From nobody Sun Nov 1 12:40:32 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 275F11B8D79 for ; Sun, 1 Nov 2015 12:40:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DtOzR_wdrmvv for ; Sun, 1 Nov 2015 12:40:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pa0-x22e.google.com (mail-pa0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE6881B8D8E for ; Sun, 1 Nov 2015 12:40:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by padec8 with SMTP id ec8so16527877pad.1 for ; Sun, 01 Nov 2015 12:40:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=MNI+PoxB1lujKgePvSCg1kVbPH9B9vbPclfmkPTkOhI=; b=YfKvkrQ09QlnLLpcAhTcwaMq/eiRCBbEs5ZzfuzQzixoHhKhAKdCPmB+18dQos+tpO 9usJS1D3Q83YHoQtk4aHc/+j3Hq7WrZiOG1/pu0TfICr2daCAH3FfS7el7ZABJPvlnGB pv6CPQvAEtoCTx5qWVLRmXiaPMkq2d+WBaE6aa79C31rmJh6f//Ft08DmDT7JPfMD2ho 9LIx2aimN430qGqQyQ3l20Fssc7+9l6N3M6wm8zYg6/qim6QHVL6xeWGoy4iHnobYOIJ wQNI1woNFNjjRv4q0FJFQwqN+E5vr5UcQnMjh9cGZV7RPa+c23QAGDvvD5bKzFzr7tP1 nIsg== X-Received: by 10.68.183.228 with SMTP id ep4mr22821067pbc.54.1446410430312; Sun, 01 Nov 2015 12:40:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.11.2.196] (y125063.ppp.asahi-net.or.jp. [118.243.125.63]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c4sm19986413pat.46.2015.11.01.12.40.28 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 01 Nov 2015 12:40:29 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E884511D-CEB7-473B-9F47-C0FA9E40F543"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) From: Bryan Ford In-Reply-To: <5619B147.3040603@nex.sx> Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 05:40:26 +0900 Message-Id: <4099D223-9215-422D-A174-BD661D32E5F2@gmail.com> References: <5619B147.3040603@nex.sx> To: Nex X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) Archived-At: Cc: hrpc@irtf.org Subject: Re: [hrpc] Cases - P2P X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2015 20:40:32 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_E884511D-CEB7-473B-9F47-C0FA9E40F543 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Oct 11, 2015, at 9:45 AM, Nex wrote: >=20 > Hello everybody. > Here are some initial considerations on P2P networks. This is a = complex > one to address as implementations and use cases vary so much. I'm sure > it needs to be expanded upon, but this could a starting point. Nice. One critical subsection I think it needs to have is one on Sybil = attacks, one of the most fundamental =E2=80=9CP2P-killer=E2=80=9D = problems. :) =20 Some possible starting-point text: Sybil Attacks In open-membership P2P networks, a single attacker can pretend to be = many participants, typically by creating multiple fake identities of = whatever kind the P2P network uses [X,Y]. Attackers can use Sybil = attacks to bias choices the P2P network makes collectively toward the = attacker=E2=80=99s advantage, e.g., by making it more likely that a = particular data item (or some threshold of the replicas or shares of a = data item) are assigned to attacker-controlled participants. If the P2P = network implements any voting, moderation, or peer review-like = functionality, Sybil attacks may be used to =E2=80=9Cstuff the = ballots=E2=80=9D toward the attacker=E2=80=99s benefit. Companies and = governments can use Sybil attacks on discussion-oriented P2P systems for = =E2=80=9Castroturfing=E2=80=9D or creating the appearance of mass = grassroots support for some position where there is none in reality. =20 [X] John R. Douceur, The Sybil Attack. = http://research.microsoft.com:8082/pubs/74220/IPTPS2002.pdf Cheers Bryan --Apple-Mail=_E884511D-CEB7-473B-9F47-C0FA9E40F543 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIJ+DCCBK8w ggOXoAMCAQICEQDgI8sVEoNTia1hbnpUZ2shMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBCwUAMG8xCzAJBgNVBAYTAlNF MRQwEgYDVQQKEwtBZGRUcnVzdCBBQjEmMCQGA1UECxMdQWRkVHJ1c3QgRXh0ZXJuYWwgVFRQIE5l dHdvcmsxIjAgBgNVBAMTGUFkZFRydXN0IEV4dGVybmFsIENBIFJvb3QwHhcNMTQxMjIyMDAwMDAw WhcNMjAwNTMwMTA0ODM4WjCBmzELMAkGA1UEBhMCR0IxGzAZBgNVBAgTEkdyZWF0ZXIgTWFuY2hl c3RlcjEQMA4GA1UEBxMHU2FsZm9yZDEaMBgGA1UEChMRQ09NT0RPIENBIExpbWl0ZWQxQTA/BgNV BAMTOENPTU9ETyBTSEEtMjU2IENsaWVudCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQgU2VjdXJlIEVtYWls IENBMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAibEN2npTGU5wUh28VqYGJre4SeCW 51Gr8fBaE0kVo7SMG2C8elFCp3mMpCLfF2FOkdV2IwoU00oCf7YdCYBupQQ92bq7Fv6hh6kuQ1JD FnyvMlDIpk9a6QjYz5MlnHuI6DBk5qT4VoD9KiQUMxeZrETlaYujRgZLwjPU6UCfBrCxrJNAubUI kzqcKlOjENs9IGE8VQOO2U52JQIhKfqjfHF2T+7hX4Hp+1SA28N7NVK3hN4iPSwwLTF/Wb1SN7Az aS1D6/rWpfGXd2dRjNnuJ+u8pQc4doykqTj/34z1A6xJvsr3c5k6DzKrnJU6Ez0ORjpXdGFQvsZA P8vk4p+iIQIDAQABo4IBFzCCARMwHwYDVR0jBBgwFoAUrb2YejS0Jvf6xCZU7wO94CTLVBowHQYD VR0OBBYEFJJha4LhoqCqT+xn8cKj97SAAMHsMA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIBhjASBgNVHRMBAf8ECDAG AQH/AgEAMB0GA1UdJQQWMBQGCCsGAQUFBwMCBggrBgEFBQcDBDARBgNVHSAECjAIMAYGBFUdIAAw RAYDVR0fBD0wOzA5oDegNYYzaHR0cDovL2NybC51c2VydHJ1c3QuY29tL0FkZFRydXN0RXh0ZXJu YWxDQVJvb3QuY3JsMDUGCCsGAQUFBwEBBCkwJzAlBggrBgEFBQcwAYYZaHR0cDovL29jc3AudXNl cnRydXN0LmNvbTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQsFAAOCAQEAGypurFXBOquIxdjtzVXzqmthK8AJECOZD8Vm am+x9bS1d14PAmEA330F/hKzpICAAPz7HVtqcgIKQbwFusFY1SbC6tVNhPv+gpjPWBvjImOcUvi7 BTarfVil3qs7Y+Xa1XPv7OD7e+Kj//BCI5zKto1NPuRLGAOyqC3U2LtCS5BphRDbpjc06HvgARCl nMo6x59PiDRuimXQGoq7qdzKyjbR9PzCZCk1r9axp3ER0gNDsY8+muyeMlP0dpLKhjQHuSzK5hxK 2JkNwYbikJL7WkJqIyEQ6WXH9dW7fuqMhSACYurROgcsWcWZM/I4ieW26RZ6H3kU9koQGib6fIr7 mzCCBUEwggQpoAMCAQICEBalm03EcGSFWgbYcpp5puowDQYJKoZIhvcNAQELBQAwgZsxCzAJBgNV BAYTAkdCMRswGQYDVQQIExJHcmVhdGVyIE1hbmNoZXN0ZXIxEDAOBgNVBAcTB1NhbGZvcmQxGjAY BgNVBAoTEUNPTU9ETyBDQSBMaW1pdGVkMUEwPwYDVQQDEzhDT01PRE8gU0hBLTI1NiBDbGllbnQg QXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24gYW5kIFNlY3VyZSBFbWFpbCBDQTAeFw0xNTA2MjQwMDAwMDBaFw0xNjA2 MjMyMzU5NTlaMCYxJDAiBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWFWJyeW5vc2F1cnVzQGdtYWlsLmNvbTCCASIwDQYJ KoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBAMA89U5ktW7a1k5qjaiycbEbBjLucLdRfzKh5us59o1a Qi0iRQfo1BEq6rG4MTvXburjxUdzuTCaDgOJ+g6PFKNfJP5H2lH962EXCNeJYKOwhpZtwVzpfsPV 8iKw7XjPwPiW4E7Ut7M1UHoN57yUy60/047gyYpZirf4lpv1G//cFcLKIMNB/GGK5YXNlBNalvMY Z/CK1yo8cf3s83gI4KGGE65RL1i3WpAFjwaffp5V6kp3PdiIXuKL8kO2HWID/McrynKKb46ARFzC joiV2qHn27LQiMwBwoDUxzfgCAxAl0uWaFgBqLmcws4lCIXN8jIHp6CNLKKyHHXWukv/EqUCAwEA AaOCAfMwggHvMB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFJJha4LhoqCqT+xn8cKj97SAAMHsMB0GA1UdDgQWBBSlca2J DhGBY+vVSOfJ1I+3I9NqLzAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCBaAwDAYDVR0TAQH/BAIwADAgBgNVHSUEGTAX BggrBgEFBQcDBAYLKwYBBAGyMQEDBQIwEQYJYIZIAYb4QgEBBAQDAgUgMEYGA1UdIAQ/MD0wOwYM KwYBBAGyMQECAQEBMCswKQYIKwYBBQUHAgEWHWh0dHBzOi8vc2VjdXJlLmNvbW9kby5uZXQvQ1BT MF0GA1UdHwRWMFQwUqBQoE6GTGh0dHA6Ly9jcmwuY29tb2RvY2EuY29tL0NPTU9ET1NIQTI1NkNs aWVudEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uYW5kU2VjdXJlRW1haWxDQS5jcmwwgZAGCCsGAQUFBwEBBIGDMIGA MFgGCCsGAQUFBzAChkxodHRwOi8vY3J0LmNvbW9kb2NhLmNvbS9DT01PRE9TSEEyNTZDbGllbnRB dXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbmFuZFNlY3VyZUVtYWlsQ0EuY3J0MCQGCCsGAQUFBzABhhhodHRwOi8vb2Nz cC5jb21vZG9jYS5jb20wIAYDVR0RBBkwF4EVYnJ5bm9zYXVydXNAZ21haWwuY29tMA0GCSqGSIb3 DQEBCwUAA4IBAQAMNIE1FhYCtEA9JMwLoNKtQ4hZDcnUKYRcRihDhAHIKSTJtFQKBchp1MBTCP4P 1lfgdDHG+06Rv65VAKfBsjqMZmPQylvsxZg5kPJ5BPVgShQxGl5RSlMN3qLDcSbQt/6uPv9U+Vgq 8StMI6fIRSbbPwyKyZyM8gUnxR34dxzJ+mSGi0kdtUE36FIabTeXtjFVXN/2jDOrsvm8IHlp8nJM 23nHuqUsJyyIYFbaRKhApoMAzC5gynlg6APV2hz/JYlKSJABwpxZjYAtpyz5rQVIi2pPWs2Te2cd faykisGAOu/7nJtlcEGMCSd61tM43matZPa3MuBiko8kuzj0RMigMYIDwzCCA78CAQEwgbAwgZsx CzAJBgNVBAYTAkdCMRswGQYDVQQIExJHcmVhdGVyIE1hbmNoZXN0ZXIxEDAOBgNVBAcTB1NhbGZv cmQxGjAYBgNVBAoTEUNPTU9ETyBDQSBMaW1pdGVkMUEwPwYDVQQDEzhDT01PRE8gU0hBLTI1NiBD bGllbnQgQXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24gYW5kIFNlY3VyZSBFbWFpbCBDQQIQFqWbTcRwZIVaBthymnmm 6jAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoIIB5zAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEP Fw0xNTExMDEyMDQwMjZaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBSWUHOotIoBvV3ktTpVfLElKxhNHTCBwQYJ KwYBBAGCNxAEMYGzMIGwMIGbMQswCQYDVQQGEwJHQjEbMBkGA1UECBMSR3JlYXRlciBNYW5jaGVz dGVyMRAwDgYDVQQHEwdTYWxmb3JkMRowGAYDVQQKExFDT01PRE8gQ0EgTGltaXRlZDFBMD8GA1UE AxM4Q09NT0RPIFNIQS0yNTYgQ2xpZW50IEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uIGFuZCBTZWN1cmUgRW1haWwg Q0ECEBalm03EcGSFWgbYcpp5puowgcMGCyqGSIb3DQEJEAILMYGzoIGwMIGbMQswCQYDVQQGEwJH QjEbMBkGA1UECBMSR3JlYXRlciBNYW5jaGVzdGVyMRAwDgYDVQQHEwdTYWxmb3JkMRowGAYDVQQK ExFDT01PRE8gQ0EgTGltaXRlZDFBMD8GA1UEAxM4Q09NT0RPIFNIQS0yNTYgQ2xpZW50IEF1dGhl bnRpY2F0aW9uIGFuZCBTZWN1cmUgRW1haWwgQ0ECEBalm03EcGSFWgbYcpp5puowDQYJKoZIhvcN AQEBBQAEggEAANzSc1r1aQP8a9gA9Q1Cz8Vcq4GKQ2tjm0LJMkMUGL4Kb0OfOecMrKBaqBvktjNW 8PUU83B2CtzCugNFww92YUzI9W/Tyb+bycEcQm4gk+14nFmpDBtehoF/WP+RhubF2xyi+3G+1PLU PVq7HfbB4rfkzPurbcSJE89ouCmfyjAOjE1NButDMb/zKrWw4nOlNCIXt3V1EFS0rDFIVTVBNKNX hhAvhUiwG49MEKdHEC9GpioTh2fSF0rbFPsRuS0mkkvKgktGPYsQvwfXhCIweGF3w7CLrR5lmv6f n/2Yq7hSi3p3KpF0/C/22jvUqJye8gDIAQFVWGXA0hOa1C3Q9gAAAAAAAA== --Apple-Mail=_E884511D-CEB7-473B-9F47-C0FA9E40F543-- From nobody Sun Nov 1 13:25:37 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43DEF1A90D9 for ; Sun, 1 Nov 2015 13:25:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 30A-7PBQcAo8 for ; Sun, 1 Nov 2015 13:25:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pa0-x230.google.com (mail-pa0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98B2A1A90DB for ; Sun, 1 Nov 2015 13:25:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by padec8 with SMTP id ec8so17132025pad.1 for ; Sun, 01 Nov 2015 13:25:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:subject:message-id:date:to:mime-version; bh=qDuFQr+RBqbBgSFfBY8tONvEixVNXjbt8Ue6ROfl2hk=; b=zVkReQ88f4cfeht6fbJPN5m493cDC3eM27WPTQslOYtQjRNyDKE5eTwc1h9YqiOb3V 0iMiKkKV0ZjBWKNBUQvNbfBkmqy5fu/sAUVaXgWO8YCmH++xkqo3gbLfYrmEcmFZX2vH fze3y9dz1Rhs1JScCN5HlkAbxgHGHGIqGdcsZe1ZWEi+8hp0/EMKCTei6mj/HzZj3lut Epgd5snrg/8ESDOo0KFJUNpWF30rO3fiYrxy1od7/hVAxXAbCtG0zTB6aF+JibqHYtx0 PlM/ahmx2ASiX8loDYxodyFVbTN3fFoi9C81Byzk907WkLrxszh20m1y8kOxOyGXqD3p yCDA== X-Received: by 10.66.224.201 with SMTP id re9mr22528691pac.98.1446413131242; Sun, 01 Nov 2015 13:25:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.11.2.196] (y125063.ppp.asahi-net.or.jp. [118.243.125.63]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id cn4sm19953575pbc.94.2015.11.01.13.25.29 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 01 Nov 2015 13:25:29 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Ford Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_26074496-6D46-48B7-A3A1-765C1FDD4EF2"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 Message-Id: <86B0DF5B-5108-4B0E-9271-EC975DB76B5E@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 06:25:27 +0900 To: "hrpc@irtf.org" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] Implications of unencrypted metadata in encrypted data/protocols X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2015 21:25:36 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_26074496-6D46-48B7-A3A1-765C1FDD4EF2 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_358E4FA0-D3DC-4539-B1C0-2465F3FB453E" --Apple-Mail=_358E4FA0-D3DC-4539-B1C0-2465F3FB453E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi folks, I have a =E2=80=9Cwhere does this belong=E2=80=9D type = question. The IETF defines a lot of encrypted protocols and data formats, but = currently standard design practices tend to leave unencrypted metadata = =E2=80=9Caround=E2=80=9D the encrypted content - such as magic numbers, = protocol/format version identifiers, cryptographic scheme identifiers, = information about the identities, keys, or certificates of the intended = recipient(s) or authentication partner(s), etc. This leakage of = assumed-to-be-innocuous metadata, as we=E2=80=99ve been learning, can = have surprising and unexpected implications, including for human rights. For example, since OpenPGP-encrypted and many other encrypted file = formats are basically self-identifying via helpful magic numbers and = algorithm-IDs etc, it is trivial for =E2=80=9Cauthorities=E2=80=9D of = whatever kind - e.g., while flying through an airport - to scan a hard = drive, discover that you have some PGP-encrypted documents, and decide = that by itself is a reason for suspicion and demand your keys (even if = the documents might not even be encrypted for you). This metadata leakage can have other more subtle implications on = identification vs anonymity as well. For example, as far as I know = neither OpenPGP nor other encrypted-file formats/protocols like miniLock = (https://github.com/kaepora/miniLock = ) go to any effort to hide the = number of recipients a file is encrypted for (i.e., the number of public = keys for which an internal session key is encrypted). But if an = encrypted file is found on someone=E2=80=99s hard drive encrypted to = exactly 23 recipients, and =E2=80=9Cthe authorities=E2=80=9D happen to = know that a particular mailing list or dissident group has 23 members, = the intended =E2=80=9Cgroup=E2=80=9D and purpose of the document might = be obvious even if the individual recipients=E2=80=99 keys are unknown = or blinded (as miniLock does). This seems like a cross-cutting class of issues potentially affecting = many protocols. For example, TLS currently makes no effort at hiding = encrypted chunk header metadata, hence revealing all chunk = sizes/boundaries and making fingerprinting-based traffic analysis = easier. Similarly, protocols that negotiate or specify one of several = ciphers tend to do that negotiation in cleartext, leading not only to = the well-known downgrade-attack issue but also attaching a =E2=80=9Ccrack = me!=E2=80=9D flag to any file or communication that might for whatever = reason happen to use a weak cipher such as RC4. With all the = RC4-encrypted streams out there conveniently labeled =E2=80=9CRC4=E2=80=9D= , attackers don=E2=80=99t even have to invest any computational effort = to focus RC4-cracking attention on those RC4 streams; if they weren=E2=80=99= t so conveniently labeled, one might envision attackers might at least = have to do a not-completely-trivial amount of computation to distinguish = (say) a strong AES-encrypted stream from a weak RC4-encrypted stream. I brought up this metadata leakage issue recently in the context of = OpenPGP in section 2.3 of a (very preliminary first-cut) draft I wrote = for the OpenPGP WG: Title: Modernizing the OpenPGP Message Format URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ford-openpgp-format/ = But I=E2=80=99m wondering if it=E2=80=99s worth thinking about and = discussing these issues more broadly (or if this is already being done) = in the context of HRPC or elsewhere. Thoughts welcome. Bryan --Apple-Mail=_358E4FA0-D3DC-4539-B1C0-2465F3FB453E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Hi folks, I have a =E2=80=9Cwhere does this belong=E2=80=9D = type question.

The = IETF defines a lot of encrypted protocols and data formats, but = currently standard design practices tend to leave unencrypted metadata = =E2=80=9Caround=E2=80=9D the encrypted content - such as magic numbers, = protocol/format version identifiers, cryptographic scheme identifiers, = information about the identities, keys, or certificates of the intended = recipient(s) or authentication partner(s), etc.  This leakage of = assumed-to-be-innocuous metadata, as we=E2=80=99ve been learning, can = have surprising and unexpected implications, including for human = rights.

For = example, since OpenPGP-encrypted and many other encrypted file formats = are basically self-identifying via helpful magic numbers and = algorithm-IDs etc, it is trivial for =E2=80=9Cauthorities=E2=80=9D of = whatever kind - e.g., while flying through an airport - to scan a hard = drive, discover that you have some PGP-encrypted documents, and decide = that by itself is a reason for suspicion and demand your keys (even if = the documents might not even be encrypted for you).

