt
has been successfully submitted by Avri Doria and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:        draft-doria-hrpc-proposal
Revision:    01
Title:        Proposal for research on human rights protocol considerations
Document date:    2015-03-09
Group:        Individual Submission
Pages:        13
URL:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-doria-hrpc-proposal-01.txt
Status:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-doria-hrpc-proposal/
Htmlized:       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-doria-hrpc-proposal-01
Diff:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-doria-hrpc-proposal-01

Abstract:
   Work has been done on privacy issues that should be considered when
   creating an Internet protocol.  This draft suggests that similar
   considerations may apply for other human rights such as freedom of
   expression or freedom of association.  A proposal is made for work in
   the IRTF researching the possible connections between human rights
   and Internet standards and protocols.  The goal is to create an
   informational RFC concerning human rights protocol considerations.

   Discussion on this draft at: hrpc@article19.io





Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat



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



--------------050507010504000208090303-- From niels@article19.org Sun Mar 15 21:38:15 2015 Received: from mx1.lan ([10.10.12.44] helo=mx1.greenhost.nl) by mailman.lan with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YXFId-000189-O3 for hrpc@article19.io; Sun, 15 Mar 2015 21:38:15 +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 1YXFId-0004bq-Fc for hrpc@article19.io; Sun, 15 Mar 2015 21:38:15 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 885464019 for ; Sun, 15 Mar 2015 20:40:35 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.899 tagged_above=-10 required=6.6 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1, BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 aG6h6pdtfhNW for ; Sun, 15 Mar 2015 20:40:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AA4B11403D for ; Sun, 15 Mar 2015 20:40:34 +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 pHMSNAuPm9L3 for ; Sun, 15 Mar 2015 20:40:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.14] (d109201.upc-d.chello.nl [213.46.109.201]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 508AB130000 for ; Sun, 15 Mar 2015 20:40:34 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5505EDB5.7020705@article19.org> Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 21:38:13 +0100 From: Niels ten Oever User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.5.0 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=0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05, SPF_NEUTRAL, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Score: 0.3 X-Virus-Scanned: by Greenhost Virus Scanner X-Scan-Signature: 9090f8a1960d7f777b94d17b6f36e747 Subject: [hrpc] recap of Honolulu session in IETF journal 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: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 20:38:16 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear all, A recap of our presentation and discussion in Honolulu can be found in the new IETF journal. You can download it here: [PDF] https://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/Journal_March%202.pdf You can find the article on pages 12 and 13. 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 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVBe21AAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpfOMIAIryliEbaMcQ5jrJ+8+fRJ/l 837ATQGcEnMWMjDzKwRJKbThEaoGNuwzgvrCav2qph+fvpY/BqrX+ITuWMVF8N0Y CdsaQ2IU3mhV8Vm8R6bWR8zKJwlYNfL2wy+4gOWBruI0voimjzknoTN73OXaH+BM LtbQWPrNXjcX2UQPIJGxBrIn8B5gW1dgBbflUJuMhu1IfnAvK1nzxUiLhpN+r28K YULzoEE1s/ZDAPHaKiQ86oCaDEeY8Ff8wX2nqmVV4jCV309Ci6in0/bT8hO48+AJ uxIEr0ELh216aBVd+EbVdM9myL+E0kBpoIQ1buhTGMBEUx/Cca9ncaIoLLcg5d0= =DDK+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From niels@article19.org Fri Mar 27 11:42:14 2015 Received: from mx1.lan ([10.10.12.44] helo=mx1.greenhost.nl) by mailman.lan with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YbRiQ-0000NZ-3r for hrpc@article19.io; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 11:42:14 +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 1YbRiP-0003fw-L8 for hrpc@article19.io; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 11:42:14 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 296DF13002B for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 10:44:56 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.899 tagged_above=-10 required=6.6 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1, BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 wtF9I_yCkYEQ for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 10:44:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E10213002E for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 10:44:55 +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 vf3whrJFUNS2 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 10:44:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [31.133.137.168] (dhcp-89a8.