This metadata leakage = can have other more subtle implications on identification vs anonymity = as well.  For example, as far as I know neither OpenPGP nor other = encrypted-file formats/protocols like miniLock (https://github.com/kaepora/miniLock) go to any effort to = hide the number of recipients a file is encrypted for (i.e., the number = of public keys for which an internal session key is encrypted). =  But if an encrypted file is found on someone=E2=80=99s hard drive = encrypted to exactly 23 recipients, and =E2=80=9Cthe authorities=E2=80=9D = happen to know that a particular mailing list or dissident group has 23 = members, the intended =E2=80=9Cgroup=E2=80=9D and purpose of the = document might be obvious even if the individual recipients=E2=80=99 = keys are unknown or blinded (as miniLock does).

This seems like a cross-cutting class = of issues potentially affecting many protocols.  For example, TLS = currently makes no effort at hiding encrypted chunk header metadata, = hence revealing all chunk sizes/boundaries and making = fingerprinting-based traffic analysis easier.  Similarly, protocols = that negotiate or specify one of several ciphers tend to do that = negotiation in cleartext, leading not only to the well-known = downgrade-attack issue but also attaching a =E2=80=9Ccrack me!=E2=80=9D = flag to any file or communication that might for whatever reason happen = to use a weak cipher such as RC4.  With all the RC4-encrypted = streams out there conveniently labeled =E2=80=9CRC4=E2=80=9D, attackers = don=E2=80=99t even have to invest any computational effort to focus = RC4-cracking attention on those RC4 streams; if they weren=E2=80=99t so = conveniently labeled, one might envision attackers might at least have = to do a not-completely-trivial amount of computation to distinguish = (say) a strong AES-encrypted stream from a weak RC4-encrypted = stream.

I = brought up this metadata leakage issue recently in the context of = OpenPGP in section 2.3 of a (very preliminary first-cut) draft I wrote = for the OpenPGP WG:

Title: = Modernizing the OpenPGP Message Format
= URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ford-openpgp-format/=

But I=E2=80=99m= wondering if it=E2=80=99s worth thinking about and discussing these = issues more broadly (or if this is already being done) in the context of = HRPC or elsewhere.  Thoughts welcome.