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.137.168]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F354613002B for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 10:44:54 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <55153401.7030900@article19.org> Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 05:42:09 -0500 From: Niels ten Oever User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.5.0 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_40, SPF_NEUTRAL, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Score: 0.8 X-Virus-Scanned: by Greenhost Virus Scanner X-Scan-Signature: 9090f8a1960d7f777b94d17b6f36e747 Subject: [hrpc] Scribe for session today 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, 27 Mar 2015 10:42:14 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear all, We're greatly looking forward to our session today at 11:50 in Dallas. Is there anyone who would like to volunteer as a Jabber scribe? [0] Best, Niels [0] http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saintandre-jabber-scribe/ - -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVFTQAAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpLkkH/i4WcY9HuQVpDvp4WjkdegUH 9FG0B0/0FmQpdj3pRpIN0bLBe4cSyoag0m1pYDchaAgFQIeG+5mGykW2l/WKUS7x h/Z4DlYCaXNkK8a8sy5d3qAp6g6cnoGNowzqZG9W2vUJ9F1Pdcp+VqFqs5oUIGWi methdHa/ZH2BZUOJAAPk7OSQGyyBIO9Mkd6MF6ThX7hPzYfcxl9vfnu7G3yV6F0u HfrwrbAKJoZe7KtytIynlRIdw5BT75XozIIVqIDF0DiA993/hYpgkq3XR8Qd8Q9w nG+MqUmgtY7Jq4dOM4b+o3oxC8xUaBYOEgN2VCiSyz+mDb93rYPGqZw6QGi1W7Q= =zMe1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From azet@azet.org Fri Mar 27 19:10:18 2015 Received: from mx1.lan ([10.10.12.44] helo=mx1.greenhost.nl) by mailman.lan with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YbYi2-00014m-78 for hrpc@article19.io; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 19:10:18 +0100 Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com ([74.125.82.44]) by mx1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YbYi1-0002MR-MR for hrpc@article19.io; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 19:10:18 +0100 Received: by wgbdm7 with SMTP id dm7so1616815wgb.1 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 11:10:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:content-type; bh=zMLJFM+IEbO8n9ZC0qL0aBY5Nm61rduw9GdV10cASfU=; b=kcECbRlVgQAwcKWRS43/xhUY0J7wlnynzyueCwfjPiai1jdLrJ0BAOsCRsxGJn0fOG l5jTz9lnfF2vCcnqbnyrQ8xgMDDAHVbi4ROm7Tk+6AoLZPpo6UoNfBjBNFV7PFZ56yV1 uw/hZip9U6bvEX83WkN0EosGcQN9tYoalc0o9PPoRhxSo8Qu3qWgksNuebaaNekoDFoe dBGaC2WAh6bp+XrAItZSWGagdF8nESSJl7tDMcDIJvfFIeG1IUck00MfL2vNQ5oTb7Us yQZqE7UCho/AZsKsNCMHO8vyuluAyIqwnzkjKe5xf7b5dBdGUszQMrO3TgEP607BUW1a TMkQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkM3jVnGZTtTt3AHW2QKSHlAtKDcQrnPAz5by3Owj/BjMkjERjJ7hQnq0TdFY419tbmK30W X-Received: by 10.180.74.135 with SMTP id t7mr188438wiv.72.1427479817433; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 11:10:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.0.142] (chello080108032135.14.11.univie.teleweb.at. [80.108.32.135]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id q6sm3866568wix.3.2015.03.27.11.10.15 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 27 Mar 2015 11:10:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55159D03.2090606@azet.org> Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 19:10:11 +0100 From: Aaron Zauner User-Agent: Postbox 3.0.11 (Macintosh/20140602) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hrpc@article19.io X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig424351FB9FB6E331B2F305BD" X-Spam-Level: / X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 X-Virus-Scanned: by Greenhost Virus Scanner X-Scan-Signature: 897836312160ed0141c32cdc6ac56212 Subject: [hrpc] Nomenclature/Definition of Human Rights issues in Protocol Design 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, 27 Mar 2015 18:10:18 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig424351FB9FB6E331B2F305BD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, During the HRPC meeting at IETF92 there were a couple of proposal on how to address human rights issues in protocol design. We clearly need some sort of definition that is clear to protocol designers, implementers and people that deploy these protocols in the real world. I don't think that "protocol perversion" is an appropriate term; as some have already pointed out, 'perversion' might be a positive protocol feature that enables technology evolution. * Wrongly answering DNS queries (Turkey) is a technique that some CDNs also use to speed up answering requests or giving geolocation aware answers. * BGP Hijacking is correct use of the protocol as specified. * QoS techniques as used in Iran and China are used as specified. ..et cetera.. I think the proper approach is to think of intent (as done in security in general). Speaking of malicious intent when a protocol is (mis)used in a way that causes human rights issues would be an example. Input appreciated. Aaron --------------enig424351FB9FB6E331B2F305BD Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVFZ0EAAoJEOTbZJL9ubXVt2IP/j2y28CizZN/Exbk4dmhKUL2 zH3gUbmq2A6cy0Finn8nyBDe1MrSNYSf56XNKpnRriAWFx6aDRIhik8jWJSNO3iL 9WqucQdBE8vEdh+zoom4dVbHT3dQ/bnuttCqiN3r78v0E0fi9zR5Gb1kaPgLVBrU mHLkN2VuT58Z3SqiUEUauD9eVsMuvQYGmCJ8brcb57a/JZbie4alyiJlCA7pvgs0 L3FYFvjd2f6pUpJnsHF18P1T2bdEWe+EeKJ4bqep+Uegi0oLOoaMC8tGtlloVP0D fH6Hi/qP9d9FpiMeSGuk66X9zwhfboFN8SXiLosuG+z2fA8IUpUb+h3TWkFJQAWx yTBiZwiFpw1Rl1bSJyThn9JCe2ZDHMmeFFVo8hojd8Xz2ZBRbuIfbn/LYsM+hGfk tkTtYdjhD9THhmtDkQKwJTbf7KdvZGdJ6vIzdWg1zYA7YN4yVXmjWt/+u9MGSoZC p65AkYQhXjP2TxH0c4BRG5I6FAZV5bkOjlqblmxxzRIYi5199AqsV2ojjY3RDL0z 7tkUXbvOA0vuW0jtJe/VCNufBtfy46lMh7JIV797id3lCmq93H9qP6vNMscOjWc9 8RPCCFcvPPYsQxMYCSYJH+xuaqFV38/vpWm/e6YgLsYntifE9eS/GBqprGvxLa1h aIehDWIWgoMad2Q4L5Vt =3Yi7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig424351FB9FB6E331B2F305BD-- From fred@cisco.com Fri Mar 27 20:01:39 2015 Received: from [10.10.12.45] (helo=mx2.greenhost.nl) by mailman.lan with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YbZVj-00019o-EJ for hrpc@article19.io; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 20:01:39 +0100 Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com ([173.37.142.92]) by mx2.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YbZVi-00049i-G5 for hrpc@article19.io; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 20:01:39 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1729; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1427482899; x=1428692499; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=N5iCt4p8QdXzdP5PzZ7bKFpYqxFV6dKd1D3y+0IcKfg=; b=QLwk0+OHgjfzns0OZj8O6oinVkNMJrFg3TU+/McMugQzp+8xcwulvRY/ BkBIK1ydxZvRLSMn0DVhxE5z2tlcEsygLX6eLs9+toABh9RMBL1CNF8cJ ERDjnes770ENfyesV2X63iBgl491g4qpMJD88AMtRL0lE6Z5V1Tf35d0T 4=; X-Files: signature.asc : 487 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BGBQBRqBVV/5NdJa1cgwaBMIJJRsllTAEBAQEBAX2EGwwXaAEGRAI0JwQhiCGVSY0qj0yaHQEBAQEBBQEBAQEBAQEbkw8vgRYFkFeBaYEyhlWUMSKDboIzfwEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,480,1422921600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="136063288" Received: from rcdn-core-11.cisco.com ([173.37.93.147]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Mar 2015 19:01:37 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com [173.37.183.82]) by rcdn-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t2RJ1aQo009283 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 19:01:36 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.149]) by xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com ([173.37.183.82]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 14:01:36 -0500 From: "Fred Baker (fred)" To: "hrpc@article19.io" Thread-Topic: May I express what I am being troubled by? Thread-Index: AQHQaMByhhTvxehN7EmTNncAk63DHg== Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 19:01:35 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.89.12.130] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8A51E98C-82EA-471E-B8D1-5D22696A59DE"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Level: ----------- X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_PASS, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD, URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Score: -11.9 X-Virus-Scanned: by Greenhost Virus Scanner X-Scan-Signature: a2d32f98be707cbcda8602d5fffa976a X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 21:16:49 +0100 Subject: [hrpc] May I express what I am being troubled by? 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, 27 Mar 2015 19:01:39 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_8A51E98C-82EA-471E-B8D1-5D22696A59DE Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 I find myself thinking about: 1) a grammatical construct using the words =E2=80=9Cyou=E2=80=9D, = =E2=80=9Care=E2=80=9D, =E2=80=9Ca=E2=80=9D, =E2=80=9Cterrible=E2=80=9D, = and =E2=80=9Cperson=E2=80=9D, 2) the sentence =E2=80=9Cyou are a terrible person=E2=80=9D, and 3) an instance of the use of that sentence, with an identified speaker = and an identified subject of the word =E2=80=9Cyou=E2=80=9D. Those are clearly three different things. This comes back to the = discussion we had in the room an hour ago, about the protocol, the = intention of the protocol designer, and the intention of the user of the = protocol. I=E2=80=99m concerned about the discussion confusing the three, and = would appreciate them being kept separate. --Apple-Mail=_8A51E98C-82EA-471E-B8D1-5D22696A59DE 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----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEVAwUBVRWfSp9ieig10VPpAQJg1QgAnQsY4DTMZJDslgkok1AjIPLSuiyAw+49 paPRQBWtAxjHL+pK/zMwiEf+iBIVnxW9OCEzRxj/R7mhg4yS8F3lXuGiEvzyppP5 1Yt7OR02MMK4OyjzdLiL0+W2X8Gb1XxXsU6+A+Wl7/WcxkZ/41e4XbGH7N3+DvHm rmLPXvxz36xdeRZPId8uXh7d+pYDhlcz8ulmXyV4xvYoAC/VMAJsWcFgVpmyNyo4 ryajsnFUUqxVSeis2brUSc9eKLWo9rWXK4WiANQWoC8x59XAys0fIO7HIHyLIVye 97ibzFCMy9WWN0fBlGfF9BbGvoz+Yfoo9WjZpA0KQpVWH6JWeaNcCw== =Q41b -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_8A51E98C-82EA-471E-B8D1-5D22696A59DE-- From fred@cisco.com Fri Mar 27 21:59:42 2015 Received: from [10.10.12.45] (helo=mx2.greenhost.nl) by mailman.lan with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YbbLy-0001Im-J1 for hrpc@article19.io; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 21:59:42 +0100 Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com ([173.37.86.80]) by mx2.