Bryan


= --Apple-Mail=_358E4FA0-D3DC-4539-B1C0-2465F3FB453E-- --Apple-Mail=_26074496-6D46-48B7-A3A1-765C1FDD4EF2 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIJ+DCCBK8w ggOXoAMCAQICEQDgI8sVEoNTia1hbnpUZ2shMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBCwUAMG8xCzAJBgNVBAYTAlNF MRQwEgYDVQQKEwtBZGRUcnVzdCBBQjEmMCQGA1UECxMdQWRkVHJ1c3QgRXh0ZXJuYWwgVFRQIE5l dHdvcmsxIjAgBgNVBAMTGUFkZFRydXN0IEV4dGVybmFsIENBIFJvb3QwHhcNMTQxMjIyMDAwMDAw WhcNMjAwNTMwMTA0ODM4WjCBmzELMAkGA1UEBhMCR0IxGzAZBgNVBAgTEkdyZWF0ZXIgTWFuY2hl c3RlcjEQMA4GA1UEBxMHU2FsZm9yZDEaMBgGA1UEChMRQ09NT0RPIENBIExpbWl0ZWQxQTA/BgNV BAMTOENPTU9ETyBTSEEtMjU2IENsaWVudCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQgU2VjdXJlIEVtYWls IENBMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAibEN2npTGU5wUh28VqYGJre4SeCW 51Gr8fBaE0kVo7SMG2C8elFCp3mMpCLfF2FOkdV2IwoU00oCf7YdCYBupQQ92bq7Fv6hh6kuQ1JD FnyvMlDIpk9a6QjYz5MlnHuI6DBk5qT4VoD9KiQUMxeZrETlaYujRgZLwjPU6UCfBrCxrJNAubUI kzqcKlOjENs9IGE8VQOO2U52JQIhKfqjfHF2T+7hX4Hp+1SA28N7NVK3hN4iPSwwLTF/Wb1SN7Az aS1D6/rWpfGXd2dRjNnuJ+u8pQc4doykqTj/34z1A6xJvsr3c5k6DzKrnJU6Ez0ORjpXdGFQvsZA P8vk4p+iIQIDAQABo4IBFzCCARMwHwYDVR0jBBgwFoAUrb2YejS0Jvf6xCZU7wO94CTLVBowHQYD VR0OBBYEFJJha4LhoqCqT+xn8cKj97SAAMHsMA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIBhjASBgNVHRMBAf8ECDAG AQH/AgEAMB0GA1UdJQQWMBQGCCsGAQUFBwMCBggrBgEFBQcDBDARBgNVHSAECjAIMAYGBFUdIAAw RAYDVR0fBD0wOzA5oDegNYYzaHR0cDovL2NybC51c2VydHJ1c3QuY29tL0FkZFRydXN0RXh0ZXJu YWxDQVJvb3QuY3JsMDUGCCsGAQUFBwEBBCkwJzAlBggrBgEFBQcwAYYZaHR0cDovL29jc3AudXNl cnRydXN0LmNvbTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQsFAAOCAQEAGypurFXBOquIxdjtzVXzqmthK8AJECOZD8Vm am+x9bS1d14PAmEA330F/hKzpICAAPz7HVtqcgIKQbwFusFY1SbC6tVNhPv+gpjPWBvjImOcUvi7 BTarfVil3qs7Y+Xa1XPv7OD7e+Kj//BCI5zKto1NPuRLGAOyqC3U2LtCS5BphRDbpjc06HvgARCl nMo6x59PiDRuimXQGoq7qdzKyjbR9PzCZCk1r9axp3ER0gNDsY8+muyeMlP0dpLKhjQHuSzK5hxK 2JkNwYbikJL7WkJqIyEQ6WXH9dW7fuqMhSACYurROgcsWcWZM/I4ieW26RZ6H3kU9koQGib6fIr7 mzCCBUEwggQpoAMCAQICEBalm03EcGSFWgbYcpp5puowDQYJKoZIhvcNAQELBQAwgZsxCzAJBgNV BAYTAkdCMRswGQYDVQQIExJHcmVhdGVyIE1hbmNoZXN0ZXIxEDAOBgNVBAcTB1NhbGZvcmQxGjAY BgNVBAoTEUNPTU9ETyBDQSBMaW1pdGVkMUEwPwYDVQQDEzhDT01PRE8gU0hBLTI1NiBDbGllbnQg QXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24gYW5kIFNlY3VyZSBFbWFpbCBDQTAeFw0xNTA2MjQwMDAwMDBaFw0xNjA2 MjMyMzU5NTlaMCYxJDAiBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWFWJyeW5vc2F1cnVzQGdtYWlsLmNvbTCCASIwDQYJ KoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBAMA89U5ktW7a1k5qjaiycbEbBjLucLdRfzKh5us59o1a Qi0iRQfo1BEq6rG4MTvXburjxUdzuTCaDgOJ+g6PFKNfJP5H2lH962EXCNeJYKOwhpZtwVzpfsPV 8iKw7XjPwPiW4E7Ut7M1UHoN57yUy60/047gyYpZirf4lpv1G//cFcLKIMNB/GGK5YXNlBNalvMY Z/CK1yo8cf3s83gI4KGGE65RL1i3WpAFjwaffp5V6kp3PdiIXuKL8kO2HWID/McrynKKb46ARFzC joiV2qHn27LQiMwBwoDUxzfgCAxAl0uWaFgBqLmcws4lCIXN8jIHp6CNLKKyHHXWukv/EqUCAwEA AaOCAfMwggHvMB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFJJha4LhoqCqT+xn8cKj97SAAMHsMB0GA1UdDgQWBBSlca2J DhGBY+vVSOfJ1I+3I9NqLzAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCBaAwDAYDVR0TAQH/BAIwADAgBgNVHSUEGTAX BggrBgEFBQcDBAYLKwYBBAGyMQEDBQIwEQYJYIZIAYb4QgEBBAQDAgUgMEYGA1UdIAQ/MD0wOwYM KwYBBAGyMQECAQEBMCswKQYIKwYBBQUHAgEWHWh0dHBzOi8vc2VjdXJlLmNvbW9kby5uZXQvQ1BT MF0GA1UdHwRWMFQwUqBQoE6GTGh0dHA6Ly9jcmwuY29tb2RvY2EuY29tL0NPTU9ET1NIQTI1NkNs aWVudEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uYW5kU2VjdXJlRW1haWxDQS5jcmwwgZAGCCsGAQUFBwEBBIGDMIGA MFgGCCsGAQUFBzAChkxodHRwOi8vY3J0LmNvbW9kb2NhLmNvbS9DT01PRE9TSEEyNTZDbGllbnRB dXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbmFuZFNlY3VyZUVtYWlsQ0EuY3J0MCQGCCsGAQUFBzABhhhodHRwOi8vb2Nz cC5jb21vZG9jYS5jb20wIAYDVR0RBBkwF4EVYnJ5bm9zYXVydXNAZ21haWwuY29tMA0GCSqGSIb3 DQEBCwUAA4IBAQAMNIE1FhYCtEA9JMwLoNKtQ4hZDcnUKYRcRihDhAHIKSTJtFQKBchp1MBTCP4P 1lfgdDHG+06Rv65VAKfBsjqMZmPQylvsxZg5kPJ5BPVgShQxGl5RSlMN3qLDcSbQt/6uPv9U+Vgq 8StMI6fIRSbbPwyKyZyM8gUnxR34dxzJ+mSGi0kdtUE36FIabTeXtjFVXN/2jDOrsvm8IHlp8nJM 23nHuqUsJyyIYFbaRKhApoMAzC5gynlg6APV2hz/JYlKSJABwpxZjYAtpyz5rQVIi2pPWs2Te2cd faykisGAOu/7nJtlcEGMCSd61tM43matZPa3MuBiko8kuzj0RMigMYIDwzCCA78CAQEwgbAwgZsx CzAJBgNVBAYTAkdCMRswGQYDVQQIExJHcmVhdGVyIE1hbmNoZXN0ZXIxEDAOBgNVBAcTB1NhbGZv cmQxGjAYBgNVBAoTEUNPTU9ETyBDQSBMaW1pdGVkMUEwPwYDVQQDEzhDT01PRE8gU0hBLTI1NiBD bGllbnQgQXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24gYW5kIFNlY3VyZSBFbWFpbCBDQQIQFqWbTcRwZIVaBthymnmm 6jAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoIIB5zAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEP Fw0xNTExMDEyMTI1MjdaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBStD5n5U2xqoZe7kT5NJ0EFfME/tzCBwQYJ KwYBBAGCNxAEMYGzMIGwMIGbMQswCQYDVQQGEwJHQjEbMBkGA1UECBMSR3JlYXRlciBNYW5jaGVz dGVyMRAwDgYDVQQHEwdTYWxmb3JkMRowGAYDVQQKExFDT01PRE8gQ0EgTGltaXRlZDFBMD8GA1UE AxM4Q09NT0RPIFNIQS0yNTYgQ2xpZW50IEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uIGFuZCBTZWN1cmUgRW1haWwg Q0ECEBalm03EcGSFWgbYcpp5puowgcMGCyqGSIb3DQEJEAILMYGzoIGwMIGbMQswCQYDVQQGEwJH QjEbMBkGA1UECBMSR3JlYXRlciBNYW5jaGVzdGVyMRAwDgYDVQQHEwdTYWxmb3JkMRowGAYDVQQK ExFDT01PRE8gQ0EgTGltaXRlZDFBMD8GA1UEAxM4Q09NT0RPIFNIQS0yNTYgQ2xpZW50IEF1dGhl bnRpY2F0aW9uIGFuZCBTZWN1cmUgRW1haWwgQ0ECEBalm03EcGSFWgbYcpp5puowDQYJKoZIhvcN AQEBBQAEggEAXoQ3v4SOjAmXManwWWL0OM42By1AZDajH/BzwgIodklPOJdlcjvgBGptjtBsbigf xx0aBxKkIGqSdfFIaGhkomS+yZ3bjI8Vu71pxtX4O0reU72CHLvhH77x69nYd2UGjm7p9n/gqItB h4/u4DvwkV4/aSYliulIgxB5n/NC6MZhlVpkF6wlJTkj7OJeOIUemLsKVa09su58Rj+q59eGUu2a jyND/yL4TCtia9bnVApKuqthbPY5GaQx00LYmvp1BA9G1tapbkvWdg+wKFlN4llxbSHmkcOw5wMw BzHgr8kFAMlA/6usjnetwUNsRl1m09JPZSlu8z0FaqYWCCs6/AAAAAAAAA== --Apple-Mail=_26074496-6D46-48B7-A3A1-765C1FDD4EF2-- From nobody Sun Nov 1 16:44:40 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FA621B3E2C for ; Sun, 1 Nov 2015 16:44:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.425 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.425 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 75_AuEl_d23u for ; Sun, 1 Nov 2015 16:44:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.article19.io (vps784.greenhost.nl [213.108.108.114]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63CBC1A0113 for ; Sun, 1 Nov 2015 16:44:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.article19.io (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A42812402B for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 00:44:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0E1F12402D for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 00:44:20 +0000 (UTC) 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 am4tqOYYNr9D for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 00:44:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [133.93.52.111] (dhcp-52-111.meeting.ietf94.jp [133.93.52.111]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3FC8112402B for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 00:44:19 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5636B1DB.70202@article19.org> Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 01:44:11 +0100 From: Niels ten Oever User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hrpc@irtf.org References: <5619B147.3040603@nex.sx> <4099D223-9215-422D-A174-BD661D32E5F2@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4099D223-9215-422D-A174-BD661D32E5F2@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Cases - P2P X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 00:44:31 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Dear Bryan, Thanks a lot for this, I've added this to the draft [0] and will push it when we can publish again, later this week. Best, Niels [0] https://github.com/nllz/IRTF-HRPC/blob/master/draft-methodology.md Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 On 11/01/2015 09:40 PM, Bryan Ford wrote: >=20 >> On Oct 11, 2015, at 9:45 AM, Nex wrote: >>=20 >> Hello everybody. Here are some initial considerations on P2P >> networks. This is a complex one to address as implementations and >> use cases vary so much. I'm sure it needs to be expanded upon, >> but this could a starting point. >=20 > Nice. One critical subsection I think it needs to have is one on > Sybil attacks, one of the most fundamental =93P2P-killer=94 problems. > :) >=20 > Some possible starting-point text: >=20 > Sybil Attacks >=20 > In open-membership P2P networks, a single attacker can pretend to > be many participants, typically by creating multiple fake > identities of whatever kind the P2P network uses [X,Y]. Attackers > can use Sybil attacks to bias choices the P2P network makes > collectively toward the attacker=92s advantage, e.g., by making it > more likely that a particular data item (or some threshold of the > replicas or shares of a data item) are assigned to > attacker-controlled participants. If the P2P network implements > any voting, moderation, or peer review-like functionality, Sybil > attacks may be used to =93stuff the ballots=94 toward the attacker=92s > benefit. Companies and governments can use Sybil attacks on > discussion-oriented P2P systems for =93astroturfing=94 or creating the > appearance of mass grassroots support for some position where > there is none in reality. >=20 > [X] John R. Douceur, The Sybil Attack. > http://research.microsoft.com:8082/pubs/74220/IPTPS2002.pdf >=20 > Cheers Bryan >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ hrpc mailing list=20 > hrpc@irtf.org https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >=20 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWNrHbAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjprMQH/2plM2l3szeSB3cl7KOcSg3t Nd2w7y2TArj+6Pqgu+eGQjfj9POGIwEAsv8OoEjFtKQGtj6J26hXwml7End411Lz Wagor71hdXfzLonKloc4KoQObsjA1rZg2fXOYLhp2uUuBSRxBlEC2ooq2idbfu3U wJn3mD264inZMqvOzsjQuzdKRKstiII5mT2lLz5aNzXa4TUKb+pHuIcKTqfCq/ww /w4bcNhomkzS8iUxebYUTWUwYPDZ/R5+MSeA5dFyYaLrEzyHajaqMzlzm4LlfLWn MnMPvLcfXBM3fA8jddxBkScy/TuJOAkE9BO7KrJgYr/a4W2SryASx140sa27ayU=3D =3DWvf4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From nobody Sun Nov 1 20:40:41 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 298351B29B8 for ; Sun, 1 Nov 2015 20:40:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.424 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.424 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4Ma7LsI3DCB0 for ; Sun, 1 Nov 2015 20:40:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.article19.io (vps784.greenhost.nl [213.108.108.114]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84B4A1B29B5 for ; Sun, 1 Nov 2015 20:40:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.article19.io (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0E8212402B for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 04:40:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A2B512402D for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 04:40:35 +0000 (UTC) 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 iS3UPstMaH30 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 04:40:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [133.93.52.111] (dhcp-52-111.meeting.ietf94.jp [133.93.52.111]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 55C8E12402B for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 04:40:34 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5636E93F.7030604@article19.org> Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 05:40:31 +0100 From: Niels ten Oever User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hrpc@irtf.org References: <86B0DF5B-5108-4B0E-9271-EC975DB76B5E@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <86B0DF5B-5108-4B0E-9271-EC975DB76B5E@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Implications of unencrypted metadata in encrypted data/protocols X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 04:40:40 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hi Bryan, Great, I have been looking for exactly something like this: a protocol transcendent issue, that is not yet addressed in an existing RFC and/or design principle. I think this metadata problem is real good example of something we would want to cover, and it's not covered by RFC7258 on pervasive monitoring. The only thing we need before we can take this in is a freedom of expression, freedom of association, or other rights angle, that ideally is not (only) privacy or security. Maybe we can discuss this in the hrpc session tomorrow? Best, Niels Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 On 11/01/2015 10:25 PM, Bryan Ford wrote: > Hi folks, I have a =93where does this belong=94 type question. >=20 > The IETF defines a lot of encrypted protocols and data formats, > but currently standard design practices tend to leave unencrypted > metadata =93around=94 the encrypted content - such as magic numbers, > protocol/format version identifiers, cryptographic scheme > identifiers, information about the identities, keys, or > certificates of the intended recipient(s) or authentication > partner(s), etc. This leakage of assumed-to-be-innocuous metadata, > as we=92ve been learning, can have surprising and unexpected=20 > implications, including for human rights. >=20 > For example, since OpenPGP-encrypted and many other encrypted file=20 > formats are basically self-identifying via helpful magic numbers > and algorithm-IDs etc, it is trivial for =93authorities=94 of whatever > kind - e.g., while flying through an airport - to scan a hard > drive, discover that you have some PGP-encrypted documents, and > decide that by itself is a reason for suspicion and demand your > keys (even if the documents might not even be encrypted for you). >=20 > This metadata leakage can have other more subtle implications on=20 > identification vs anonymity as well. For example, as far as I > know neither OpenPGP nor other encrypted-file formats/protocols > like miniLock (https://github.com/kaepora/miniLock) go to any > effort to hide the number of recipients a file is encrypted for > (i.e., the number of public keys for which an internal session key > is encrypted). But if an encrypted file is found on someone=92s hard > drive encrypted to exactly 23 recipients, and =93the authorities=94 > happen to know that a particular mailing list or dissident group > has 23 members, the intended =93group=94 and purpose of the document > might be obvious even if the individual recipients=92 keys are > unknown or blinded (as miniLock does). >=20 > This seems like a cross-cutting class of issues potentially > affecting many protocols. For example, TLS currently makes no > effort at hiding encrypted chunk header metadata, hence revealing > all chunk sizes/boundaries and making fingerprinting-based traffic > analysis easier. Similarly, protocols that negotiate or specify > one of several ciphers tend to do that negotiation in cleartext, > leading not only to the well-known downgrade-attack issue but also > attaching a =93crack me!=94 flag to any file or communication that > might for whatever reason happen to use a weak cipher such as RC4. > With all the RC4-encrypted streams out there conveniently labeled > =93RC4=94, attackers don=92t even have to invest any computational effo= rt > to focus RC4-cracking attention on those RC4 streams; if they > weren=92t so conveniently labeled, one might envision attackers might > at least have to do a not-completely-trivial amount of computation > to distinguish (say) a strong AES-encrypted stream from a weak > RC4-encrypted stream. >=20 > I brought up this metadata leakage issue recently in the context > of OpenPGP in section 2.3 of a (very preliminary first-cut) draft I > wrote for the OpenPGP WG: >=20 > Title: Modernizing the OpenPGP Message Format URL: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ford-openpgp-format/ >=20 > But I=92m wondering if it=92s worth thinking about and discussing > these issues more broadly (or if this is already being done) in the > context of HRPC or elsewhere. Thoughts welcome. >=20 > Bryan >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ hrpc mailing list=20 > hrpc@irtf.org https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >=20 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWNuk/AAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpvSQH/2GKOS5SovQIPIrTgLqCn9ib XcUGBwa436JG1o+KMnf/EdRrCdmYvNSf0y+TqrHb+MSbLb7X1HP3UNMCPH6YHHEe YZSpucuOU5vexluoueTlRAaJEnJUHX5hQzrNaPg21DdM0Dx76PmeXWaL2Su47PuW dbb1KXmG0WVuuZtfoGx2733z+5kngPsdttYPb+EYFL83fDKIB/do0mI9P3fvgfXE 02Gihe8xxRkd3P3MZTl15ayAACng5E7wfLffZJd721X68CJbvdPP0Dg8N8JaAJcj 4/g1h0PXzE9FLrGZW0W4XM66VAEHC0uZnAvOt8muhMrfcmArFbjn/nZMtV0q2jk=3D =3DSuXO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From nobody Mon Nov 2 07:52:25 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DC531B48D4 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 07:52:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wUAxn6v9pL42 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 07:52:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (relay4-d.mail.gandi.net [IPv6:2001:4b98:c:538::196]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30CDA1B48CB for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 07:52:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mfilter30-d.gandi.net (mfilter30-d.gandi.net [217.70.178.161]) by relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6E2E1720AC for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 16:52:21 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mfilter30-d.gandi.net Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([IPv6:::ffff:217.70.183.196]) by mfilter30-d.gandi.net (mfilter30-d.gandi.net [::ffff:10.0.15.180]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dMacA9tVFiHX for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 16:52:19 +0100 (CET) X-Originating-IP: 95.249.55.113 Received: from [192.168.1.109] (host113-55-dynamic.249-95-r.retail.telecomitalia.it [95.249.55.113]) (Authenticated sender: lists@nex.sx) by relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2A35E17207C for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 16:52:18 +0100 (CET) To: hrpc@irtf.org References: <5619B147.3040603@nex.sx> <4099D223-9215-422D-A174-BD661D32E5F2@gmail.com> From: Nex Message-ID: <563786B2.2050008@nex.sx> Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 16:52:18 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4099D223-9215-422D-A174-BD661D32E5F2@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Cases - P2P X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 15:52:25 -0000 On 11/01/2015 09:40 PM, Bryan Ford wrote: > >> On Oct 11, 2015, at 9:45 AM, Nex wrote: >> >> Hello everybody. >> Here are some initial considerations on P2P networks. This is a complex >> one to address as implementations and use cases vary so much. I'm sure >> it needs to be expanded upon, but this could a starting point. > > Nice. One critical subsection I think it needs to have is one on Sybil attacks, one of the most fundamental “P2P-killer” problems. :) > > Some possible starting-point text: > > Sybil Attacks > > In open-membership P2P networks, a single attacker can pretend to be many participants, typically by creating multiple fake identities of whatever kind the P2P network uses [X,Y]. Attackers can use Sybil attacks to bias choices the P2P network makes collectively toward the attacker’s advantage, e.g., by making it more likely that a particular data item (or some threshold of the replicas or shares of a data item) are assigned to attacker-controlled participants. If the P2P network implements any voting, moderation, or peer review-like functionality, Sybil attacks may be used to “stuff the ballots” toward the attacker’s benefit. Companies and governments can use Sybil attacks on discussion-oriented P2P systems for “astroturfing” or creating the appearance of mass grassroots support for some position where there is none in reality. > > [X] John R. Douceur, The Sybil Attack. http://research.microsoft.com:8082/pubs/74220/IPTPS2002.pdf > > Cheers > Bryan Thanks Bryan, that's a very good point. /nex From nobody Mon Nov 2 20:51:46 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E2351B2DEC for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 20:51:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.378 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dYqWN-ZC1efc for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 20:51:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lf0-x243.google.com (mail-lf0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48AF21B2DD7 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 20:51:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by lfbc138 with SMTP id c138so509497lfb.1 for ; Mon, 02 Nov 2015 20:51:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cdt.org; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LozdwNE4tvBteNVri/Y2ijAazAYy0HMxV0faCnQeMzk=; b=YTCZDK01WTm6wVLP+nnvJab4XdKwJ1kV6wOoTtIp8TIayTzLwLzBzrkFiwgvmkdlWt MKH/Mc5A2ZceOVp3e8oxNkfSXNORm6ag6QC3mwcT3PA5b7GqAUyTBXepl8N/QOh8Dpif fQbHMQCMHQi34Dmr85YOCXiXSe6XFSfNOEMv4= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LozdwNE4tvBteNVri/Y2ijAazAYy0HMxV0faCnQeMzk=; b=PFlmxfCrhEHKtZAS0AdfqMayAsoiFlyD4IYDCGB4rcQH4Cp21V8M9dK3qCM45FjF8M RG4v39bqeV3hyasA2RZGgmCMEuhH5d/3MEbDybS7tF9PSJWS3xi8Dx70XXrCIc/OBpfs DXJzzxR6u2pIwciaNQJE2+ZCkeftO8CO7m4mSrOKEXZn69NDmTmOFQw9OIcse9EDkwQb dCCL7Mn48KxLbooN721uCA82btHFPzVZLlTjlnouZ67DaBcBv6mgQXok3UV+Q5hVCE7w gLVvHkCnPQ0+d10W4E4Vr0t6LYCX3KXJ3dK+05ZhfPdttKnRjoDaaNFfFZr4jQGYDIKn firw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlbk5ShwD2o0hTfpbsh9TVnStiZ4MGLeW4HVbmpAUVz/Pw/BIs5xacyPpSrhXrsLzv0PVHH X-Received: by 10.25.208.84 with SMTP id h81mr2394614lfg.22.1446526301180; Mon, 02 Nov 2015 20:51:41 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.141.77 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 20:51:21 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <5636E93F.7030604@article19.org> References: <86B0DF5B-5108-4B0E-9271-EC975DB76B5E@gmail.com> <5636E93F.7030604@article19.org> From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 13:51:21 +0900 Message-ID: To: Niels ten Oever Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Cc: hrpc@irtf.org Subject: Re: [hrpc] Implications of unencrypted metadata in encrypted data/protocols X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 04:51:45 -0000 (unintentional lurker on HRPC here, sorry!) There are a few works in progress here that I wonder if Bryan would find meet some of his desires... there's this draft from mnot and a few of us aimed at SPUD-like metadata extensions and asking for constrained vocabularies: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-transport-metadata-impact= / Ted Hardie and a few of us in the IAB Privacy and Security Program are writing a "hey, that metadata that was recently encrypted? Don't add that back outside the unencrypted envelope!": https://github.com/IAB-PrivSec-program/draft-iab-privsec-metadata-insertion (I have comments outstanding to Ted on this that I haven't finished and sent him :/) Bryan, it sounds like this does some of what you want? best, Joe On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Niels ten Oever wrote= : > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > Hi Bryan, > > Great, I have been looking for exactly something like this: a protocol > transcendent issue, that is not yet addressed in an existing RFC > and/or design principle. > > I think this metadata problem is real good example of something we > would want to cover, and it's not covered by RFC7258 on pervasive > monitoring. > > The only thing we need before we can take this in is a freedom of > expression, freedom of association, or other rights angle, that > ideally is not (only) privacy or security. > > Maybe we can discuss this in the hrpc session tomorrow? > > Best, > > Niels > > > > > Niels ten Oever > Head of Digital > > Article 19 > www.article19.org > > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 > > On 11/01/2015 10:25 PM, Bryan Ford wrote: >> Hi folks, I have a =E2=80=9Cwhere does this belong=E2=80=9D type questio= n. >> >> The IETF defines a lot of encrypted protocols and data formats, >> but currently standard design practices tend to leave unencrypted >> metadata =E2=80=9Caround=E2=80=9D the encrypted content - such as magic = numbers, >> protocol/format version identifiers, cryptographic scheme >> identifiers, information about the identities, keys, or >> certificates of the intended recipient(s) or authentication >> partner(s), etc. This leakage of assumed-to-be-innocuous metadata, >> as we=E2=80=99ve been learning, can have surprising and unexpected >> implications, including for human rights. >> >> For example, since OpenPGP-encrypted and many other encrypted file >> formats are basically self-identifying via helpful magic numbers >> and algorithm-IDs etc, it is trivial for =E2=80=9Cauthorities=E2=80=9D o= f whatever >> kind - e.g., while flying through an airport - to scan a hard >> drive, discover that you have some PGP-encrypted documents, and >> decide that by itself is a reason for suspicion and demand your >> keys (even if the documents might not even be encrypted for you). >> >> This metadata leakage can have other more subtle implications on >> identification vs anonymity as well. For example, as far as I >> know neither OpenPGP nor other encrypted-file formats/protocols >> like miniLock (https://github.com/kaepora/miniLock) go to any >> effort to hide the number of recipients a file is encrypted for >> (i.e., the number of public keys for which an internal session key >> is encrypted). But if an encrypted file is found on someone=E2=80=99s h= ard >> drive encrypted to exactly 23 recipients, and =E2=80=9Cthe authorities= =E2=80=9D >> happen to know that a particular mailing list or dissident group >> has 23 members, the intended =E2=80=9Cgroup=E2=80=9D and purpose of the = document >> might be obvious even if the individual recipients=E2=80=99 keys are >> unknown or blinded (as miniLock does). >> >> This seems like a cross-cutting class of issues potentially >> affecting many protocols. For example, TLS currently makes no >> effort at hiding encrypted chunk header metadata, hence revealing >> all chunk sizes/boundaries and making fingerprinting-based traffic >> analysis easier. Similarly, protocols that negotiate or specify >> one of several ciphers tend to do that negotiation in cleartext, >> leading not only to the well-known downgrade-attack issue but also >> attaching a =E2=80=9Ccrack me!=E2=80=9D flag to any file or communicatio= n that >> might for whatever reason happen to use a weak cipher such as RC4. >> With all the RC4-encrypted streams out there conveniently labeled >> =E2=80=9CRC4=E2=80=9D, attackers don=E2=80=99t even have to invest any c= omputational effort >> to focus RC4-cracking attention on those RC4 streams; if they >> weren=E2=80=99t so conveniently labeled, one might envision attackers mi= ght >> at least have to do a not-completely-trivial amount of computation >> to distinguish (say) a strong AES-encrypted stream from a weak >> RC4-encrypted stream. >> >> I brought up this metadata leakage issue recently in the context >> of OpenPGP in section 2.3 of a (very preliminary first-cut) draft I >> wrote for the OpenPGP WG: >> >> Title: Modernizing the OpenPGP Message Format URL: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ford-openpgp-format/ >> >> But I=E2=80=99m wondering if it=E2=80=99s worth thinking about and discu= ssing >> these issues more broadly (or if this is already being done) in the >> context of HRPC or elsewhere. Thoughts welcome. >> >> Bryan >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ hrpc mailing list >> hrpc@irtf.org https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2 > > iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWNuk/AAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpvSQH/2GKOS5SovQIPIrTgLqCn9ib > XcUGBwa436JG1o+KMnf/EdRrCdmYvNSf0y+TqrHb+MSbLb7X1HP3UNMCPH6YHHEe > YZSpucuOU5vexluoueTlRAaJEnJUHX5hQzrNaPg21DdM0Dx76PmeXWaL2Su47PuW > dbb1KXmG0WVuuZtfoGx2733z+5kngPsdttYPb+EYFL83fDKIB/do0mI9P3fvgfXE > 02Gihe8xxRkd3P3MZTl15ayAACng5E7wfLffZJd721X68CJbvdPP0Dg8N8JaAJcj > 4/g1h0PXzE9FLrGZW0W4XM66VAEHC0uZnAvOt8muhMrfcmArFbjn/nZMtV0q2jk=3D > =3DSuXO > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc --=20 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 nobody Mon Nov 2 21:07:30 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 239CE1B2E35 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 21:07:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oLNuzP01QEyB for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 21:07:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.bortzmeyer.org (aetius.bortzmeyer.org [IPv6:2001:4b98:dc0:41:216:3eff:fece:1902]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E61D51B2E31 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 21:07:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id 198B23C58B; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 06:07:25 +0100 (CET) Received: by tyrion (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 09E95F012B1; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 06:04:02 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 14:04:02 +0900 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: Bryan Ford Message-ID: <20151103050402.GA18703@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> References: <86B0DF5B-5108-4B0E-9271-EC975DB76B5E@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <86B0DF5B-5108-4B0E-9271-EC975DB76B5E@gmail.com> X-Transport: UUCP rules X-Operating-System: Ubuntu 15.10 (wily) X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Archived-At: Cc: "hrpc@irtf.org" Subject: Re: [hrpc] Implications of unencrypted metadata in encrypted data/protocols X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 05:07:30 -0000 On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 06:25:27AM +0900, Bryan Ford wrote a message of 243 lines which said: > For example, as far as I know neither OpenPGP nor other > encrypted-file formats/protocols like miniLock > (https://github.com/kaepora/miniLock > ) go to any effort to hide the > number of recipients a file is encrypted for (i.e., the number of > public keys for which an internal session key is encrypted). You are not forced to indicate the recipient(s) IDs (RFC 4880, section 5.1 "Zero or more Public-Key Encrypted Session Key packets and/or Symmetric-Key Encrypted Session Key packets may precede a Symmetrically Encrypted Data Packet"). If you use GnuPG, the option throw-keyids won't put the IDs in the encrypted message. It is not the default and it is labeled as "esoteric option" so few people use it (it has severe usability consequences, see an example - in french - in ). > This seems like a cross-cutting class of issues potentially > affecting many protocols. For example, TLS currently makes no > effort at hiding encrypted chunk header metadata, hence revealing > all chunk sizes/boundaries and making fingerprinting-based traffic > analysis easier. It is a general security/privacy issue, not specific to HR and may be perpass is the best place to discuss it? > Similarly, protocols that negotiate or specify one of several > ciphers tend to do that negotiation in cleartext, Otherwise, you have an interesting chicken-and-egg problem... From nobody Tue Nov 3 00:25:55 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C0A41A1A96 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 00:25:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.425 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.425 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3wU0NZuEofjP for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 00:25:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.article19.io (vps784.greenhost.nl [213.108.108.114]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05D5D1A1A8D for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 00:25:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.article19.io (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA497124031 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 08:25:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id A46AF124037 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 08:25:48 +0000 (UTC) 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 bFuCk9MTdYUr for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 08:25:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [133.93.52.111] (dhcp-52-111.meeting.ietf94.jp [133.93.52.111]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8A5FB124031 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 08:25:47 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <56386F87.5060706@article19.org> Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 09:25:43 +0100 From: Niels ten Oever User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "hrpc@irtf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] meeting notes and charter X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 08:25:54 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hi all, Thanks for a very constructive session today. You can find the meeting minutes here [0]. Thank you very much dkg for making the minutes. Also thank you very much to all presenters and the jabber scribe. The IRTF chair, Lars Eggert, indicated we could start the chartering phase for this proposed research group, so I would like to request for comments and proposed changes to the charter. [1] Looking forward to hear from you. Best, Niels [0] http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-ietf-94-hrpc?useMonospaceFon t=3Dtrue&showChat=3Dfalse [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/rg/hrpc/charter/ - --=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 v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWOG+HAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpei4H/1P9g8TG7FSl6SO9k8VuBEjK kwVOibNIEtallweSjXzVtJxkDU3bReNBHp4xJI0OPT2H9d2smM6/7bzW12izvXjh p6CVvmjhP4cOO0l4Jnbiqw4D4nKQzGXfkDZbM9Z/CGxquYbyl3YN7dEzDn05bzx/ LCKPnqICHacqIkHS/G6XKWgw/ycqyXd12BBqQz3DgAUS8Qh2fhoi6Dao5EMVTGm4 IZe+M9zQxMnxiG95TKhO3FM7pAkJxm6/yiiOtkRpkvw0jJ9basEExbeSJ1o9y5o5 H7jM6kkuTS5tH2413AnpFO/puqVVDp1RnQHRxtpbZxRAUaoxZ3vNyDqMoZPu9gM=3D =3DtVx5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From nobody Tue Nov 3 04:56:50 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 194561B333A for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 04:56:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9G1PhAn_4qP9 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 04:56:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.bortzmeyer.org (aetius.bortzmeyer.org [IPv6:2001:4b98:dc0:41:216:3eff:fece:1902]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E2111B3336 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 04:56:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id B60BB3C62C; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 13:56:45 +0100 (CET) Received: by tyrion (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6CE7DF0055E; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 13:52:45 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 21:52:45 +0900 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <20151103125245.GA10822@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Transport: UUCP rules X-Operating-System: Ubuntu 15.10 (wily) X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] ISOC policy brief on human rights X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 12:56:50 -0000 Each of these ISOC policy briefs is about one specific political issue regarding the Internet (network neutrality, IXP, botnets, standardization, etc). Useful if you want to inform friends who are non-technical and who lack time to read books. There is one on "human rights and the Interet". http://www.internetsociety.org/policybriefs/humanrights IMHO: should be added in the references of the gloassry draft. From nobody Tue Nov 10 16:42:15 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ECF61B44F6 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:42:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.206 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.206 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3bzcBekiyK2R for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:42:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from tyo201.gate.nec.co.jp (TYO201.gate.nec.co.jp [210.143.35.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE5E21B44F4 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:42:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgate3.nec.co.jp ([10.7.69.192]) by tyo201.gate.nec.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id tAB0gA0V025894 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 09:42:10 +0900 (JST) Received: from mailsv3.nec.co.jp (imss63.nec.co.jp [10.7.69.158]) by mailgate3.nec.co.jp (8.11.7/3.7W-MAILGATE-NEC) with ESMTP id tAB0gAU18243 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 09:42:10 +0900 (JST) Received: from mail01b.kamome.nec.co.jp (mail01b.kamome.nec.co.jp [10.25.43.2]) by mailsv3.nec.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id tAB0gA0C008705 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 09:42:10 +0900 (JST) Received: from bpxc99gp.gisp.nec.co.jp ([10.38.151.134] [10.38.151.134]) by mail02.kamome.nec.co.jp with ESMTP id BT-MMP-3327842; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 09:41:53 +0900 Received: from BPXM01GP.gisp.nec.co.jp ([10.38.151.193]) by BPXC06GP.gisp.nec.co.jp ([10.38.151.134]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 09:41:53 +0900 From: Kazue Sako To: "hrpc@irtf.org" Thread-Topic: Net of Rights at IETF 94 Thread-Index: AQHRHBnCkzfqqyNwjESPHh4jDng46w== Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 00:41:53 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: ja-JP, en-US Content-Language: ja-JP X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.142.225.193] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] Net of Rights at IETF 94 X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 00:42:14 -0000 Hi, IETF 94 was my first time attending IETF and this group is the first IETF m= ailinglist I joined. I really enjoyed the film 'Net of Rights,' and want to share it with my fri= ends and colleagues. Are there any plans for public viewing, for example, uploading on some web = site or on YouTube? Being non-native English speaker, I thought it would be very helpful if the= re were script captions, especially during the interviews. Thank you in advance. Regards, Kazue Sako= From nobody Tue Nov 10 16:57:59 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 863FE1ACDD3 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:57:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.121 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.121 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1Q_iNfI39qKY for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:57:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from volans.mag.keio.ac.jp (volans.mag.keio.ac.jp [IPv6:2001:200:1c0:3507::10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73AF21ACDBB for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:57:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=awa.sfc.keio.ac.jp; s=volans; h=Content-Type:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Date:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version; bh=aplFsnZHpi9sl3fRAWFeGe0X7N4XNO/YMArJLAQyHL8=; b=dIlukQJPuQre106XZp5V2cj0DwsJS2X3QoLA99bliwqCbof8wD+tbHnAYij77GYG6DJnUuBdDFZTK2rC52WSWiLlsrF550G6rWgTpuFo62elPFjAXoKy+IiZtfj/m9CDal6y59hvQctN9bL4ENZLXX6PKlymzekCPKr4Tf3c5hkygWyCNUM+9cteAI3QvSUKQo0CRkdU+Z37o4k7j/OBUqDizTiPFCBYLPxj6ZSDfnsFQ/hymaD9g9sl3XrkUA2vghcNCikfRCuNMhSi8s3vop4nEyqDPf1kqf+sAjwrUnjebltsfBeEuK1ZVMY0Koavu6WVOhq32p65C8xhoL+T3g==; Received: from mail-ob0-x236.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4003:c01::236]:34684) by volans.mag.keio.ac.jp with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwJft-0003FC-L0 for hrpc@irtf.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 09:54:09 +0900 Received: by obbza9 with SMTP id za9so11547295obb.1 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:57:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=awa_sfc_keio_ac_jp.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=aplFsnZHpi9sl3fRAWFeGe0X7N4XNO/YMArJLAQyHL8=; b=j00Oq4oT2VyS1r4jVtC423FUPOUXjLmAS6dk3w/Svr3L6oHUYWEDgnpfX/mu4mXLWX duzShVLxt8WbWiuMRJevZQLya3I8YIA4foJqb6mpmcXR2kDEPx/UQYzAWRovCL541zaS U6fR2Rjc6qxEBfWveXMIRKh5Q2sExCWHz46ammVCxyCRJsZkrexLk57B6pCph4OuqFij 6P1fQEJjWT8wECoHrpya7RO9tdkQL87FnjSa+fIlJF0dt3Ngh2/u0KPOIcMcHF1j8WvJ 3hFQtQ8UBuNzJm2YuFLBxryODuFGqj1zsBYKwbLIINVId1W9g0VwILUpE0UJeCIUNWaq gupw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=aplFsnZHpi9sl3fRAWFeGe0X7N4XNO/YMArJLAQyHL8=; b=JrqiQC33A1xml4xyRYCj1wIWHfoPEY2+lMNkhuPrWwpDphHL9+ptE1mjv+VU1mjJgU HsDeS+7+ODcdC+EJmi19x2pxOwCN8tYHDU+vKJexC050OCXBCWfYcxn/hKQKUpQoyqM2 Z2Pkgs1DgjjzDxgDjA2Cs4Cjap0PJ1wZW0t0BP6Us4UffsXArs/5shB+beaWe5DhnSor lm6hMZFP9AOijNS0R4mR91ML0aTxocjX8MS8Q8LYl9I0CWyjuTg9IX1s5hvlePn8d495 0k2GNG9PDjfi8fL8KTC1XRVorzrOAskgL3A2XFy+y3My9MnTIDT+7xSi7owYajgeqHng 4PIA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl/hWgDguKS4DqI8GgfJGQjywi7BRub4aUdHOmIxLC4Lk7ObHss9xJsVSWzgrW7haEDyepFDA/EsizTRq9trhHSrTmNbxCSJB+EILTlnPspE0CGf4+iT69NPwCVgioomHnXXZxh4kDRDKkL6MQ0TCK/Z+15RA== X-Received: by 10.60.115.138 with SMTP id jo10mr3669959oeb.85.1447203464273; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:57:44 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.115.138 with SMTP id jo10mr3669953oeb.85.1447203464074; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:57:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.76.154.104 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:57:43 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 09:57:43 +0900 Message-ID: From: Hirotaka Nakajima To: Kazue Sako Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01161d2664f22005243950fc Archived-At: Cc: "hrpc@irtf.org" Subject: Re: [hrpc] Net of Rights at IETF 94 X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 00:57:58 -0000 --089e01161d2664f22005243950fc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi Sako-san, Thanks!! I'm also interested in viewing this movie on YouTube or other platform. Best, Hiro On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Kazue Sako wrote: > > Hi, > > IETF 94 was my first time attending IETF and this group is the first IETF mailinglist I joined. > > I really enjoyed the film 'Net of Rights,' and want to share it with my friends and colleagues. > > Are there any plans for public viewing, for example, uploading on some web site or on YouTube? > > Being non-native English speaker, I thought it would be very helpful if there were script captions, especially during the interviews. > > Thank you in advance. > Regards, > Kazue Sako > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc -- Hirotaka Nakajima Assistant Professor, Keio University GPG: 0x752E6CE9 --089e01161d2664f22005243950fc Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Sako-san,

Thanks!!
I'm also interested i= n viewing this movie on YouTube or other platform.

Best,
Hiro
=
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Kazue Sako <k-sako@ab.jp.nec.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,>
> IETF 94 was my first time attending IETF and this group is th= e first IETF mailinglist I joined.
>
> I really enjoyed the fil= m 'Net of Rights,' and want to share it with my friends and colleag= ues.
>
> Are there any plans for public viewing, for example, u= ploading on some web site or on YouTube?
>
> Being non-native E= nglish speaker, I thought it would be very helpful if there were script cap= tions, especially during the interviews.
>
> Thank you in advan= ce.
> Regards,
> Kazue Sako
> ___________________________= ____________________
> hrpc mailing list
> hrpc@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc



--
Hirotaka Nakajima
Assistant Professor, Keio UniversityGPG: 0x752E6CE9
--089e01161d2664f22005243950fc-- From nobody Wed Nov 11 20:59:59 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB0231AC3F8 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 20:59:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.693 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.693 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uFGSqjsQgiuI for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 20:59:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from tyo202.gate.nec.co.jp (TYO202.gate.nec.co.jp [210.143.35.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFB181AC3F7 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 20:59:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgate3.nec.co.jp ([10.7.69.192]) by tyo202.gate.nec.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id tAC4xsxk016868 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 13:59:54 +0900 (JST) Received: from mailsv.nec.co.jp (imss61.nec.co.jp [10.7.69.156]) by mailgate3.nec.co.jp (8.11.7/3.7W-MAILGATE-NEC) with ESMTP id tAC4xsU00459 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 13:59:54 +0900 (JST) Received: from mail01b.kamome.nec.co.jp (mail01b.kamome.nec.co.jp [10.25.43.2]) by mailsv.nec.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id tAC4xrj8017727 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 13:59:53 +0900 (JST) Received: from bpxc99gp.gisp.nec.co.jp ([10.38.151.129] [10.38.151.129]) by mail02.kamome.nec.co.jp with ESMTP id BT-MMP-3371194; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 13:50:23 +0900 Received: from BPXM01GP.gisp.nec.co.jp ([10.38.151.193]) by BPXC01GP.gisp.nec.co.jp ([10.38.151.129]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 13:50:23 +0900 From: Kazue Sako To: "hrpc@irtf.org" Thread-Topic: [hrpc] Net of Rights at IETF 94 Thread-Index: AQHRHBnCkzfqqyNwjESPHh4jDng4656VaN2AgAJkfzE= Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 04:50:23 +0000 Message-ID: References: , In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: ja-JP, en-US Content-Language: ja-JP X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.142.225.193] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Net of Rights at IETF 94 X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 04:59:58 -0000 VGhhbmsgeW91IEhpcm8gZm9yIHlvdXIgbWVzc2FnZS4NCg0KSSBmb3VuZCBOaWVscyB0ZW4gT2V2 ZXIg4oCPQGNvbmZsaWN0bWVkaWEgc2F5aW5nDQoNCi5ATGxhbk9sZERvZyBZZXMsICNuZXRvZnJp Z2h0cyB3aWxsIGJlIHB1Ymxpc2hlZCBhbmQgcmVsZWFzZWQgb25saW5lIHVuZGVyIGNyZWF0aXZl IGNvbW1vbnMgbGljZW5zZSwgaXQgbWlnaHQgdGFrZSBhIGJpdCBvZiB0aW1lIHRob3VnaC4NCmh0 dHBzOi8vdHdpdHRlci5jb20vY29uZmxpY3RtZWRpYS9zdGF0dXMvNjYxNDE5MjY0NTgzMjA0ODY0 DQoNClNvIHBlcmhhcHMgd2Ugc2hvdWxkIGJlIG1vcmUgcGF0aWVudC4NCg0KUmVnYXJkcywNCkth enVlDQpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQoNCkhpIFNha28t c2FuLA0KDQpUaGFua3MhIQ0KSSdtIGFsc28gaW50ZXJlc3RlZCBpbiB2aWV3aW5nIHRoaXMgbW92 aWUgb24gWW91VHViZSBvciBvdGhlciBwbGF0Zm9ybS4NCg0KQmVzdCwNCkhpcm8NCg0KT24gV2Vk LCBOb3YgMTEsIDIwMTUgYXQgOTo0MSBBTSwgS2F6dWUgU2FrbyA8ay1zYWtvQGFiLmpwLm5lYy5j b208bWFpbHRvOmstc2Frb0BhYi5qcC5uZWMuY29tPj4gd3JvdGU6DQo+DQo+IEhpLA0KPg0KPiBJ RVRGIDk0IHdhcyBteSBmaXJzdCB0aW1lIGF0dGVuZGluZyBJRVRGIGFuZCB0aGlzIGdyb3VwIGlz IHRoZSBmaXJzdCBJRVRGIG1haWxpbmdsaXN0IEkgam9pbmVkLg0KPg0KPiBJIHJlYWxseSBlbmpv eWVkIHRoZSBmaWxtICdOZXQgb2YgUmlnaHRzLCcgYW5kIHdhbnQgdG8gc2hhcmUgaXQgd2l0aCBt eSBmcmllbmRzIGFuZCBjb2xsZWFndWVzLg0KPg0KPiBBcmUgdGhlcmUgYW55IHBsYW5zIGZvciBw dWJsaWMgdmlld2luZywgZm9yIGV4YW1wbGUsIHVwbG9hZGluZyBvbiBzb21lIHdlYiBzaXRlIG9y IG9uIFlvdVR1YmU/DQo+DQo+IEJlaW5nIG5vbi1uYXRpdmUgRW5nbGlzaCBzcGVha2VyLCBJIHRo b3VnaHQgaXQgd291bGQgYmUgdmVyeSBoZWxwZnVsIGlmIHRoZXJlIHdlcmUgc2NyaXB0IGNhcHRp b25zLCBlc3BlY2lhbGx5IGR1cmluZyB0aGUgaW50ZXJ2aWV3cy4NCj4NCj4gVGhhbmsgeW91IGlu IGFkdmFuY2UuDQo+IFJlZ2FyZHMsDQo+IEthenVlIFNha28NCj4gX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCj4gaHJwYyBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNCj4gaHJw Y0BpcnRmLm9yZzxtYWlsdG86aHJwY0BpcnRmLm9yZz4NCj4gaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaXJ0Zi5vcmcv bWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9ocnBjDQoNCg0KDQoNCi0tDQpIaXJvdGFrYSBOYWthamltYQ0KQXNz aXN0YW50IFByb2Zlc3NvciwgS2VpbyBVbml2ZXJzaXR5DQpHUEc6IDB4NzUyRTZDRTkNCg== From nobody Thu Nov 12 00:19:45 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50FD91A9248 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 00:19:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.664 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.664 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BBOjLcJWcoic for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 00:19:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from atl4mhob10.myregisteredsite.com (atl4mhob10.myregisteredsite.com [209.17.115.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C46721A9235 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 00:19:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.209]) by atl4mhob10.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id tAC8Jf91018029 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 03:19:41 -0500 Received: (qmail 26030 invoked by uid 0); 12 Nov 2015 08:19:41 -0000 X-TCPREMOTEIP: 172.56.7.249 X-Authenticated-UID: avri@ella.com Received: from unknown (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (avri@ella.com@172.56.7.249) by 0 with ESMTPA; 12 Nov 2015 08:19:40 -0000 References: To: hrpc@irtf.org From: Avri Doria Organization: Technicalities Message-ID: <56444B9B.8050800@acm.org> Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 05:19:39 -0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 151111-2, 11/11/2015), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Net of Rights at IETF 94 X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: avri@acm.org List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 08:19:44 -0000 Hi, Yes, that is the plan. Joanna and Niels will be doing some last bits of edit and clean-up work on the film after that initial showing at the IETF and then will make it available on online. As they are both currently involved in the IGF meeting in João Pessoa, Brazil, it will probably be a few weeks before that becomes available. Really happy to see the interest in their work. avri On 12-Nov-15 01:50, Kazue Sako wrote: > Thank you Hiro for your message. > > I found Niels ten Oever â€@conflictmedia saying > > .@LlanOldDog Yes, #netofrights will be published and released online under creative commons license, it might take a bit of time though. > https://twitter.com/conflictmedia/status/661419264583204864 > > So perhaps we should be more patient. > > Regards, > Kazue > ________________________________________ > > Hi Sako-san, > > Thanks!! > I'm also interested in viewing this movie on YouTube or other platform. > > Best, > Hiro > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Kazue Sako > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> IETF 94 was my first time attending IETF and this group is the first IETF mailinglist I joined. >> >> I really enjoyed the film 'Net of Rights,' and want to share it with my friends and colleagues. >> >> Are there any plans for public viewing, for example, uploading on some web site or on YouTube? >> >> Being non-native English speaker, I thought it would be very helpful if there were script captions, especially during the interviews. >> >> Thank you in advance. >> Regards, >> Kazue Sako >> _______________________________________________ >> hrpc mailing list >> hrpc@irtf.org >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > > > > -- > Hirotaka Nakajima > Assistant Professor, Keio University > GPG: 0x752E6CE9 > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From nobody Thu Nov 12 01:09:55 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5E011B2C75 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 01:09:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.002 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2CQMJlz38Dvl for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 01:09:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from rediffmail.com (pro236-135.mxout.rediffmailpro.com [202.137.236.135]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F13531B2C6C for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 01:09:50 -0800 (PST) X-REDIFF-Delivered-Remotely-To: hrpc@irtf.org Received: (qmail 8494 invoked from network); 12 Nov 2015 09:09:41 -0000 x-m-msg: asd54ad564ad7aa6sd5as6d5; a6da7d6asas6dasd77; 5dad65ad5sd; X-OUT-VDRT-SpamState: 0\LEGIT X-OUT-VDRT-SpamScore: 0 X-OUT-VDRT-SpamCause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrfeekhedrgeekgddufedvucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuggftfghnshhusghstghrihgsvgenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefhvfhfjgfufffkgggtgffothesthejghdtvddtvdenucfhrhhomhepfdfjrghrihhshhcuvehhohifughhrghrhidfuceohhgrrhhishhhsehnihigihdrihhnqeenucffohhmrghinhepihhrthhfrdhorhhgnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhhouggvpehsmhhtphhouhht Received: from unknown (HELO DESKTOPS38L5KK) (14.141.22.130) by mailserver with SMTP; 12 Nov 2015 09:09:41 -0000 From: "Harish Chowdhary" To: References: In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 14:39:32 +0530 Message-ID: <004201d11d29$d803fe20$880bfa60$@in> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Content-language: en-in Thread-Index: AdEcu5l8eFl8kPKuQlyEKdbcRUh02AAbdTTw Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] hrpc Digest, Vol 8, Issue 5 X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 09:09:55 -0000 Dear All, This WG is really interesting.IETF_94 was really great experience at YOKOHAMA. I want to contribute to the hrpc-WG. Kindly let me know how can I start my contribution. I am open for work. Thanks, Harish Chowdhary -----Original Message----- From: hrpc [mailto:hrpc-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of hrpc-request@irtf.org Sent: 12 November 2015 01:30 To: hrpc@irtf.org Subject: hrpc Digest, Vol 8, Issue 5 Send hrpc mailing list submissions to hrpc@irtf.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to hrpc-request@irtf.org You can reach the person managing the list at hrpc-owner@irtf.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of hrpc digest..." From nobody Fri Nov 13 02:08:27 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5B601A8A13 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 02:08:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.951 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.951 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xQbdBAl6Aatx for ; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 02:08:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de [141.3.10.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1EC11A8A47 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 02:08:23 -0800 (PST) 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 1ZxBHG-0000wD-I3 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 11:08:18 +0100 Received: from [IPv6:::1] (ip6-localhost [IPv6:::1]) by i72vorta.tm.kit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70D17B00FC5 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 11:08:18 +0100 (CET) To: hrpc@irtf.org From: "Bless, Roland (TM)" Organization: Institute of Telematics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology Message-ID: <5645B692.8010908@kit.edu> Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 11:08:18 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ATIS-AV: ClamAV (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de) X-ATIS-Timestamp: iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de 1447409298. Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] Guide to human rights for Internet Users X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 10:08:25 -0000 Hi, maybe I missed it and it was already mentioned, otherwise here's just a hint to a memorandum as related work. The Council of Europe issued Recommendation CM/Rec(2014)6, Guide to human rights for Internet users Document: https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet?Index=no&command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImage=2726797&SecMode=1&DocId=2132624&Usage=2 More on the web: http://www.coe.int/en/web/internet-users-rights/guide Regards, Roland From nobody Fri Nov 13 04:15:48 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42C181A0025 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 04:15:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EnK7D9FY5I5p for ; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 04:15:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x233.google.com (mail-wm0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80C611A0130 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 04:15:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by wmww144 with SMTP id w144so26209163wmw.1 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 04:15:44 -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=bgWLDXR76NECqnIiYdldpt1LDfiHAj3iETBSsRaq75I=; b=x9uEVilZslz9C2uC8V6eKiuXzKoL5vkFTYN86/4ECBHghfwSnJY+WAWQV7hL8VNt0p IaN2Ze7L5SfY1QlumLhn60poS6exStapmdc0tgH9hSZZCAEKQ0cD1HDv0IRxIv5c4GkY y8MeimbOirqajCKgUAhjEjapYMwX0w5ntIUq9KUP2hP/F0clV+ld11H7B8ngguH54Xxs MlV3fE7b0AzRjXEXS3AlJ02mCtdd6na4HrinVn9+YkHMxmMAF4DOQRLnf3Mi+5G16Wbl SVDoMoJBvOTBSA7K1XE5u7PBR7HQcBmtclPlkKXFvZXlVP6bKfZGV673N4m7KffVgvY1 Cefw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.28.135.13 with SMTP id j13mr3729727wmd.48.1447416944094; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 04:15:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.30.195 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 04:15:44 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <5645B692.8010908@kit.edu> References: <5645B692.8010908@kit.edu> Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 12:15:44 +0000 Message-ID: From: Corinne Cath To: "Bless, Roland (TM)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11444e18cb76b805246b0457 Archived-At: Cc: hrpc@irtf.org Subject: Re: [hrpc] Guide to human rights for Internet Users X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 12:15:47 -0000 --001a11444e18cb76b805246b0457 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 thank you! On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Bless, Roland (TM) wrote: > Hi, > > maybe I missed it and it was already mentioned, otherwise here's > just a hint to a memorandum as related work. > The Council of Europe issued > Recommendation CM/Rec(2014)6, Guide to human rights for Internet users > Document: > > https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet?Index=no&command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImage=2726797&SecMode=1&DocId=2132624&Usage=2 > More on the web: > http://www.coe.int/en/web/internet-users-rights/guide > > Regards, > Roland > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > -- 'The management of normality is hard work' --001a11444e18cb76b805246b0457 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
thank you!