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YbbLx-0006Lh-OW for hrpc@article19.io; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 21:59:42 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1786; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1427489981; x=1428699581; h=from:subject:date:message-id:to:mime-version; bh=6QNQS9RExOCx4NdZlQHiyTvzQAEct9mToBDP0QgEPp0=; b=mW5FEisdpLdTczE4Y/bQeegluo0TfgxENXg8of3EC0WVENJ1bAq1vP+u 42LXyDinAQ7gwAsd2rY0611HKvvRWzFDXK8OoKFdyACqGBF10+IkATlxH MHPHMRdPTskhG835OfNGUtZxd6ORJ1HqXJL/pALDnIRIeNrw8/vfM+1bI w=; X-Files: signature.asc : 487 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BEBQCuwxVV/5JdJa1cgwaDeUbJc0wBAQEBAQF9hCcXb0QCiSGVXI0qj0yaFyyQPYJSL4EWBYsXhymIBwGHBI0sIoQMIIJ0AQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,481,1422921600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="404152966" Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Mar 2015 20:59:39 +0000 Received: from [10.89.12.130] ([10.89.12.130]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t2RKxEgQ025074 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 20:59:39 GMT From: Fred Baker X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b6 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_557A7BB8-1FB0-4CF2-A7B5-0E2C447DB125"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 15:41:09 -0500 Message-Id: To: hrpc@article19.io Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) X-Spam-Level: ----------- X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_PASS, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD, URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Score: -11.9 X-Virus-Scanned: by Greenhost Virus Scanner X-Scan-Signature: 1f72ff50073f138f9668c095d6f579a1 Subject: [hrpc] May I express what I am being troubled by? 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, 27 Mar 2015 20:59:43 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_557A7BB8-1FB0-4CF2-A7B5-0E2C447DB125 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Resend: the first one got gobbled in moderation :-) I find myself thinking about: 1) a grammatical construct using the words =E2=80=9Cyou=E2=80=9D, = =E2=80=9Care=E2=80=9D, =E2=80=9Ca=E2=80=9D, =E2=80=9Cterrible=E2=80=9D, = and =E2=80=9Cperson=E2=80=9D, 2) the sentence =E2=80=9Cyou are a terrible person=E2=80=9D, and 3) an instance of the use of that sentence, with an identified speaker = and an identified subject of the word =E2=80=9Cyou=E2=80=9D. Those are clearly three different things. This comes back to the = discussion we had in the room an hour ago, about the protocol, the = intention of the protocol designer, and the intention of the user of the = protocol. I=E2=80=99m concerned about the discussion confusing the three, and = would appreciate them being kept separate. --Apple-Mail=_557A7BB8-1FB0-4CF2-A7B5-0E2C447DB125 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----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEVAwUBVRXAZp9ieig10VPpAQLJwgf/UQXZiWFJ6czp9BbHCJCncIwoIDFNH4yH 6rx93GXMRFL/vrdlKPDtnGOtqj6Ia8rp0EeVQozauU7fm3QkYKPoIqjugboRmk44 nj7oqyD3Bi1qjenhoSDEmoCfq/fzfKYet5uQZJEFXJSgtji7vXH/ajUp4fjjvnOs W21ErYYukzqRxK4Bwyl8CFyjHvNk1ZwxRfU5VxRtSKipeF4kDpal3ljXrYrs+HJ5 jbtBA9/msCaNoKvUI37W4h5/qsdwb/GFCVupIjeOnui+g2LirOR8zGdjQwKINur4 LMQdNvB6FU5jL8oN5ktM85VummACxRJmAtFOYr3wFhD5Y9ckyBztcg== =EkoK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_557A7BB8-1FB0-4CF2-A7B5-0E2C447DB125-- From niels@article19.org Sun Mar 29 19:05:30 2015 Received: from mx1.lan ([10.10.12.44] helo=mx1.greenhost.nl) by mailman.lan with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YcGeQ-0004Sy-16 for hrpc@article19.io; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 19:05:30 +0200 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 1YcGeP-0002gp-Bm for hrpc@article19.io; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 19:05:29 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EE388176 for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 17:08:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.899 tagged_above=-10 required=6.6 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1, BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 BhsWzIaZaJG1 for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 17:08:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id B261113002A for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 17:08:14 +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 d9DczuKoFijQ for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 17:08:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.14] (d109201.upc-d.chello.nl [213.46.109.201]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 76210E802A for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 17:08:14 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <551830D5.2070103@article19.org> Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 19:05:25 +0200 From: Niels ten Oever User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "hrpc@article19.io" Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="EMR4JOSOP9P7KsGAWkN0l2g3oE55m6o4h" X-Spam-Level: + X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50, SPF_NEUTRAL, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Score: 1.6 X-Virus-Scanned: by Greenhost Virus Scanner X-Scan-Signature: 2ae1bbb14e1c8ca2e946fb353a4804e1 Subject: [hrpc] Thanks and new resources to look at (ISOC principles && RFC3935) 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: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 17:05:30 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --EMR4JOSOP9P7KsGAWkN0l2g3oE55m6o4h Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello all (and a special welcome to new list members), Thank you very much for working with us this week, whether it was by participating in interviews, joining the session or sharing your views and knowledge. We're slowly starting to process all the input, but to keep the dialogue going we'll keep releasing our notes and thoughts here early and often. If you want to review some of the work please find here the link to the ID https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-doria-hrpc-proposal Audio of the presentation (starts after 4:04) http://www.ietf.org/audio/ietf92/ietf92-royal-20150327-1150-am2.mp3 Presentation slides https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/slides/slides-92-hrpc-0.pdf Here some great leads for relevant resources: Thanks Fred for pointing out the principles of ISOC [0] which could for a guidance for framing this work: The Ability to Connect. The edge-dominant end-to-end architecture of the Internet is essential to its utility as a platform for innovation, creativity, and economic opportunity. To preserve this quality, we will oppose efforts to establish standards or practices that would make it difficult or impossible for some users of the Internet to use the full range of Internet applications of all kinds. The Ability to Speak. The Internet is a powerful mass medium for self-expression which depends on the ability of its users to speak freely. We believe that the Internet must support private=E2=80=94and, wh= ere appropriate, anonymous=E2=80=94means of communication and collaboration a= mong individuals and groups, and will oppose efforts to restrict the type or content of information exchanged on the Internet. The Ability to Innovate. The remarkable growth of the Internet and the limitless variety of Internet applications follow directly from the open model of Internet connectivity and standards development. Any individual, organization, or company can develop and distribute a new Internet application that can be used by anyone. We recognize the enormous value of this innovation, and oppose governmental or nongovernmental restrictions on the evolution and use of Internet technology. The Ability to Share. The many-to-many architecture of the Internet makes it a powerful tool for sharing, education, and collaboration. It has enabled the global open source community to develop and enhance many of the key components of the Internet, such as the Domain Name System and the World-Wide Web, and has made the vision of digital libraries a reality. To preserve these benefits we will oppose technologies and legislation that would inhibit the freedom to develop and use open source software or limit the well-established concept of fair use, which is essential to scholarship, education, and collaboration= =2E The Ability to Choose. Government regulation and the economic power of incumbent telecommunication monopolies can delay or prevent the growth of the Internet by limiting the ability of competitors to provide new, better, cheaper, or more innovative Internet-related services. We advocate policies that promote competition in telecommunications, Internet services, Internet-related software, and e-commerce applications= =2E The Ability to Trust. Everyone=E2=80=99s ability to connect, speak, innov= ate, share, and choose depends on the Internet=E2=80=99s ability to support trustworthy internetworking=E2=80=94ensuring the security, reliability, a= nd stability of increasingly critical and pervasive applications and services. Thanks Corinne for pointing out RFC3935 [1], there are some great pointers in here! [quote] The Internet: A large, heterogeneous collection of interconnected systems that can be used for communication of many different types between any interested parties connected to it. The term includes both the "core Internet" (ISP networks) and "edge Internet" (corporate and private networks, often connected via firewalls, NAT boxes, application layer gateways and similar devices). The Internet is a truly global network, reaching into just about every country in the world. The IETF community wants the Internet to succeed because we believe