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Bless, Roland (TM) <= roland.bless@kit.edu> wrote:
https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet?Index=3Dno&command=3D= com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImage=3D2726797&SecMode=3D1&D= ocId=3D2132624&Usage=3D2
More on the web:
http://www.coe.int/en/web/internet-users-rights= /guide

Regards,
=C2=A0Roland

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



--


'The management of normality is hard work'

<= /div>
--001a11444e18cb76b805246b0457-- From nobody Tue Nov 17 03:27:37 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48ACD1B2E54 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 03:27:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.135 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.135 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.585] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RQ80cUMLJOBg for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 03:27:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx4.nic.fr (mx4.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:2::4:12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3A501B2E53 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 03:27:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 64B872801AA for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 12:27:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from relay2.nic.fr (relay2.nic.fr [192.134.4.163]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 608582800D4 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 12:27:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from bortzmeyer.nic.fr (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:1348:7::86:133]) by relay2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 539FAB38050 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 12:27:01 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 12:27:01 +0100 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <20151117112701.GA16373@nic.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux stretch/sid X-Kernel: Linux 4.2.0-1-686-pae i686 X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie Organization: NIC France X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] draft-iab-filtering-considerations to be published as RFC X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 11:27:36 -0000 Its version draft-iab-filtering-considerations-09 is now in the RFC editor queue This may replace the (expired? defunct?) draft-hall-censorship-tech. My personal opinion on the IAB draft (based on an earlier version, I did not read the very last ones): good technical analysis (of course) but may be too neutral (describing techniques without concerns about their legitimacy). From nobody Tue Nov 17 05:49:59 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 796F41AD0A8 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 05:49:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.378 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DVQZDHzcc_lh for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 05:49:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x236.google.com (mail-lb0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 124F71B2F79 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 05:49:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by lbbkw15 with SMTP id kw15so5810076lbb.0 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 05:49:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cdt.org; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=ZXbZS8NnwbkIwkBxasflXUdSYVD22EVE0hhVFW+9i3I=; b=O9UJ0xwW6KemW3UFpF38SQbfrSsty82VMjGkPnssuPa5TiTWL4mDeGHBOGPU7tPF+Y LKrOqm8anPjNslJ2MFl3aMtK8Lvjg6IpZdNHZdrnHN4w2ZAIQhSYChzydigWHsEnIuHK p4t1AuKzcXhA5tGT8OZeJHUwE7jtYwWqdT0l0= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=ZXbZS8NnwbkIwkBxasflXUdSYVD22EVE0hhVFW+9i3I=; b=mBUxw+/kVpMINtWVPiR1JujIdGtMYei5H4bIKx+fNPNQZqFDJHGSf6DZxJuUsE65qW G3Nik7VyCsWfqBp/6CzDcTtoh64VUS8kGR+Ev6jzAuC2J2+gWAq2FrdTgUxLEs+KeoJR XtA91NJcbXpt8TC3gg/e+NaTlWceQMLPxD0w8Yb6Nq38ie1ZQepDrTR/xb3Mxejjn6G4 RUNUeRBuqtMC/23lUh2ZvAgesHzDx5AP5bjxFyyV9ZtGmbww1fCWsRkJScBfjsd4PFba bLTjCLl6KBSV1PeY9oW4AWZkJag2MRKTozzd/gYPLWTIF5lCV3cOruG5eWx32xsNLWwS 6RAQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmznBoG4yIq9FYia3pQfWmveuIv9kWcEmVUItBRHMqF/wp0Y3aKbx5OMvlFF4MTRJ83N8k6 X-Received: by 10.112.236.67 with SMTP id us3mr2555891lbc.64.1447768194285; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 05:49:54 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.141.77 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 05:49:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20151117112701.GA16373@nic.fr> References: <20151117112701.GA16373@nic.fr> From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 08:49:34 -0500 Message-ID: To: Stephane Bortzmeyer Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: hrpc@irtf.org Subject: Re: [hrpc] draft-iab-filtering-considerations to be published as RFC X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 13:49:58 -0000 Heya Stephane, draft-hall is neither expired nor defunct. I'm still planning on shooting for an AD-sponsored draft before or right after Buenos Aires (which I can't attend due to a previous conflict so will need to participate remotely). I've been refactoring draft-hall to use the Markdown ID template as a few academic contributors would rather edit in that fashion. I've also been working in some changes from commentors such as yourself and Martin. I see these drafts as distinct, and I should have a new version for comment by December. We'll also have a phone call or two to get some of the folks interested in further edits together. best, Joe On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > Its version draft-iab-filtering-considerations-09 is now in the RFC > editor queue > > This may replace the (expired? defunct?) draft-hall-censorship-tech. > > My personal opinion on the IAB draft (based on an earlier version, I > did not read the very last ones): good technical analysis (of course) > but may be too neutral (describing techniques without concerns about > their legitimacy). > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc -- 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 nobody Tue Nov 17 05:53:14 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF60F1B2F8A for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 05:53:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.377 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DH4ngVSAZISU for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 05:53:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x22c.google.com (mail-lb0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49F821B2F88 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 05:53:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by lbbsy6 with SMTP id sy6so5798727lbb.2 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 05:53:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cdt.org; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=tn0S/5936+SbqLFWEjBTHVypuNeb8Cps+KY6SYfKSnU=; b=A2wfoS+OA3DJwLCtqA1MPqNk8wFABMi9UAzKr2ePCJtR7PmwY45pnlg41b5yUOHSmO nysiXLtPIll1ObtTuIpxGxacbXFCmG84tQtQb59KiP9E1kgG6Xk4PmVRSteE7ITjYw+I AzhEH5AnZ+hKa68tTm1rdYUNwtx5plFENSEms= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=tn0S/5936+SbqLFWEjBTHVypuNeb8Cps+KY6SYfKSnU=; b=Tz6JLP1dmAOu3d3dks0IFozwO0wO2XldhPyqYvLyS3IGb+XE7Xfi8aqt9IzPJG8gtC Ew42M4M+9kBvJR1Gmzxu6QqTydloyS1y0tmH/Vgktf8/ossn9M0RtVe97Ep+GDb/qyoI MCEUaVqt14xVjWNiilRRJCrkyT5L8Gb2z3BxZK0eAYveGo1aBKC1jj5fCFUrT+DwjM9m 5r1vmP3NgFrevJmZ5Qk2SPYql5YoUS6MmkIqo/h1pya3sN69usjD3GbcdYJI6ATCyX8i zZRjpisV54iJsXr2eNi7XlDA3S7vV35m7yJ91ktzoRGJHTtnwgIbrcmMW1o6Fh4tLBUo BxTg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlG4IVwasHJwUZeFz1kDbKoaBX46JBmYAGUqhjF60rxy91myoOKYj/wfXjYPVrGe85rWqM0 X-Received: by 10.112.64.72 with SMTP id m8mr19640904lbs.41.1447768389286; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 05:53:09 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.141.77 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 05:52:49 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <56386F87.5060706@article19.org> References: <56386F87.5060706@article19.org> From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 08:52:49 -0500 Message-ID: To: Niels ten Oever Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: "hrpc@irtf.org" Subject: Re: [hrpc] meeting notes and charter X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 13:53:12 -0000 Heya Niels and HRPC folks, I just took another look at the charter. It looks good after our earlier rounds of edits. One question: should the proposed milestones be blank? best, Joe On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 3:25 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > Hi all, > > Thanks for a very constructive session today. You can find the meeting > minutes here [0]. Thank you very much dkg for making the minutes. Also > thank you very much to all presenters and the jabber scribe. > > The IRTF chair, Lars Eggert, indicated we could start the chartering > phase for this proposed research group, so I would like to request for > comments and proposed changes to the charter. [1] > > Looking forward to hear from you. > > Best, > > Niels > > > [0] > http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-ietf-94-hrpc?useMonospaceFon > t=true&showChat=false > > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/rg/hrpc/charter/ > - -- > 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 v2 > > iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWOG+HAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpei4H/1P9g8TG7FSl6SO9k8VuBEjK > kwVOibNIEtallweSjXzVtJxkDU3bReNBHp4xJI0OPT2H9d2smM6/7bzW12izvXjh > p6CVvmjhP4cOO0l4Jnbiqw4D4nKQzGXfkDZbM9Z/CGxquYbyl3YN7dEzDn05bzx/ > LCKPnqICHacqIkHS/G6XKWgw/ycqyXd12BBqQz3DgAUS8Qh2fhoi6Dao5EMVTGm4 > IZe+M9zQxMnxiG95TKhO3FM7pAkJxm6/yiiOtkRpkvw0jJ9basEExbeSJ1o9y5o5 > H7jM6kkuTS5tH2413AnpFO/puqVVDp1RnQHRxtpbZxRAUaoxZ3vNyDqMoZPu9gM= > =tVx5 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc -- 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 nobody Tue Nov 17 05:57:29 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C93291B2FA3 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 05:57:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.324 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.324 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r1gTScmiI4CW for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 05:57:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.article19.io (vps784.greenhost.nl [213.108.108.114]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1E141B2FA1 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 05:57:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.article19.io (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F1BE114014; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 13:57:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D098124038; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 13:57:23 +0000 (UTC) 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 jSramfSxdcH2; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 13:57:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.125.189.148] (unknown [187.28.38.245]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CDC6B124037; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 13:57:21 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <564B323F.9050905@article19.org> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 14:57:19 +0100 From: Niels ten Oever User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joseph Lorenzo Hall References: <56386F87.5060706@article19.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: "hrpc@irtf.org" Subject: Re: [hrpc] meeting notes and charter X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 13:57:28 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hi Joe and others, Have quite a backlog after IETF, IGF, and conference here in Rio, so sorry I've been slow to respond. The milestones are not part of the charter AFAIK. Am happy to discuss the milestones separate from the charter though. Best, Niels Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 On 11/17/2015 02:52 PM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote: > Heya Niels and HRPC folks, > > I just took another look at the charter. It looks good after our > earlier rounds of edits. One question: should the proposed > milestones be blank? > > best, Joe > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 3:25 AM, Niels ten Oever > wrote: Hi all, > > Thanks for a very constructive session today. You can find the > meeting minutes here [0]. Thank you very much dkg for making the > minutes. Also thank you very much to all presenters and the jabber > scribe. > > The IRTF chair, Lars Eggert, indicated we could start the > chartering phase for this proposed research group, so I would like > to request for comments and proposed changes to the charter. [1] > > Looking forward to hear from you. > > Best, > > Niels > > > [0] > http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-ietf-94-hrpc?useMonospaceF on > > t=true&showChat=false > > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/rg/hrpc/charter/ >> >> _______________________________________________ hrpc mailing >> list hrpc@irtf.org https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWSzI/AAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpkh4H/RRsYEexKSB48a7Jnq2ItVBR Bdd4wZ5ppwsKDjFuHEuJDYIIB1Aes9ilEv3oMQmq7QtEa2q87Udrj5mSZdbS072e 1E4VmHEon++waoFJGRo4mN4e/S2q1DaaFAqYg2nvKKcNZGZaahQLUeqOzzprHj/V iaM8GQwrcTAlvEhtjSxfN+7oGP3dYmgujud7VuJ1ewoi9SLRLTFm+rcQr0wG3D4j PWAWrXO0o7YOJB53fTJtc0h1mtPDmpehQGpYBGEoek/mK+hniSDNv29FmkqIWI6P mH9P++RC7pjxw74Y8QQxgcebFZSRjdP5UuC8OK/TY/xfsJ15f0h80t4JpD16AIA= =Cxu7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From nobody Tue Nov 17 08:33:02 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 417CF1A01D6 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 08:33:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.377 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7UYy06Lm4JHq for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 08:33:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lf0-x22e.google.com (mail-lf0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC3421A01AE for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 08:32:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by lfdo63 with SMTP id o63so8933070lfd.2 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 08:32:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cdt.org; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=DD57/ZfELu13Ihb1NWsmmk+UdxXdJoL5G9nQGf1uDAg=; b=L8F8ZXjbOu51tGSpbLvSIvW2pSGCTIbDSLWbHFR9EgXTtiONSTwC3wyeKSnFB0DSmM ktS7tPeKuNRQ/MTsRfyKoqMLNt/aAuU1+uwkZjS4rc/EdJBYveAnQYmAeZFlbnpJ0556 QuVy37YDS3vmtYYfY5CRvyIvA4L8TYOztDCwI= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=DD57/ZfELu13Ihb1NWsmmk+UdxXdJoL5G9nQGf1uDAg=; b=FXr2G5XNeNu0UUctSr+maOChaEjtIyiso5j/K0Tt5dcpopOfa9H/DZA6QVe8KevSwv /CClUEzQVWFhaMJqN1cQAPSe0p6Etd3BMgjLyVKNygyK83T9iAO7WhAXxtzv+EFsYi+R 7RXIzq/p/UyNpKtGPQwXLtICUG/V8Hg0nese2j01AirLmAT9/sSwGtAg7Rt9Sunyr48I 3fofPL2W0iJfQJttzvrpk1B0M53JxbYVcHhdJrpXxSG3+uhXFzJ/DdqWRLhoRjoZe1bA 8TjDT7fLdU62qISGFeZMZjMUf4HQjhz9IY443DeQP8+EsqjZNtteyd9iuqtMcie/P1hi 8spw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnnp4oa/4nc2pF9STkb3Ot8WGkx8bIqsDoL4nHzgZljiaj/F77PMVweQZ0Ode711GvShj6s X-Received: by 10.25.208.135 with SMTP id h129mr20553164lfg.22.1447777977796; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 08:32:57 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.141.77 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 08:32:38 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <564B323F.9050905@article19.org> References: <56386F87.5060706@article19.org> <564B323F.9050905@article19.org> From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 11:32:38 -0500 Message-ID: To: Niels ten Oever Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: "hrpc@irtf.org" Subject: Re: [hrpc] meeting notes and charter X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 16:33:01 -0000 Thanks, Niels! (And don't let me detract from time off!) best, Joe On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > Hi Joe and others, > > Have quite a backlog after IETF, IGF, and conference here in Rio, so > sorry I've been slow to respond. > > The milestones are not part of the charter AFAIK. Am happy to discuss > the milestones separate from the charter though. > > Best, > > Niels > > Niels ten Oever > Head of Digital > > Article 19 > www.article19.org > > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 > > On 11/17/2015 02:52 PM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote: >> Heya Niels and HRPC folks, >> >> I just took another look at the charter. It looks good after our >> earlier rounds of edits. One question: should the proposed >> milestones be blank? >> >> best, Joe >> >> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 3:25 AM, Niels ten Oever >> wrote: Hi all, >> >> Thanks for a very constructive session today. You can find the >> meeting minutes here [0]. Thank you very much dkg for making the >> minutes. Also thank you very much to all presenters and the jabber >> scribe. >> >> The IRTF chair, Lars Eggert, indicated we could start the >> chartering phase for this proposed research group, so I would like >> to request for comments and proposed changes to the charter. [1] >> >> Looking forward to hear from you. >> >> Best, >> >> Niels >> >> >> [0] >> http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-ietf-94-hrpc?useMonospaceF > on >> >> > t=true&showChat=false >> >> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/rg/hrpc/charter/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ hrpc mailing >>> list hrpc@irtf.org https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >> >> >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2 > > iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWSzI/AAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpkh4H/RRsYEexKSB48a7Jnq2ItVBR > Bdd4wZ5ppwsKDjFuHEuJDYIIB1Aes9ilEv3oMQmq7QtEa2q87Udrj5mSZdbS072e > 1E4VmHEon++waoFJGRo4mN4e/S2q1DaaFAqYg2nvKKcNZGZaahQLUeqOzzprHj/V > iaM8GQwrcTAlvEhtjSxfN+7oGP3dYmgujud7VuJ1ewoi9SLRLTFm+rcQr0wG3D4j > PWAWrXO0o7YOJB53fTJtc0h1mtPDmpehQGpYBGEoek/mK+hniSDNv29FmkqIWI6P > mH9P++RC7pjxw74Y8QQxgcebFZSRjdP5UuC8OK/TY/xfsJ15f0h80t4JpD16AIA= > =Cxu7 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- 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 nobody Tue Nov 17 10:36:39 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 648391B3304 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 10:36:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.323 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.323 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q_I3nr01m-T5 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 10:36:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.article19.io (vps784.greenhost.nl [213.108.108.114]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1CDE1B3303 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 10:36:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.article19.io (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8CEE124038 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 18:36:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6C3E124037 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 18:36:33 +0000 (UTC) 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 L2-odsES1gtY for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 18:36:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.125.189.148] (unknown [187.28.38.245]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4AB44124036 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 18:36:33 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <564B73AF.700@article19.org> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 19:36:31 +0100 From: Niels ten Oever User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "hrpc@irtf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] last call charter X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 18:36:38 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hello everyone, The charter [0] has been up for discussion since November 3 and I haven't seen any concrete comments, questions or suggestions, so I would like to call for last comments, closing on Monday November 23- 23:59 UTC. Looking forward to your questions, comments or suggestions. Best, Niels [0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/rg/hrpc/charter/ - --=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 v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWS3OvAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpQ1cH/1Oz7J/Yz5q4QEAa1wpvb4RK uGI1XgBY3fzHRV+41aGtdmzHuoXjpgPqJ1Q1lV7Cbg27L1UPS+G+Zf+08VCzi3En mnJ8oeET1Auz5RkGOUBY6CG0jEBox/8DaGKWylOkugTHk3NsnHjZgG/PEhOAm/R6 Zl7vgPJJX7z+JpFrPzIErpi4o3PCLeMTddRmZl7+GG6LCtSuZPdBTpxF4CnJVcL5 XtySnZVwsOpc4RLynIi9BulyYRe3sa/phaEVwB7ZZVLluzdQ1Fw1dTe/PvE/Y+uJ 8OrRW0P9KJ4fryeXl9e1BVzlL/geJwoC7TGLN4Bcp7NE45kOdfvEzB0jsvbhkIs=3D =3DqQ38 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From nobody Tue Nov 17 10:37:32 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 959411B330C for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 10:37:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.007 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.007 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T6agHDpDSKR9 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 10:37:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from tyo202.gate.nec.co.jp (TYO202.gate.nec.co.jp [210.143.35.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F31A1B3308 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 10:37:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgate3.nec.co.jp ([10.7.69.197]) by tyo202.gate.nec.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id tAHIbQlm023799 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 03:37:26 +0900 (JST) Received: from mailsv.nec.co.jp (imss63.nec.co.jp [10.7.69.158]) by mailgate3.nec.co.jp (8.11.7/3.7W-MAILGATE-NEC) with ESMTP id tAHIbQg12463 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 03:37:26 +0900 (JST) Received: from mail03.kamome.nec.co.jp (mail03.kamome.nec.co.jp [10.25.43.7]) by mailsv.nec.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id tAHIbPik019798 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 03:37:25 +0900 (JST) Received: from bpxc99gp.gisp.nec.co.jp ([10.38.151.132] [10.38.151.132]) by mail01b.kamome.nec.co.jp with ESMTP id BT-MMP-3499480; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 03:36:57 +0900 Received: from BPXM01GP.gisp.nec.co.jp ([10.38.151.193]) by BPXC04GP.gisp.nec.co.jp ([10.38.151.132]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 03:36:56 +0900 From: Kazue Sako To: "hrpc@irtf.org" Thread-Topic: [hrpc] Net of Rights at IETF 94 Thread-Index: AQHRHBnCkzfqqyNwjESPHh4jDng4656VaN2AgACTBACACpmWmQ== Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 18:36:55 +0000 Message-ID: References: , In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: ja-JP, en-US Content-Language: ja-JP X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.142.225.193] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Net of Rights at IETF 94 X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 18:37:31 -0000 Thank you Joana, we look forward to. Kazue ________________________________________ Dear Sako-san and Hiro-san, Thank you for your interest in the film. We are currently setting an online platform for it with more information ab= out hrpc. And it should be online soon. We will post information about it i= n this list as soon as it happens. Best Joana On 10 Nov 2015 21:58, Hirotaka Nakajima wrote: Hi Sako-san, Thanks!! I'm also interested in viewing this movie on YouTube or other platform. Best, Hiro On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Kazue Sako > wrote: > > Hi, > > IETF 94 was my first time attending IETF and this group is the first IETF= mailinglist I joined. > > I really enjoyed the film 'Net of Rights,' and want to share it with my f= riends and colleagues. > > Are there any plans for public viewing, for example, uploading on some we= b site or on YouTube? > > Being non-native English speaker, I thought it would be very helpful if t= here were script captions, especially during the interviews. > > Thank you in advance. > Regards, > Kazue Sako > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc -- Hirotaka Nakajima Assistant Professor, Keio University GPG: 0x752E6CE9 From nobody Tue Nov 17 10:41:47 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CB491B331D for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 10:41:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.886 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.886 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.585, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YWM19nRupj-w for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 10:41:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FB0B1B331C for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 10:41:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 069B1BE39; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 18:41:42 +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 VA1t6psyCJt7; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 18:41:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [10.87.48.91] (unknown [86.46.27.72]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C852BBE33; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 18:41:39 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1447785700; bh=zYTpR2Phms5iLBbRNaCAgkeylAiU/y8q3f76zgZN/I0=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=FpEs38fmprjKlqKvYn0VeuuuKClr1+wfrhG2sOmqiKAvqVzgGcImqacB5M06K+vb6 aB99ngRFzpNqvUw1rzB0wAU3rR7KPvb3NUc9072pzKn/nDNXjHcphITE5Jh89lQVmP LDpa8K6N37WW+lOsXYAcT1NNH/6LwEu/6BWsqNns= To: Niels ten Oever , "hrpc@irtf.org" References: <564B73AF.700@article19.org> From: Stephen Farrell Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url= Message-ID: <564B74DD.5000905@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 18:41:33 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <564B73AF.700@article19.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Pf5QE8KkKuGladUjD2AEcpkr6maav2WL3" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] last call charter X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 18:41:46 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --Pf5QE8KkKuGladUjD2AEcpkr6maav2WL3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think that's good to go. One tweak if you want it: you could move the "raising awareness" bullet from the outputs section to the objectives section, but that's almost a nit. Cheers, S. On 17/11/15 18:36, Niels ten Oever wrote: > Hello everyone, >=20 > The charter [0] has been up for discussion since November 3 and I > haven't seen any concrete comments, questions or suggestions, so I > would like to call for last comments, closing on Monday November 23- > 23:59 UTC. >=20 > Looking forward to your questions, comments or suggestions. >=20 > Best, >=20 > Niels >=20 > [0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/rg/hrpc/charter/ >=20 > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >=20 --Pf5QE8KkKuGladUjD2AEcpkr6maav2WL3 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWS3TiAAoJEC88hzaAX42iU9MIAJ+UIv0sDpvVbFhqbsVtes2w kz7Q7CFsW4U7xxJxQuqYqru5z7q3zVWT3divB+CYiqzr59qZFdKPg06treO97J1o F6Nxd1pmBvCpprNB2tzrmE37iuLLBNFjC0lyTh9YFDfhW9vpRVlVHqKchFltF1k2 jBeTLY+Krz49oxsfu7sJ8TailZz5Bhe40bbOAIjFi7wdoGfEbO8w56VdQlwtpCoI 78v92A4hyCodm1B3CDxiRx3vvkU0IFH8w8mHVrcgp3/Gfjd3qRx5esS9HPN0mjhl dyYnx3LNiT0ld6pCL960S5uGbM10SiB8ggSN7v8J2Vqv4QMvWU/89l9PHm/kN30= =VLAO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Pf5QE8KkKuGladUjD2AEcpkr6maav2WL3-- From nobody Tue Nov 17 10:51:10 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7AD51B3339 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 10:51:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LfCAr2I0-HBL for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 10:51:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x22e.google.com (mail-wm0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 178FA1B301B for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 10:51:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by wmec201 with SMTP id c201so40272272wme.1 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 10:51:05 -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=1NZNOPBcH7ICN0z1boUjl8gqx2Wz8GbpcZNSh/fXgU0=; b=xQ/cZm2VQJohztjz0aA6cFpw9HYK5ZKyall8xba0DoeJGhNmDt+zgaSPTWJNEsbZoE +1Li7fvpkALb48unNCrEZD7jqmENyfvsSeB7IcMzsCRdSyFA6Ho6jBpcSmSdzjJJMr3k uoOI+hU4vQ07KrR6cTk+6rP8aiv7i8g+TWMyMKqaVRi8pcXGByoX+wQOOI/Im3t+zMiZ N08nMcx2QQe2lV8r2WVKFh4JdLUxz0TvfMNe5sdHB6FVRJvpfGdj5w9e90jZZZMv7NZ2 vMbr2AMn3zo5Gy1T8XaZoWtEh7XVUIRq8+27aOQskPhGjXM6dEq6bYNzyE84azOdv2Lz uBRQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.28.140.136 with SMTP id o130mr4521484wmd.78.1447786265697; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 10:51:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.30.195 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 10:51:05 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <564B74DD.5000905@cs.tcd.ie> References: <564B73AF.700@article19.org> <564B74DD.5000905@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 18:51:05 +0000 Message-ID: From: Corinne Cath To: Stephen Farrell Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1145bc9013e6c50524c10233 Archived-At: Cc: Niels ten Oever , "hrpc@irtf.org" Subject: Re: [hrpc] last call charter X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 18:51:09 -0000 --001a1145bc9013e6c50524c10233 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 second on the ready to go remark! On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > I think that's good to go. > > One tweak if you want it: you could move the "raising > awareness" bullet from the outputs section to the > objectives section, but that's almost a nit. > > Cheers, > S. > > On 17/11/15 18:36, Niels ten Oever wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > > > The charter [0] has been up for discussion since November 3 and I > > haven't seen any concrete comments, questions or suggestions, so I > > would like to call for last comments, closing on Monday November 23- > > 23:59 UTC. > > > > Looking forward to your questions, comments or suggestions. > > > > Best, > > > > Niels > > > > [0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/rg/hrpc/charter/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > hrpc mailing list > > hrpc@irtf.org > > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > > > > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > > -- 'The management of normality is hard work' --001a1145bc9013e6c50524c10233 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
second on the ready to go remark!