that the existence of the Internet, and its influence on economics, communication, and education, will help us to build a better human society. [/quote] [quote] 4.1. The Scope of the Internet A very difficult issue in discussing the IETF's mission has been the scope of the term "for the Internet". The Internet is used for many things, many of which the IETF community has neither interest nor competence in making standards for. The Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither is the IETF. We want the Internet to be useful for communities that share our commitment to openness and fairness. We embrace technical concepts such as decentralized control, edge-user empowerment and sharing of resources, because those concepts resonate with the core values of the IETF community. These concepts have little to do with the technology that's possible, and much to do with the technology that we choose to create. At the same time, it is clear that many of the IETF-defined technologies are useful not only for the Internet, but also for networks that have no direct relation to the Internet itself. In attempting to resolve the question of the IETF's scope, perhaps the fairest balance is struck by this formulation: "protocols and practices for which secure and scalable implementations are expected to have wide deployment and interoperation on the Internet, or to form part of the infrastructure of the Internet." In addition to this constraint, we are also constrained by the principle of competence: Where we do not have, and cannot gather, the competence needed to make technically sound standards, we should not attempt to take the leadership. [/quote] And as always, your questions, suggestions, comments and critiques are very welcome. Best, Niels [0] http://www.internetsociety.org/who-we-are/mission/values-and-principles [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3935.txt --=20 Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 --EMR4JOSOP9P7KsGAWkN0l2g3oE55m6o4h Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVGDDVAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjp7p4H/1q4CHKSixdypdYNrkVShpb0 V6GBaBuiWyDGCX/5M1S/NG1lhxEIO0lNv0MySji3UtTORivIQ9xrYdhiwLx/DCDp BO22509qqAk8q3f1qzyLQpuyUsJm07H9OHMCOPcxrK/D6TqWCLfBfFWG3XXl/sna yiahCrMUvbW5CTOZ3+txMPPoSW7GPim97OYCOMbFNugSNkUtoalw1JICAz7+PUyM NThM4xOPV0/oXU+b/iv6gf/I5WkBQpOb3dckadk5eENzs8n/3mMqahF4YRJ55Hv6 zPGruFHyW9/TpV2SRZSMjSJ3ZvfL6mjrehPzLfIgoPj1U7k15BEFiZ07DydGdb4= =sH62 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --EMR4JOSOP9P7KsGAWkN0l2g3oE55m6o4h-- From niels@article19.org Mon Mar 30 18:04:42 2015 Received: from mx1.lan ([10.10.12.44] helo=mx1.greenhost.nl) by mailman.lan with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YccB7-0006BS-W5 for hrpc@article19.io; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 18:04:42 +0200 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 1YccB7-0000fK-Mh for hrpc@article19.io; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 18:04:41 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F668CC03B for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 16:07:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.899 tagged_above=-10 required=6.6 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1, BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 jRA5860RmTKb for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 16:07:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D6FECC03E for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 16:07:29 +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 StsS3CKtqPlM for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 16:07:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.14] (d109201.upc-d.chello.nl [213.46.109.201]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 16E5BCC03B for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 16:07:28 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <55197413.2000403@article19.org> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 18:04:35 +0200 From: Niels ten Oever User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.5.0 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_20, SPF_NEUTRAL, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Score: 0.8 X-Virus-Scanned: by Greenhost Virus Scanner X-Scan-Signature: 76f3589a93270604ea078d468a2051b3 Subject: [hrpc] mailinglist migration 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: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 16:04:42 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear all, I hope this email finds you well. During IETF92 I got suggested several times to migrate this mailinglist to an official IETF mailinglist. I am currently in the process of requesting one. I plan to migrate all current list subscribers to the new list, which will probably be hrpc@ietf.org. Please let me know if you would like me to not migrate you to the new list. 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 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVGXQTAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpshsIAI5/I1brrG7TsVyfByR2PAaU AKXNtb1H4H8lEC9x2LqdSSkgX61tobCtobLc66VS6WXlqBmGhI+leZVinYVYZEqd FgIwKr5XMOjHMugiuIiSPlbQVSuXru+zzLZDgPzc2DifCR0Wle6LQiQ49jgCian1 qvv685X+ON7U66vYMdjBYXNW8niJENSB5/ZXypRWiWUNa+EJCIhNV7jKZ4x3PCRa tsuckZz5JLqmFR1mY8CqVSn+uOp2VnWB3Bj8nRlPVklQqsQ2T8G4TazLpsk1Rno1 MYulncKpOGk0a2clpP5wQpoysh2bdQr/15sy+j5DNZuJoV57hqPtye00eYan+YI= =fXmw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From roland.bless@kit.edu Mon Mar 30 18:05:56 2015 Received: from [10.10.12.45] (helo=mx2.greenhost.nl) by mailman.lan with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YccCK-0006Bu-M6 for hrpc@article19.io; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 18:05:56 +0200 Received: from iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.10.81]) by mx2.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YccCJ-00071P-VU for hrpc@article19.io; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 18:05:56 +0200 Received: from i72vorta.tm.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.71.26] helo=i72vorta.tm.kit.edu) by iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtp port 25 iface 141.3.10.81 id 1YccCI-0000ij-GF for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 18:05:54 +0200 Received: from [IPv6:::1] (ip6-localhost [IPv6:::1]) by i72vorta.tm.kit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EF34B0073B for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 18:05:54 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <55197462.7080508@kit.edu> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 18:05:54 +0200 From: "Bless, Roland (TM)" Organization: Institute of Telematics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hrpc@article19.io Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ATIS-AV: ClamAV (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de) X-ATIS-Timestamp: iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de 1427731554. X-Spam-Level: - X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Score: -1.5 X-Virus-Scanned: by Greenhost Virus Scanner X-Scan-Signature: 488b5a33f748713be529de57fa847022 Subject: [hrpc] Some Thoughts 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: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 16:05:57 -0000 Hi, I think that the work is important and this proposed research group needs input from different disciplines: IETF participants representing the technical side, but also people from social sciences and legal sciences. * Larry Masinter made a comment that there is also a need for balancing rights. He is correct in the sense that different stakeholders may have different objectives, because they focus also on different values or assets. This typically leads to _conflicts_, maybe even somewhere in the network as nicely described in [1]. Usually we use institutions like (social) norms, laws and courts in order to resolve such conflicts, but also technical systems, either implicitly or explicitly [2]. Since the Universal declaration of human rights defines some of the highest values that we know, it's probably a good starting point. Very often different societies have different preferences for certain values. * There was some discussion about protocol definition and intended use. I guess that the IETF always has a motivation and usage scenario while defining protocols, but the IETF usually doesn't do anything if the protocol is used in a different manner as originally intended. I think the main point here is that IETF participants could try to think about alternative protocol designs that may result in different implications for human rights etc. It may be beneficial to find a methodology how certain rights/values could be realized in a better way (e.g., data minimization for better privacy etc.). * Comments on slide 13 of the presentation. Some more concepts came to my mind: - Accessibility (you need unfettered access to the Internet/resources/information) - Openness (eases participation) - Autonomy (e.g., Autonomous System approach) - Federations of independent domains (ASes, Mail, XMPP servers etc.) Probably the latter two are sub-principles or closely related to the distributed nature of solutions. One could also view parts of the list from slide 13 hierarchically like: Reliability -> Robustness -> Stateless, Graceful failures/degradation, partial healing, etc. * On slide 15: the lower terms from "interoperable protocols ... resilience" are concepts that can be used to achieve good/robust connectivity. However, if I have no access to that robust and well connected network, I'm limited in participation and maybe freedom of association. Therefore, accessibility may be also important. Regards, Roland [1] http://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2002/papers/tussle.pdf [2] https://harvardmagazine.com/2000/01/code-is-law-html From jhall@cdt.org Tue Mar 31 16:02:19 2015 Received: from [10.10.12.45] (helo=mx2.greenhost.nl) by mailman.lan with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YcwkF-0000VA-A4 for hrpc@article19.io; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 16:02:19 +0200 Received: from mail-la0-f45.google.com ([209.85.215.45]) by mx2.