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Ste= phen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px= #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I think that's good to go.

One tweak if you want it: you could move the "raising
awareness" bullet from the outputs section to the
objectives section, but that's almost a nit.

Cheers,
S.

On 17/11/15 18:36, Niels ten Oever wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> The charter [0] has been up for discussion since November 3 and I
> haven't seen any concrete comments, questions or suggestions, so I=
> would like to call for last comments, closing on Monday November 23- > 23:59 UTC.
>
> Looking forward to your questions, comments or suggestions.
>
> Best,
>
> Niels
>
> [0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/rg/hrpc/charter/<= /a>
>
> _______________________= ________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> hrpc@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>


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




--


'The management of normality is hard work'
<= br>
--001a1145bc9013e6c50524c10233-- From nobody Tue Nov 17 11:22:27 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CC6C1A6FA7 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 11:22:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.824 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.824 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id klVCbAdK0diJ for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 11:22:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.article19.io (vps784.greenhost.nl [213.108.108.114]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A15C1A6FCB for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 11:22:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.article19.io (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6B56114018; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 19:22:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id D56F4114016; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 19:22:21 +0000 (UTC) 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 8STY-KE1f_wd; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 19:22:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.125.164.169] (unknown [187.28.38.245]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B6FAC124036; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 19:22:20 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <564B7E69.6070902@article19.org> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:22:17 +0100 From: Niels ten Oever User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Farrell , "hrpc@irtf.org" References: <564B73AF.700@article19.org> <564B74DD.5000905@cs.tcd.ie> In-Reply-To: <564B74DD.5000905@cs.tcd.ie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] last call charter X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 19:22:24 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hi Stephen, On 11/17/2015 07:41 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:> you could move the "raising > awareness" bullet from the outputs section to the objectives > section Thanks for this. Not sure whether awareness raising is an objective though, it's more of a means to an end then an end in itself, right? 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 v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWS35pAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpMnEH/RTAiakMtklv4H/6hgTW8UJ0 OHCScouW/0aFng9J5d+lmkYYh1AFs5SYHMT2gxomxcwnFBZJs6C9wDXPsDqf0zCZ /GwdJYPFmnUisK0HMVp4fDtlme94vbM8LA9VnkO2wiuXqD53IkmExyTCQlReOOc4 pFNiwr7ZhQ5ug12OOxdPTj1vY7DQVMK+3q9bXneRGuxsLhcZVJElejokHvRu4DmO vXv4qKTdTd34hJDcsK34aqYxTCch/HG/lLswS7yYyipvdM5HQ8n3nRa+GrW8fg5t fbydkoLZ9I5xKq7QP0Xyh83wp9un4wSESm/M3nZRY2K3+n5/yzob6ndhJbirESk=3D =3DXJ1z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From nobody Tue Nov 17 11:41:34 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9D2A1A854D for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 11:41:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.886 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.886 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.585, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Du_ZkRCVfJWR for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 11:41:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88AB81A854C for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 11:41:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B69BBE33; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 19:41:28 +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 Is3FaoGeHQF6; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 19:41:27 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [10.87.48.91] (unknown [86.46.27.72]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AF9F0BE32; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 19:41:25 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1447789287; bh=ShG9dJrQJJ8lmw+Jnkv7Tm+zkhAxl2u2wUCGaQXbVZ8=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=QCHH+aqrPyJypPGhCrRLavlppN2MX14zVrNySI665q4Za0y+kAPFzGmwPVUcFGk7V AOA/dhSjrt+3t9x8uAe9IJe2WtEKce2E/s22QGl5gVsa5vrVKcsMc3f+IPEMC6vmMN ZmUtF9DIbTYxeDLUbPOo5v3flGlZfpxicyLnmxeo= To: Niels ten Oever , "hrpc@irtf.org" References: <564B73AF.700@article19.org> <564B74DD.5000905@cs.tcd.ie> <564B7E69.6070902@article19.org> From: Stephen Farrell Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url= Message-ID: <564B82DF.70906@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 19:41:19 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <564B7E69.6070902@article19.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="B2J1mHjHlQCtjrcm78EmnDul2fnNAN6Px" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] last call charter X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 19:41:32 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --B2J1mHjHlQCtjrcm78EmnDul2fnNAN6Px Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 17/11/15 19:22, Niels ten Oever wrote: > Hi Stephen, >=20 > On 11/17/2015 07:41 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:> you could move the > "raising >> awareness" bullet from the outputs section to the objectives >> section >=20 > Thanks for this. Not sure whether awareness raising is an objective > though, it's more of a means to an end then an end in itself, right? It's not a big deal and your text is fine as-is, but personally I do think raising awareness (in both directions) is a fine objective. (And not an output.) S. >=20 > Best, >=20 > Niels >=20 >=20 > Niels ten Oever > Head of Digital >=20 > Article 19 > www.article19.org >=20 > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >=20 --B2J1mHjHlQCtjrcm78EmnDul2fnNAN6Px Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWS4LkAAoJEC88hzaAX42iC5kIAIQRZebChfayZ1DAC1EPRN00 L1j2sco5fgDPRuzHoCauGLO7WR4zjbnQ7alBuJOQg4M2ibPiKmjISq1Yl2xq/S3F 8bBJZHq6ZduVFfLTGPfBuh6lMC+QUBT85UOckfnvvXelCRkdE8D3b5VBvctcUHNI 4aGgaOT7fu0Yvl45yuHDUNM4X/j7cYFZP9gwj/aJkoivAVRTJxxxk2z8miKregE/ xSaWy7EUiz0Pi5owPi89FDDcFI5yefPNb5AM2trELKKHJ/LLF3AjFkH88VWUfK1v /zKhOmwCxVjaS1+RpPDsWll7K+3dVjeKf1ta+Hl67DeBwtp/KFzRw9ANh5z0f+I= =RM2a -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --B2J1mHjHlQCtjrcm78EmnDul2fnNAN6Px-- From nobody Tue Nov 17 12:07:52 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07A861A87BB for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 12:07:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.989 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.989 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eazaTjLsG4eZ for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 12:07:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from lucie.domainepublic.net (collectif1.all2all.org [79.99.203.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86D701A87AE for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 12:07:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lucie.domainepublic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 717F5A5779; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 21:07:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from lucie.domainepublic.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (lucie.domainepublic.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id imGoBBtFgtVS; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 21:07:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from nat-oitwireless-inside-vapornet100-c-29156.princeton.edu (nat-oitwireless-outside-vapornet3-g-2.Princeton.EDU [140.180.246.14]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lucie.domainepublic.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BF8FA576C; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 21:07:41 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B191E267-A563-4442-A98D-A2640F1C109A"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2 From: Seda In-Reply-To: <564B74DD.5000905@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 15:07:28 -0500 Message-Id: References: <564B73AF.700@article19.org> <564B74DD.5000905@cs.tcd.ie> To: Stephen Farrell X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: Cc: Niels ten Oever , "hrpc@irtf.org" Subject: Re: [hrpc] last call charter X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:07:51 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_B191E267-A563-4442-A98D-A2640F1C109A Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Hi everyone, I have mainly been a lurker who hasn=92t done her homework, so I = apologize if my last minute suggestion here has already been discussed. Since this is about networks and protocols, it also makes sense to do - Data analysis and visualization of (existing) protocols in the wild. One could argue that this is part of the - Policy and academic papers but, it may nevertheless be useful to include it explicitly. After all, just looking at protocols on paper/in ascii may not have the = teeth it requires to show what is at stake when the protocols are making = their way in the wild. For new protocols, one could make use of existing protocols that qualify = as acceptable proxies. I apologize if you already discussed these matters and I congratulate = all of you on all the hard work. Wonderful to have a charter finally. Seda On Nov 17, 2015, at 1:41 PM, Stephen Farrell = wrote: >=20 > I think that's good to go. >=20 > One tweak if you want it: you could move the "raising > awareness" bullet from the outputs section to the > objectives section, but that's almost a nit. >=20 > Cheers, > S. >=20 > On 17/11/15 18:36, Niels ten Oever wrote: >> Hello everyone, >>=20 >> The charter [0] has been up for discussion since November 3 and I >> haven't seen any concrete comments, questions or suggestions, so I >> would like to call for last comments, closing on Monday November 23- >> 23:59 UTC. >>=20 >> Looking forward to your questions, comments or suggestions. >>=20 >> Best, >>=20 >> Niels >>=20 >> [0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/rg/hrpc/charter/ >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> hrpc mailing list >> hrpc@irtf.org >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >>=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc --Apple-Mail=_B191E267-A563-4442-A98D-A2640F1C109A 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 iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJWS4kHAAoJEG2cAIR0XWLjPYMIAKvSnNVw0tsnxKB02Y7wCLOf Q0GKqx6wEnNvwYChTOZhi7dDl6aV1Hl5lv3Z0i0sjjvzcxToykK5W4TlT1jY+gAw /N5EWnlQhb/CFMUPCyPpYX+5WTrqJbRsA5bJIUGi2U4JwaGZxAOs4bbBiGDK1kR8 ib3FQ2rRDdty5lJ4eaW9lXjmrsYd6oA8efQD9OhR/qmGXvpe4Yl5LQ9K7fIZK7JL +QptirmX8NaU3IBQEjcgF2ZTcsefS6Hv318wtLCQa0tABuG85NyYjksneF0akEtz /ZQtKDYRYrLv8jrJpm+gJS6Y3fClgVOL7gyaUtgoD8Ns/JalhAbkxWsWS/VLOhY= =UZmT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_B191E267-A563-4442-A98D-A2640F1C109A-- From nobody Tue Nov 17 12:22:59 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C16721ACCDC for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 12:22:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g_ZjUlV3SCn3 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 12:22:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from che.mayfirst.org (che.mayfirst.org [209.234.253.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BC3B1AC44D for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 12:22:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from fifthhorseman.net (unknown [38.109.115.130]) by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4295BF984; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 15:22:48 -0500 (EST) Received: by fifthhorseman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A856020299; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 15:22:20 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor To: Seda , Stephen Farrell In-Reply-To: References: <564B73AF.700@article19.org> <564B74DD.5000905@cs.tcd.ie> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.20.2 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 15:22:20 -0500 Message-ID: <87mvuce5qb.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Archived-At: Cc: Niels ten Oever , "hrpc@irtf.org" Subject: Re: [hrpc] last call charter X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:22:57 -0000 Hi all-- I also think the charter is good as it stands. I'm fine with Stephen's suggestion of moving "raising awareness" to an "Objective" instead of an "Output" but don't think it's a big deal either way. On Tue 2015-11-17 15:07:28 -0500, Seda wrote: > Since this is about networks and protocols, it also makes sense to do > - Data analysis and visualization > of (existing) protocols in the wild. > > One could argue that this is part of the > - Policy and academic papers > but, it may nevertheless be useful to include it explicitly. One of the other outputs already listed is: >> - Data analysis and visualization >> To research and visualize the language used in current and historic >> RFCs and mailinglist discussions to expose core architectural >> principles, language and deliberations on human rights of those >> affected by the network. If you are saying that this should include not just analysis of the language of the protocols, but also analysis and visualization of the *use* of the protocols, i would agree with that augmentation. For example, an analysis that shows censorship/blocking based on the presence or absence of certain protocol metadata would be a useful and in-scope. --dkg From nobody Tue Nov 17 12:26:21 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E75D61B303C for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 12:26:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.989 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.989 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KWSbrHnqYNRy for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 12:26:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from lucie.domainepublic.net (collectif1.all2all.org [79.99.203.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DCF01B3028 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 12:26:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lucie.domainepublic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B0B2A5779; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 21:26:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from lucie.domainepublic.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (lucie.domainepublic.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XITrLfnfsr9T; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 21:26:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from nat-oitwireless-inside-vapornet100-c-29156.princeton.edu (nat-oitwireless-outside-vapornet3-g-2.Princeton.EDU [140.180.246.14]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lucie.domainepublic.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9617CA576C; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 21:26:12 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Seda In-Reply-To: <87mvuce5qb.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 15:26:05 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <564B73AF.700@article19.org> <564B74DD.5000905@cs.tcd.ie> <87mvuce5qb.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: Cc: Niels ten Oever , "hrpc@irtf.org" , Stephen Farrell Subject: Re: [hrpc] last call charter X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:26:21 -0000 >=20 >>> - Data analysis and visualization >>> To research and visualize the language used in current and historic >>> RFCs and mailinglist discussions to expose core architectural >>> principles, language and deliberations on human rights of those >>> affected by the network. >=20 > If you are saying that this should include not just analysis of the > language of the protocols, but also analysis and visualization of the > *use* of the protocols, i would agree with that augmentation. >=20 > For example, an analysis that shows censorship/blocking based on the > presence or absence of certain protocol metadata would be a useful and > in-scope. >=20 that is correct. the above description looks like research would be = limited to text analysis applied to rfcs and mailing lists. cheers, s. > --dkg >=20 > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc From nobody Tue Nov 17 13:28:41 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1063C1A8948 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 13:28:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.378 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id leAaG9Q3cz0L for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 13:28:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x236.google.com (mail-lb0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EAA31A8949 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 13:28:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by lbbkw15 with SMTP id kw15so13560074lbb.0 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 13:28:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cdt.org; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=CPIEiPG17dooLosYiy9QpsquBwv2hv2jQESPDtQrp9Q=; b=hCWfaR+5hUVsojmamEPQ/ZagwcZvQFToAzUUnKHiYc+2ot4XqhLsU5ZaLef/8PPd00 mopxgKAUOXDHjtkLUOg0lnGe3MgGipojr5frHzUdY2XXUfaDTGP8/Q8zDv5Pa8ykMfAh l9/VTnNN2IrTsrElwlWiZ95I1ZUYxj5bSVV+Y= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=CPIEiPG17dooLosYiy9QpsquBwv2hv2jQESPDtQrp9Q=; b=NPq5mDRADgKBFs319kX+Gd0296EZQsoGz9GZdwbi9AlsNtAw4cXb6HkITbcVeE7lV4 NFXbgb7rpsvdFK5yxV9QacoqIfj4iQ4kWbhKnWPUtZuA/mo+BepnV6WI4NOULkPYofkB ifm8rzSQixH4h46ntApokLyU2GdQAGsITtax6kq9JEdpmdukkcwzv/nGNI+JgZ7z8sNE jnJQ2JA8+ajxmWC62a/wOf/H/voUWrQB23Le2ha0v9lEJqeQPFUu++l1vuVWuv9kKFqy vPjmpFDsk0ntFz4ruJxfgKel4oNcXMwV+ZKQs/gavHqKPK6yr/JOn7VZrHJRT0+hgI13 8Xow== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmhz8kR6GxWDvXVtKbnL7snsuqZ6xZkbN+q0ZsNQ4Myw96Z/YpovkbracHVSGuHuEkiObPj X-Received: by 10.112.151.37 with SMTP id un5mr17793334lbb.53.1447795716368; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 13:28:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.141.77 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 13:28:16 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <564B73AF.700@article19.org> <564B74DD.5000905@cs.tcd.ie> <87mvuce5qb.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 16:28:16 -0500 Message-ID: To: Seda Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: Niels ten Oever , "hrpc@irtf.org" , Daniel Kahn Gillmor , Stephen Farrell Subject: Re: [hrpc] last call charter X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 21:28:40 -0000 This is a neat line of thought... Seda, do you have a feeling for what might be particularly important or useful in this sense? For example, there were a series of presentations at the SAAG (the security folks at IETF) meeting in Prague this past summer that did different analyses of the uptake of certain secure protocols/applications, notably TLS and email protocols [1], and HTTPS from the serving and browsing angles [2] [3]. I suspect that's not exactly what you were getting at though. We'll need to (eventually, probably not now!) identify what need or analytical angle this serves, what the output might look like, and who's interested in doing it (both data collection and viz). [1]: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-saag-2.pdf [2]: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-saag-4.pdf [3]: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-saag-3.pdf On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Seda wrote: > >> >>>> - Data analysis and visualization >>>> To research and visualize the language used in current and historic >>>> RFCs and mailinglist discussions to expose core architectural >>>> principles, language and deliberations on human rights of those >>>> affected by the network. >> >> If you are saying that this should include not just analysis of the >> language of the protocols, but also analysis and visualization of the >> *use* of the protocols, i would agree with that augmentation. >> >> For example, an analysis that shows censorship/blocking based on the >> presence or absence of certain protocol metadata would be a useful and >> in-scope. >> > > that is correct. the above description looks like research would be limited to text analysis applied to rfcs and mailing lists. > cheers, > s. > >> --dkg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> hrpc mailing list >> hrpc@irtf.org >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc -- 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 nobody Wed Nov 18 04:41:39 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D1611A1A28 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 04:41:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xBiKiD9poTli for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 04:41:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2on0093.outbound.protection.outlook.com [65.55.169.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E167A1A1A00 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 04:41:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from SN1PR06MB1839.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.162.133.18) by SN1PR06MB1837.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.162.133.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.325.17; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 12:41:29 +0000 Received: from SN1PR06MB1839.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.162.133.18]) by SN1PR06MB1839.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.162.133.18]) with mapi id 15.01.0325.019; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 12:41:28 +0000 From: Robin Wilton To: "hrpc@irtf.org" Thread-Topic: Charter last call Thread-Index: AQHRIf5x31r4mEQCiU+FYC7Whsbn+Q== Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 12:41:28 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=wilton@isoc.org; x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-originating-ip: [94.174.34.240] x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; SN1PR06MB1837; 5:G/vDtpa9jT69vZHHJlksKVPnnHvbKFIOwbDhJ83/0+V1aW55jV/Q6/vy7pYgxhVlIXIO5H7zPbPhj7hLweeDsPWA6FGsBE4q0vHf7rpaz23qB/dhqdZ4tpZ5wKjOWXcewX0Afi1AtLJiUL53wYAzhA==; 24:0zKkTiVpoPynf50V14Pi0cHwhtwBm6qrVunKAzndOTKIdM1gJABk5oBHLiSqqHavFlKY8C6G0RIq8nudnOl1YfzQ9sip9BLi/0OEVuR9KwU=; 20:y6rx9AtcuFxhWnzuHcCPctTpdiZBF8lKcO5UnwbFQpF/wOcg+0o5qjB5lzR2YQLUTV5A+Nkwx1m6zyLi5yzJ0w== x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:SN1PR06MB1837; x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(51492898944892); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(520078)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(3002001); SRVR:SN1PR06MB1837; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:SN1PR06MB1837; x-forefront-prvs: 0764C4A8CD x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(52034003)(129404003)(252514010)(189002)(479174004)(377454003)(199003)(24454002)(53754006)(16601075003)(36756003)(54356999)(92566002)(76176999)(16236675004)(50986999)(5004730100002)(5002640100001)(2501003)(15975445007)(19617315012)(5007970100001)(77096005)(99286002)(106116001)(102836002)(99936001)(105586002)(106356001)(81156007)(450100001)(83716003)(2900100001)(2950100001)(40100003)(189998001)(66066001)(87936001)(586003)(107886002)(82746002)(19580405001)(101416001)(5008740100001)(122556002)(10400500002)(5001960100002)(86362001)(2351001)(19580395003)(97736004)(110136002)(575784001)(5001920100001)(33656002)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:SN1PR06MB1837; H:SN1PR06MB1839.namprd06.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: isoc.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BB076FA6-BC9C-44DD-A225-B662D5C3BB93"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: isoc.org X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 18 Nov 2015 12:41:28.6977 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 89f84dfb-7285-4810-bc4d-8b9b5794554f X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SN1PR06MB1837 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Charter last call X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 12:41:38 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_BB076FA6-BC9C-44DD-A225-B662D5C3BB93 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3AF192AA-0AB4-4444-9452-58A0935469EC" --Apple-Mail=_3AF192AA-0AB4-4444-9452-58A0935469EC Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Hi Niels, Apologies for the lack of previous comments on the charter. I=92ve read = it, and it seems good to me. Only one sentence jarred slightly, and it = was this one: =93Concerns for freedom of expression and association were a strong part of the world-view of the community involved in developing the first Internet protocols.=94 I think I know what the intent is behind this statement, but (to draw on = Wikipedia-style thinking) it strikes me as a well-meant but = unsubstantiated wish, rather than a reliable assertion. For instance, = it=92s open to the counter-claim that actually, the community involved = in developing the first Internet protocols was primarily interested in = increasing the resilience of communications infrastructure in the event = of a nuclear strike. Pragmatic, but not quite as human-rights-oriented = as what is claimed in the charter. My impression is that, *after* that initial stage, those involved in the = evolution of the Internet as an academic and civilian tool, and in the = gestation and birth of the IETF, did indeed have a more overtly = idealistic mind-set (and it is still visible in many IETF participants = and IHOF members, for instance). In one sense this is a minor tweak - but in another sense, getting the = foundational narrative right here is important, because it affects the = credibility of what we try to build on it. By the way, +1 also to Stephen=92s last comment: raising awareness is an = objective, and in working towards it we will produce outputs. Hope this helps, Robin Robin Wilton Technical Outreach Director - Identity and Privacy Internet Society email: wilton@isoc.org Phone: +44 705 005 2931 Twitter: @futureidentity >=20 >=20 >=20 > From: Niels ten Oever > Subject: [hrpc] last call charter > Date: 17 November 2015 18:36:31 GMT > To: "hrpc@irtf.org" >=20 >=20 > Signed PGP part > Hello everyone, >=20 > The charter [0] has been up for discussion since November 3 and I > haven't seen any concrete comments, questions or suggestions, so I > would like to call for last comments, closing on Monday November 23- > 23:59 UTC. >=20 > Looking forward to your questions, comments or suggestions. >=20 > Best, >=20 > Niels >=20 > [0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/rg/hrpc/charter/ > -- > Niels ten Oever > Head of Digital >=20 > Article 19 > www.article19.org >=20 > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > On 17/11/15 19:22, Niels ten Oever wrote: >> Hi Stephen, >>=20 >> On 11/17/2015 07:41 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:> you could move the >> "raising >>> awareness" bullet from the outputs section to the objectives >>> section >>=20 >> Thanks for this. Not sure whether awareness raising is an objective >> though, it's more of a means to an end then an end in itself, right? >=20 > It's not a big deal and your text is fine as-is, but personally I > do think raising awareness (in both directions) is a fine objective. > (And not an output.) >=20 > S. >=20 >>=20 >> Best, >>=20 >> Niels >>=20 >>=20 >> Niels ten Oever >> Head of Digital >>=20 >> Article 19 >> www.article19.org >>=20 >> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 >> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> hrpc mailing list >> hrpc@irtf.org >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >>=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc --Apple-Mail=_3AF192AA-0AB4-4444-9452-58A0935469EC Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Hi = Niels,

Apologies for the lack of previous comments on = the charter. I=92ve read it, and it seems good to me. Only one sentence = jarred slightly, and it was this one:

=93Concerns for freedom of expression and association = were a strong part
of the = world-view of the community involved in developing the first
Internet = protocols.=94

I think I know what the = intent is behind this statement, but (to draw on Wikipedia-style = thinking) it strikes me as a well-meant but unsubstantiated wish, rather = than a reliable assertion. For instance, it=92s open to the = counter-claim that actually, the community involved in developing the = first Internet protocols was primarily interested in increasing the = resilience of communications infrastructure in the event of a nuclear = strike. Pragmatic, but not quite as human-rights-oriented as what is = claimed in the charter.

My impression is that, = *after* that initial stage, those involved in the evolution of the = Internet as an academic and civilian tool, and in the gestation and = birth of the IETF, did indeed have a more overtly idealistic mind-set = (and it is still visible in many IETF participants and IHOF members, for = instance). 

In one sense this is a minor = tweak - but in another sense, getting the foundational narrative right = here is important, because it affects the credibility of what we try to = build on it.


By the way, +1 also = to Stephen=92s last comment: raising awareness is an objective, and in = working towards it we will produce = outputs.

Hope this = helps,

Robin

Robin Wilton
Technical Outreach Director - = Identity and Privacy
Internet Society

email: wilton@isoc.org
Phone: +44 705 = 005 2931
Twitter: @futureidentity




From: Niels = ten Oever <niels@article19.org>
=
Subject: [hrpc] last call = charter
Date: 17 = November 2015 18:36:31 GMT

Signed PGP = part
Hello everyone,

The = charter [0] has been up for discussion since November 3 and I
haven't = seen any concrete comments, questions or suggestions, so I
would like = to call for last comments, closing on Monday November 23-
23:59 = UTC.

Looking forward to your questions, comments or = suggestions.

Best,

Niels

[0] https://datatracker= .ietf.org/rg/hrpc/charter/
--
Niels ten Oever
Head of = Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP = fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
678B 08B5 A0F2 636D = 68E9




<snip= >


On 17/11/15 19:22, Niels ten = Oever wrote:
Hi Stephen,

On = 11/17/2015 07:41 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:> you could move = the
"raising
awareness" bullet from the = outputs section to the objectives
section

Thanks = for this. Not sure whether awareness raising is an objective
though, = it's more of a means to an end then an end in itself, = right?

It's not a big deal and your text is fine = as-is, but personally I
do think raising awareness (in both = directions) is a fine objective.
(And not an = output.)

S.


Best,

Niels


Niels ten Oever
Head = of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP = fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
=             &n= bsp;     678B 08B5 A0F2 636D = 68E9



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



_______________________________________________<= br>hrpc mailing list
hrpc@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/ma= ilman/listinfo/hrpc

= --Apple-Mail=_3AF192AA-0AB4-4444-9452-58A0935469EC-- --Apple-Mail=_BB076FA6-BC9C-44DD-A225-B662D5C3BB93 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----- iF4EAREIAAYFAlZMcYwACgkQ646Z8yy2wEyn3gD/YUtNyVd6A3d+2pEBfEG97yhv 5LgsUpNaj1eCYQ5EgxQBAIfbtBiChGcz+J2zmaOUP9wc0tGySnwft1cs43oGRkR7 =v3AH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_BB076FA6-BC9C-44DD-A225-B662D5C3BB93-- From nobody Wed Nov 18 05:00:53 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 460691A1B49 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 05:00:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V2T0K_k8fP6z for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 05:00:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x236.google.com (mail-wm0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3666E1A1B45 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 05:00:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by wmww144 with SMTP id w144so196058574wmw.1 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 05:00:47 -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=Fh00oM1POvnOYcXAZn2uHd6OjZ3K5EP4zCMi+baDDEs=; b=WYBUlKCh1rfEWRoI1f2e+S0AFEX2DHXbBZAexyJGleFb1lX54Npi5px8PhQHZYgilR uE+QK7Q03DLseD1hRyVpTwFyS7cO7rUDc3rHuB6qLww1HJOxizrLtJqiOFZowNV/SF7I h7u600StZIWWl45ssG/c7iSq0IQ3rMY+5zJMKtDLxQ3a3O/VqwoPOClUouOI2JwVR2Dk ff4RfdrZlMk3aw03nXUDJ+cvfxMLWYd07AaiMYZP+IkF0Uh3dk2vmZhs7sKgixLBtilc MnbbCLOZz+BpTzWchd/e3f4jrg/3itCYW/RG2WqCxIyd+VI3Wibpzhgq+TD/b9ZLzzzu U+FQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.82.99 with SMTP id h3mr2111700wjy.41.1447851647737; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 05:00:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.30.195 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 05:00:47 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 13:00:47 +0000 Message-ID: From: Corinne Cath To: Robin Wilton Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7beb996a26ab200524d03b3d Archived-At: Cc: "hrpc@irtf.org" Subject: Re: [hrpc] Charter last call X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 13:00:52 -0000 --047d7beb996a26ab200524d03b3d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear all, Although I understand Robin's point - I don't feel this statement is such a stretch. The community involved in developing the first Internet protocols was mostl likely primarily interested in increasing the resilience of communications infrastructure in the event of a nuclear strike. However, this does not take away from the fact that they had the continuation of freedom of expression and association (although perhaps more of the military and other government branches than for instance civil society) in mind. A stretch would be to argue they had human rights as such in mind - but I think this statement can stay as is. Best, Corinne On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Robin Wilton wrote: > Hi Niels, > > Apologies for the lack of previous comments on the charter. I=E2=80=99ve = read it, > and it seems good to me. Only one sentence jarred slightly, and it was th= is > one: > > =E2=80=9CConcerns for freedom of expression and association were a strong= part > of the world-view of the community involved in developing the first > Internet protocols.=E2=80=9D > > I think I know what the intent is behind this statement, but (to draw on > Wikipedia-style thinking) it strikes me as a well-meant but unsubstantiat= ed > wish, rather than a reliable assertion. For instance, it=E2=80=99s open t= o the > counter-claim that actually, the community involved in developing the fir= st > Internet protocols was primarily interested in increasing the resilience = of > communications infrastructure in the event of a nuclear strike. Pragmatic= , > but not quite as human-rights-oriented as what is claimed in the charter. > > My impression is that, *after* that initial stage, those involved in the > evolution of the Internet as an academic and civilian tool, and in the > gestation and birth of the IETF, did indeed have a more overtly idealisti= c > mind-set (and it is still visible in many IETF participants and IHOF > members, for instance). > > In one sense this is a minor tweak - but in another sense, getting the > foundational narrative right here is important, because it affects the > credibility of what we try to build on it. > > > By the way, +1 also to Stephen=E2=80=99s last comment: raising awareness = is an > objective, and in working towards it we will produce outputs. > > Hope this helps, > > Robin > > Robin Wilton > Technical Outreach Director - Identity and Privacy > Internet Society > > email: wilton@isoc.org > Phone: +44 705 005 2931 > Twitter: @futureidentity > > > > > *From: *Niels ten Oever > *Subject: **[hrpc] last call charter* > *Date: *17 November 2015 18:36:31 GMT > *To: *"hrpc@irtf.org" > > > Signed PGP part > Hello everyone, > > The charter [0] has been up for discussion since November 3 and I > haven't seen any concrete comments, questions or suggestions, so I > would like to call for last comments, closing on Monday November 23- > 23:59 UTC. > > Looking forward to your questions, comments or suggestions. > > Best, > > Niels > > [0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/rg/hrpc/charter/ > -- > Niels ten Oever > Head of Digital > > Article 19 > www.article19.org > > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 > > > > > > > > On 17/11/15 19:22, Niels ten Oever wrote: > > Hi Stephen, > > On 11/17/2015 07:41 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:> you could move the > "raising > > awareness" bullet from the outputs section to the objectives > section > > > Thanks for this. Not sure whether awareness raising is an objective > though, it's more of a means to an end then an end in itself, right? > > > It's not a big deal and your text is fine as-is, but personally I > do think raising awareness (in both directions) is a fine objective. > (And not an output.) > > S. > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > > > > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > > > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > > --=20 'The management of normality is hard work' --047d7beb996a26ab200524d03b3d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear all,

Although I understand Robin's point - I don't f= eel this statement is such a stretch.

The community involved in dev= eloping the first Internet protocols was=C2=A0 mostl likely primarily interested in increasing the resilience of communications=20 infrastructure in the event of a nuclear strike. However, this does not tak= e away from the fact that they had the continuation of freedom of expressio= n and association (although perhaps more of the military and other governme= nt branches than for instance civil society) in mind.


A stretch wou= ld be to argue they had human rights as such in mind - but I think this sta= tement can stay as is.

Best,

Corinne

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 12:41 PM,= Robin Wilton <wilton@isoc.org> wrote:
Hi Niels,

Apologies for the lack of previous comments on the charter. I=E2=80=99ve r= ead it, and it seems good to me. Only one sentence jarred slightly, and it = was this one:

=E2=80=9CConcerns= for freedom of expression and association were a strong part
<= span style=3D"color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:'PT Serif',Palatino,&= #39;Neue Swift',serif;font-size:15px;line-height:21px;background-color:= rgb(255,255,255)">of the world-view of the community involved in developing= the first
=
Internet protocols.=E2=80=9D

<= /div>
I think I know what the intent is behind this statement, but (to = draw on Wikipedia-style thinking) it strikes me as a well-meant but unsubst= antiated wish, rather than a reliable assertion. For instance, it=E2=80=99s= open to the counter-claim that actually, the community involved in develop= ing the first Internet protocols was primarily interested in increasing the= resilience of communications infrastructure in the event of a nuclear stri= ke. Pragmatic, but not quite as human-rights-oriented as what is claimed in= the charter.

My impression is that, *after* that = initial stage, those involved in the evolution of the Internet as an academ= ic and civilian tool, and in the gestation and birth of the IETF, did indee= d have a more overtly idealistic mind-set (and it is still visible in many = IETF participants and IHOF members, for instance).=C2=A0

In one sense this is a minor tweak - but in another sense, getting t= he foundational narrative right here is important, because it affects the c= redibility of what we try to build on it.


By the way, +1 also to Stephen=E2=80=99s last comment: raising aware= ness is an objective, and in working towards it we will produce outputs.

Hope this helps,

Robin

Robin WiltonTechnical Outreach Director - Identity and=C2=A0Privacy
Internet Societ= y

email: wilton= @isoc.org
Phone: +44 705 005 2931
Twitter: @futureide= ntity




From: <= span style=3D"font-family:'Helvetica'">Niels ten Oever <niels@article19.org&g= t;
Subject: [hrpc] last call charter
Date: 17 No= vember 2015 18:36:31 GMT


Signed PGP part
Hello everyone,

The charter [0] has been up= for discussion since November 3 and I
haven't seen any concrete com= ments, questions or suggestions, so I
would like to call for last commen= ts, closing on Monday November 23-
23:59 UTC.

Looking forward to = your questions, comments or suggestions.

Best,

Niels

[= 0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/rg/hrpc/charter/
--
Niels ten Oe= ver
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint 8D9F C= 567 BEE4 A431 56C4
678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9



=

<snip>


On 17/11/15 19:22, Niels ten Oever wrote:
Hi Stephen,

On 11/17/2015 07:41 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:>= you could move the
"raising
awareness= " bullet from the outputs section to the objectives
section

Thanks for this. Not sure whether awareness raising is an obje= ctive
though, it's more of a means to an end then an end in itself, = right?

It's not a big deal and your text is fine as= -is, but personally I
do think raising awareness (in both directions) is= a fine objective.
(And not an output.)

S.


Best,

Niels


Niels ten Oever
Head of Dig= ital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A08D9F C= 567 BEE4 A431 56C4
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0678B 08B5 A0F2 636= D 68E9



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




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


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




--


'The management of normality is hard work'
<= br>
--047d7beb996a26ab200524d03b3d-- From nobody Wed Nov 18 07:49:30 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99C681B2AB8 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 07:49:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L-RYjpdG14xx for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 07:49:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x229.google.com (mail-wm0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D9B81B384A for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 07:49:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by wmvv187 with SMTP id v187so285009013wmv.1 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 07:49:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=ViNdePntXIUIrTJMtUki/qvu39Wo7gZ1ze9q4oY8rDs=; b=pQGuvI7NlALfpD/jdFEfeJyf+Zjo72i8kZJ9+eYNZaqNDa5OWgOZzs2zx5k/uHmy0F iDTZOVE9B1bdyJHLfeMww85YpP3B/8MpZZHosI7y7upg88vHTqLmlv9xDllgilTcZj/B p9iby/ONqJqgQS2t+tqUGIL38TwL/5Llza/MRsF84z/7XFgEBqxjZN1grbQDrqSOJ55G 8C/2EJbmz5/TIVHuZvDp8rflFU78Ggge3LSOPNqwXtPphwh9zxLqC4kx2DY8D7+b7dQM +HI4SblV3Vw5t2iPr2RMjsDEoBxWLOQloBIejvyBZgSqoG22FzBEmu6tFDvixCWknRYM oqMg== X-Received: by 10.28.180.9 with SMTP id d9mr10790984wmf.62.1447861763378; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 07:49:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.18] (128-79-131-229.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr. [128.79.131.229]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d66sm29754665wma.21.2015.11.18.07.49.22 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 18 Nov 2015 07:49:22 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_58C8A40F-A3A1-4146-833F-7A4BE0B5005D" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) From: Gordon Lennox In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 16:49:20 +0100 Message-Id: <6EE70387-3C38-47C9-BC7E-608CF1733EB1@gmail.com> References: To: Corinne Cath X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) Archived-At: Cc: Robin Wilton , "hrpc@irtf.org" Subject: Re: [hrpc] Charter last call X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 15:49:28 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_58C8A40F-A3A1-4146-833F-7A4BE0B5005D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 h= ttp://www.internetsociety.org/internet/what-internet/history-internet/brie= f-history-internet = "It was from the RAND study that the false rumor started claiming that = the ARPANET was somehow related to building a network resistant to = nuclear war. This was never true of the ARPANET, only the unrelated RAND = study on secure voice considered nuclear war. However, the later work on = Internetting did emphasize robustness and survivability, including the = capability to withstand losses of large portions of the underlying = networks.=E2=80=9D Because the underlying academic networks were still unreliable? Anyway to point out the obvious: if this was a strictly military project = during the Cold War and linked to nuclear war then it is unlikely that = it would have become public so soon. Don=E2=80=99t presume that people were that aware at the time of where = this was going. Indeed people from that particular time, bright = networking people, people closely associated with the early Internet, = disagreed with some of the design decisions made. Indeed bright = networking people since and even now disagree with how things work and = what should be done to change things. The Internet did though come from a time and echoes of that time = persists. In some ways - only some! - the engineers back then were just = part of the wider community. But we are over seven and a half thousand = RFCs away from that time.=20 Gordon > On 18 Nov 2015, at 14:00, Corinne Cath wrote: >=20 > Dear all, >=20 > Although I understand Robin's point - I don't feel this statement is = such a stretch.=20 >=20 > The community involved in developing the first Internet protocols was = mostl likely primarily interested in increasing the resilience of = communications infrastructure in the event of a nuclear strike. However, = this does not take away from the fact that they had the continuation of = freedom of expression and association (although perhaps more of the = military and other government branches than for instance civil society) = in mind.=20 >=20 >=20 > A stretch would be to argue they had human rights as such in mind - = but I think this statement can stay as is. >=20 > Best, >=20 > Corinne=20 >=20 > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Robin Wilton > wrote: > Hi Niels, >=20 > Apologies for the lack of previous comments on the charter. I=E2=80=99ve= read it, and it seems good to me. Only one sentence jarred slightly, = and it was this one: >=20 > =E2=80=9CConcerns for freedom of expression and association were a = strong part > of the world-view of the community involved in developing the first > Internet protocols.=E2=80=9D >=20 > I think I know what the intent is behind this statement, but (to draw = on Wikipedia-style thinking) it strikes me as a well-meant but = unsubstantiated wish, rather than a reliable assertion. For instance, = it=E2=80=99s open to the counter-claim that actually, the community = involved in developing the first Internet protocols was primarily = interested in increasing the resilience of communications infrastructure = in the event of a nuclear strike. Pragmatic, but not quite as = human-rights-oriented as what is claimed in the charter. >=20 > My impression is that, *after* that initial stage, those involved in = the evolution of the Internet as an academic and civilian tool, and in = the gestation and birth of the IETF, did indeed have a more overtly = idealistic mind-set (and it is still visible in many IETF participants = and IHOF members, for instance).=20 >=20 > In one sense this is a minor tweak - but in another sense, getting the = foundational narrative right here is important, because it affects the = credibility of what we try to build on it. >=20 >=20 > By the way, +1 also to Stephen=E2=80=99s last comment: raising = awareness is an objective, and in working towards it we will produce = outputs. >=20 > Hope this helps, >=20 > Robin >=20 > Robin Wilton > Technical Outreach Director - Identity and Privacy > Internet Society >=20 > email: wilton@isoc.org > Phone: +44 705 005 2931 > Twitter: @futureidentity >=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> From: Niels ten Oever > >> Subject: [hrpc] last call charter >> Date: 17 November 2015 18:36:31 GMT >> To: "hrpc@irtf.org " > >>=20 >>=20 >> Signed PGP part >> Hello everyone, >>=20 >> The charter [0] has been up for discussion since November 3 and I >> haven't seen any concrete comments, questions or suggestions, so I >> would like to call for last comments, closing on Monday November 23- >> 23:59 UTC. >>=20 >> Looking forward to your questions, comments or suggestions. >>=20 >> Best, >>=20 >> Niels >>=20 >> [0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/rg/hrpc/charter/ = >> -- >> Niels ten Oever >> Head of Digital >>=20 >> Article 19 >> www.article19.org >>=20 >> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 >> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >=20 > >=20 >>=20 >> On 17/11/15 19:22, Niels ten Oever wrote: >>> Hi Stephen, >>>=20 >>> On 11/17/2015 07:41 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:> you could move the >>> "raising >>>> awareness" bullet from the outputs section to the objectives >>>> section >>>=20 >>> Thanks for this. Not sure whether awareness raising is an objective >>> though, it's more of a means to an end then an end in itself, right? >>=20 >> It's not a big deal and your text is fine as-is, but personally I >> do think raising awareness (in both directions) is a fine objective. >> (And not an output.) >>=20 >> S. >>=20 >>>=20 >>> Best, >>>=20 >>> Niels >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Niels ten Oever >>> Head of Digital >>>=20 >>> Article 19 >>> www.article19.org >>>=20 >>> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 >>> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> hrpc mailing list >>> hrpc@irtf.org >>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc = >>>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> hrpc mailing list >> hrpc@irtf.org >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc = >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc = >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 >=20 >=20 > 'The management of normality is hard work' >=20 > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc --Apple-Mail=_58C8A40F-A3A1-4146-833F-7A4BE0B5005D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 http://www.internetsociety.org/internet/what-internet/history-i= nternet/brief-history-internet