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YcwkD-0001T3-T7 for hrpc@article19.io; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 16:02:19 +0200 Received: by lahf3 with SMTP id f3so12932906lah.2 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 07:02:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=Q5Hq7MKLq+pB1DA8IKk5wOw7zKplFeTuKQNyWUP37yQ=; b=GEwu0cVT3ipGytP7+5ZC/WRDfJF/yzfI2Ndj+EYvemLIEqWNjfFX9afdq2TraBMLXC 0xPjI8xfrCklEcKzeMvdDSC1lQDY/CByocnD1pwxcFG0oxl3cdmPfg2uyP7fxHg2VTj5 HhCZvNZvIvfC+DldCO2sH5AbbkPjbKaOZun13kiZlt6eOSKZLEI+cPct1g4dj9chFyE5 f0NKUKLLFLd8hC17lFEWi3744AxICHWmAYLU1URpFC0/JulQndOyyuD61y+EgI5DbmPU HcSY2eMfsbNJLVL7V5fJr7GdDPQaiV4zHD24vtw0PUSnOiHV2B2dHl650Q1nkbogADjh j4hg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmN60w+lc0HSb1T1drENOiPaD3HRonQqyTTTrT8hSVnWH2cgjc9yLWXSvciBKtRtFb6a0lf X-Received: by 10.112.210.230 with SMTP id mx6mr31303897lbc.64.1427810537301; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 07:02:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.37.4 with HTTP; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 07:01:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 10:01:56 -0400 Message-ID: To: hrpc@article19.io Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Level: / X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, SPF_NEUTRAL, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Score: 0.9 X-Virus-Scanned: by Greenhost Virus Scanner X-Scan-Signature: 7b320cd02cd98c580351ccd23ba1512a Subject: [hrpc] greetings! 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, 31 Mar 2015 14:02:19 -0000 Hi, I just joined this list and wanted to introduce myself. Hello! I neglected to sign up to this list after IETF 91, apologies! best, Joe -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall Chief Technologist Center for Democracy & Technology 1634 I ST NW STE 1100 Washington DC 20006-4011 (p) 202-407-8825 (f) 202-637-0968 joe@cdt.org PGP: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10 1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871 From niels@article19.org Tue Mar 31 20:24:46 2015 Received: from mx1.lan ([10.10.12.44] helo=mx1.greenhost.nl) by mailman.lan with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Yd0qE-0000mu-23 for hrpc@article19.io; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 20:24:46 +0200 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 1Yd0qD-0001ae-Of for hrpc@article19.io; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 20:24:45 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AEF0CC03B for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 18:27:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.899 tagged_above=-10 required=6.6 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1, BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 TqeA7KFtYGI5 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 18:27:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE8C3CC03A for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 18:27:35 +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 uBhBVfDXW5pg for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 18:27:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [172.31.65.206] (unknown [185.16.164.123]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 92B46D0013 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 18:27:35 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <551AE66A.7080709@article19.org> Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 20:24:42 +0200 From: Niels ten Oever User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "hrpc@article19.io" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Level: - X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, SPF_NEUTRAL, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Score: -1.1 X-Virus-Scanned: by Greenhost Virus Scanner X-Scan-Signature: 76f3589a93270604ea078d468a2051b3 Subject: [hrpc] List migrated -> hrpc@irtf.org 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, 31 Mar 2015 18:24:46 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear all, Hopefully you have all been migrated to the new mailserver and the new maillist (hrpc@irtf.org), and you have received your welcome message from there. Please let me know if this is not the case, so I can make sure that everyone came over to the new list in good fashion. The archive will be migrated as soon as possible. It would be great if we could continue the conversation on the new list. All the best and sorry for the inconvenience, Niels - --=20 Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVGuZqAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpuIcIAIcGZi4lI6u8mSDArAdOfesH sIEb0VBNxsTbOr/hlq80wg4ell0e26y3TDHTv4kLsK3NJ/Jja3pL7yma9DL5/WIF POycIZwQiJRuOclb+BcLPzO65C8mx+Ff4Cu2TMuzKs+T33TBFljr5n6XdSgKarlF r3vx+3dZivXhUnWWT3iwUWRVcr1afmQzZeCGW10KbdRT/8ZDwLSO338J+2KxQDYe 6o6wOhweuxVBQgjepTEkt0Xjs7aB1IjsdF8OZkI4mgYwpnPHn5dJocihxoPfW9va pYyLhFDhuSlUf/HdWeCbt9QD6kXRBots/EJtr4qfjXokmXdAwhXcPCd2PD5p6JM=3D =3DP0Be -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----