"It was from the RAND study that the = false rumor started claiming that the ARPANET was somehow related to building a network resistant to nuclear=20= war. This was never true of the ARPANET, only the unrelated RAND study=20= on secure voice considered nuclear war. However, the later work on=20 Internetting did emphasize robustness and survivability, including the=20= capability to withstand losses of large portions of the underlying=20 networks.=E2=80=9D

Because the underlying academic networks were still = unreliable?

Anyway to point out the obvious: if this was a strictly = military project during the Cold War and linked to nuclear war then it = is unlikely that it would have become public so soon.

Don=E2=80=99t presume = that people were that aware at the time of where this was going. Indeed = people from that particular time, bright networking people, people = closely associated with the early Internet, disagreed with some of the = design decisions made. Indeed bright networking people since and even = now disagree with how things work and what should be done to change = things.

The = Internet did though come from a time and echoes of that time persists. = In some ways - only some! -  the engineers back then were just part = of the wider community. But we are over seven and a half thousand RFCs = away from that time. 

Gordon


On 18 Nov 2015, at 14:00, = Corinne Cath <cattekwaad@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear all,

Although I understand Robin's point = - I don't feel this statement is such a stretch.

The community involved in developing the first Internet = protocols was  mostl likely primarily interested in increasing the resilience of communications=20 infrastructure in the event of a nuclear strike. However, this does not = take away from the fact that they had the continuation of freedom of = expression and association (although perhaps more of the military and = other government branches than for instance civil society) in mind.


A stretch = would be to argue they had human rights as such in mind - but I think = this statement can stay as is.

Best,

Corinne

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Robin Wilton = <wilton@isoc.org> wrote:
Hi Niels,

Apologies for the lack of previous = comments on the charter. I=E2=80=99ve read it, and it seems good to me. = Only one sentence jarred slightly, and it was this one:

=E2=80=9CConcerns for freedom of expression and association were a = strong part
of the world-view of the community involved in = developing the first
Internet protocols.=E2=80=9D

I think I know what the intent is = behind this statement, but (to draw on Wikipedia-style thinking) it = strikes me as a well-meant but unsubstantiated wish, rather than a = reliable assertion. For instance, it=E2=80=99s open to the counter-claim = that actually, the community involved in developing the first Internet = protocols was primarily interested in increasing the resilience of = communications infrastructure in the event of a nuclear strike. = Pragmatic, but not quite as human-rights-oriented as what is claimed in = the charter.

My = impression is that, *after* that initial stage, those involved in the = evolution of the Internet as an academic and civilian tool, and in the = gestation and birth of the IETF, did indeed have a more overtly = idealistic mind-set (and it is still visible in many IETF participants = and IHOF members, for instance). 

In one sense this is a minor tweak - = but in another sense, getting the foundational narrative right here is = important, because it affects the credibility of what we try to build on = it.


By the way, +1 also to Stephen=E2=80=99s = last comment: raising awareness is an objective, and in working towards = it we will produce outputs.

Hope this helps,

Robin

Robin Wilton
Technical Outreach Director - = Identity and Privacy
Internet Society
email: wilton@isoc.org
Phone: +44 705 005 2931
Twitter: = @futureidentity




From: Niels ten Oever <niels@article19.org>
Subject: [hrpc] last = call charter
Date: 17 November 2015 18:36:31 = GMT
To: "hrpc@irtf.org" <hrpc@irtf.org>


Signed PGP part
Hello everyone,

The charter [0] = has been up for discussion since November 3 and I
haven't = seen any concrete comments, questions or suggestions, so I
would like to call for last comments, closing on Monday = November 23-
23:59 UTC.

Looking= forward to your questions, comments or suggestions.

Best,

Niels

[0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/rg/hrpc/charter/
--
Niels ten Oever
Head of = Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP = fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
678B 08B5 A0F2 636D = 68E9




<snip>


On 17/11/15 19:22, Niels ten Oever wrote:
Hi Stephen,

On 11/17/2015 07:41 PM, Stephen Farrell = wrote:> you could move the
"raising
awareness" bullet from = the outputs section to the objectives
section

Thanks for this. Not sure whether = awareness raising is an objective
though, it's more of a = means to an end then an end in itself, right?

It's not a big deal and your text = is fine as-is, but personally I
do think raising awareness = (in both directions) is a fine objective.
(And not an = output.)

S.


Best,

Niels


Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital
Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
=             &n= bsp;     678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9



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




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


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




--


'The management = of normality is hard work'

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

= --Apple-Mail=_58C8A40F-A3A1-4146-833F-7A4BE0B5005D-- From nobody Tue Nov 24 14:48:59 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53C881A90E7 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 14:48:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.124 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.124 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6wqGhsUbQNCQ for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 14:48:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.article19.io (vps784.greenhost.nl [213.108.108.114]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22F801A90AE for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 14:48:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.article19.io (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39702124037 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 22:48:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2499B124035 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 22:48:51 +0000 (UTC) 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 KfzTR8fTiien for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 22:48:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.78] (sd5112335.adsl.online.nl [213.17.35.53]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D2EC9124032 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 22:48:50 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5654E952.3070707@article19.org> Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 23:48:50 +0100 From: Niels ten Oever User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "hrpc@irtf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] resolving pending charter issues X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 22:48:57 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hello everyone, I looked at all comments provided on this list and other list and have tried to resolve them below. Let me know what you think. The edited version you can find on here on git: https://github.com/nllz/IRTF-HRPC/blob/master/hrpc%20charter.txt Looking forward to hear if any questions, comments or burning issues remain. Best, Niels Background The Human Rights Protocol Consideration Proposed Research Group is chartered to research whether standards and protocols can enable, strengthen or threaten human rights, as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) [0] and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) [1], specifically, but not limited to the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of assembly. The research group takes as its starting point the problem statement that human-rights-enabling characteristics of the Internet might be degraded if they're not properly defined, described and sufficiently taken into account in protocol development. Not protecting these characteristics could result in (partial) loss of functionality and connectivity. # Mat Ford pointed out that this is not a direct quote from RFC1958, so # I changed 'stated in' into 'evinced by'. As evinced by RFC 1958, the Internet aims to be the global network of networks that provides unfettered connectivity to all users at all times and for any content. Open, secure and reliable connectivity is essential for rights such as freedom of expression and freedom of association. Since the Internet's objective of connectivity makes it an enabler of human rights, its architectural design converges with the human rights framework. # Both Ted Hardie and Robin Wilton made the remark that the sentence # "Concerns for freedom of expression and association were a strong part # of the world-view of the community involved in developing the first # Internet protocols." might be a stretch, so I removed it. The Internet was designed with freedom and openness of communications as core values. But as the scale and the industrialization of the Internet has grown greatly, the influence of such world-views started to compete with other values. # Ted Hardie suggested 'explore' instead of 'expose' since 'exposed # might sound a bit hostile. I have no problems with that. This research group aims to explore the relations between human rights and protocols and to provide guidelines to inform future protocol development and decision making where protocols impact the effective exercise of the rights to freedom of expression or association. Objective This research has two major aims: - - to expose the relation between protocols and human rights, with a focus on the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, and - - to propose guidelines to protect the Internet as a human-rights- enabling environment in future protocol development, in a manner similar to the work done for Privacy Considerations in RFC 6973. # Introducing awareness raising as objective as per comment of Stephen # and supported by Robin and dkg - - to increase the awareness in both the human rights community and the technical community on the importance of the technical workings of the Internet and its impact on human rights. Outputs The research group plans on using a variety of research methods to create different outputs including (but not limited to): # As Lars and Mat Ford pointed out, IRSG RFC track should be IRSG RFC # stream, and a Dirk pointed out 'tracking' might be a bit vague, to I # replaced it with 'documenting the progress' - - Internet drafts - (some of which may be put on IRSG RFC stream) These would concern documenting the progress of the project, methodology, and would define any possible protocol considerations. - - Policy and academic papers For in depth analysis and discussion on the relationship between human rights and the Internet architecture and protocols. # Based on the comments of Mary Burnes 'a diverse set' is introduced # in the following para: - - Film and textual interviews with a diverse set of community members, to give an accessible insight into the variety of opinions on this topic represented in the IETF. - - Data analysis and visualization To research and visualize the language used in current and historic RFCs and mailinglist discussions to expose core architectural principles, language and deliberations on human rights of those affected by the network. # As suggested by Seda and supported by dkg, including some language # suggestion from me: - - Protocol analysis Data analysis and visualization of (existing) protocols in the wild to research their concrete impact on human rights. Membership Membership is open to any interested parties who intend to remain current with the published documents and mailing list issues. [0] http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ [1] http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx - --=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 v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWVOlSAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpKzIH/iVIZFqq0NFFfXR73FWchGqr xCseqeVwA9wR4lNWw1sTMDpKZKO6zXPKxUyurfRwwULzPQTlvG5YTbbaj82bnfE/ 3TYxIUxgbN2HYvYJlfKalxBpTJJ6ctayQwVVuUBn9lFVgWpePLaPNP/FfMmxN5/g ROnRBbzOqBccOn5RrK+EJ5KUzeyo3vPGql+mFTnrNfTWGZ4Z/j5bRUPWZSocQO3g +7UjnjEF/y9u4HV/TB3sWwlBm3yQoFcx2rcKY7CiR/FVeHB7pqfYtVSviTAAa6QR G52/17OEXGtkhS7v5qa9d3jBYMy7Tv8KBTeiw6ugtmB0GaFdxpEx3kgaKo07E2I=3D =3DM8Ya -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From nobody Tue Nov 24 15:24:14 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AD471A9172 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 15:24:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.824 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.824 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cuGNg0_b5CR8 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 15:24:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.article19.io (vps784.greenhost.nl [213.108.108.114]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E231D1A90F1 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 15:24:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.article19.io (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1D1B124032 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 23:24:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BDA2124035 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 23:24:10 +0000 (UTC) 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 iZx1pdaw3VOo for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 23:24:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.78] (sd5112335.adsl.online.nl [213.17.35.53]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 58C94124032 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 23:24:10 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5654F199.4030700@article19.org> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 00:24:09 +0100 From: Niels ten Oever User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hrpc@irtf.org References: <20151117112701.GA16373@nic.fr> In-Reply-To: <20151117112701.GA16373@nic.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] draft-iab-filtering-considerations to be published as RFC X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 23:24:13 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hmmmmm I missed this. It seems it is already consensus and it has been sent to the RFC-editor. There is indeed some objectionable language and assumptions in there. But if there is no hope for change, I'll have to let it go. Cheers, Niels Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 On 11/17/2015 12:27 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > Its version draft-iab-filtering-considerations-09 is now in the > RFC editor queue > > This may replace the (expired? defunct?) > draft-hall-censorship-tech. > > My personal opinion on the IAB draft (based on an earlier version, > I did not read the very last ones): good technical analysis (of > course) but may be too neutral (describing techniques without > concerns about their legitimacy). > > _______________________________________________ hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWVPGZAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpNRIH/2k7C1O8NqusnOUr6tK8xoVJ O6Vjhvmlbg1JYyldG+/T+g/auxW2IAzxwCju5e/Flrgdki0dveSKPDofyeaj8Gx/ kx5IRANJQy2tgP2zbA27IUAQGCLIrCjXsH6V0ocK5rfuBMUl6I/03s3ToqWMeM6e toswFCnxSKEDRPwqxq6fRUhsVZdfbBVUtCOwNN9q+sbCWgs3Nb/WOMulD+xrgoGU eYHvGIaNOz6f4eRRV+LPbIWMOF2zeOMaKTmPT1ARqgL54lQrT8smGn2I3azzLPTD C3puVYN4u8CtEGfRXVstIja7SQqkyrO7MfUgyZv8M4Bfhf2a+8kREkSww5xrn5s= =mdcg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From nobody Tue Nov 24 15:52:12 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DA5C1A92FB for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 15:52:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tMUlImXK3nGj for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 15:52:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.yitter.info (mx2.yitter.info [50.116.54.116]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BB031A9301 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 15:52:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF90E10768 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 23:52:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca Received: from mx2.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx2.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3Uvw0Dmd-Dg7 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 23:52:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx2.yitter.info (unknown [IPv6:2601:18d:8600:1da9:6430:5c52:d0f0:4d09]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3C0E2105E5 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 23:52:08 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 18:52:06 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <20151124235206.GM5210@mx2.yitter.info> References: <20151117112701.GA16373@nic.fr> <5654F199.4030700@article19.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5654F199.4030700@article19.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] draft-iab-filtering-considerations to be published as RFC X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 23:52:11 -0000 On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 12:24:09AM +0100, Niels ten Oever wrote: > Hmmmmm I missed this. It seems it is already consensus Note that the consensus here is IAB consensus, and it's a "considerations" document, not recommendations. If the IETF, for instance, wanted to make a recommendation about what the right _practice_ is (which is different from the architecture), it is free to produce an IETF consensus BCP. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From nobody Wed Nov 25 16:53:27 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8308E1A0140 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:53:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.799 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kHcMTs9fK64T for ; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:53:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail1.bemta10.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta10.messagelabs.com [117.120.16.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 644601A014D for ; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:53:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from [117.120.16.147] by server-1.bemta-10.messagelabs.com id 01/3A-02798-00856565; Thu, 26 Nov 2015 00:53:20 +0000 X-Env-Sender: Stanley.Shanapinda@student.adfa.edu.au X-Msg-Ref: server-9.tower-62.messagelabs.com!1448499198!1436149!1 X-Originating-IP: [131.236.3.171] X-StarScan-Received: X-StarScan-Version: 7.19.2; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 32357 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2015 00:53:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ADFAPWEXCAS01.ad.adfa.edu.au) (131.236.3.171) by server-9.tower-62.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 26 Nov 2015 00:53:19 -0000 Received: from ADFAPWEXMBX02.ad.adfa.edu.au ([169.254.2.246]) by ADFAPWEXCAS01.ad.adfa.edu.au ([131.236.3.171]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Thu, 26 Nov 2015 11:53:18 +1100 From: Stanley Shanapinda To: Niels ten Oever , "hrpc@irtf.org" Thread-Topic: [hrpc] resolving pending charter issues Thread-Index: AQHRJ7vjnc2AXfvpmkmYfTD0vSt+KJ6teDbT Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 00:53:17 +0000 Message-ID: <45272FFA14C4DA4D9E98923BA818A06D153B211D@ADFAPWEXMBX02.ad.adfa.edu.au> References: <5654E952.3070707@article19.org> In-Reply-To: <5654E952.3070707@article19.org> Accept-Language: en-US, en-AU Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [131.236.3.179] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] resolving pending charter issues X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 00:53:26 -0000 Dear All, =0A= Thanks Niels, it looks and reads pretty well. =0A= Is there a particular reason "the right to privacy' was not specified as we= ll but is simply implied in the overall human rights context? =0A= One of the fundamental issues considered in every protocol is security, i.e= . "security" from unauthorized access and interference. Secure communicatio= ns denotes "private' communications, In would like to think. =0A= Thanks and regards=0A= Stanley=0A= ________________________________________=0A= From: Niels ten Oever [niels@article19.org]=0A= Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 9:48 AM=0A= To: hrpc@irtf.org=0A= Subject: [hrpc] resolving pending charter issues=0A= =0A= -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----=0A= Hash: SHA256=0A= =0A= Hello everyone,=0A= =0A= I looked at all comments provided on this list and other list and have=0A= tried to resolve them below. Let me know what you think. The edited=0A= version you can find on here on git:=0A= https://github.com/nllz/IRTF-HRPC/blob/master/hrpc%20charter.txt=0A= =0A= Looking forward to hear if any questions, comments or burning issues=0A= remain.=0A= =0A= Best,=0A= =0A= Niels=0A= =0A= =0A= Background=0A= The Human Rights Protocol Consideration Proposed Research Group is=0A= chartered to research whether standards and protocols can enable,=0A= strengthen or threaten human rights, as defined in the Universal=0A= Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) [0] and the International Covenant=0A= on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) [1], specifically, but not=0A= limited to the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom=0A= of assembly.=0A= =0A= The research group takes as its starting point the problem statement=0A= that human-rights-enabling characteristics of the Internet might be=0A= degraded if they're not properly defined, described and sufficiently=0A= taken into account in protocol development. Not protecting these=0A= characteristics could result in (partial) loss of functionality and=0A= connectivity.=0A= =0A= # Mat Ford pointed out that this is not a direct quote from RFC1958, so=0A= # I changed 'stated in' into 'evinced by'.=0A= =0A= As evinced by RFC 1958, the Internet aims to be the global network of=0A= networks that provides unfettered connectivity to all users at all=0A= times and for any content. Open, secure and reliable connectivity is=0A= essential for rights such as freedom of expression and freedom of=0A= association. Since the Internet's objective of connectivity makes it=0A= an enabler of human rights, its architectural design converges with the=0A= human rights framework.=0A= =0A= # Both Ted Hardie and Robin Wilton made the remark that the sentence=0A= # "Concerns for freedom of expression and association were a strong part=0A= # of the world-view of the community involved in developing the first=0A= # Internet protocols." might be a stretch, so I removed it.=0A= =0A= The Internet was designed with freedom and openness of communications=0A= as core values. But as the scale and the industrialization of the=0A= Internet has grown greatly, the influence of such world-views started=0A= to compete with other values.=0A= =0A= # Ted Hardie suggested 'explore' instead of 'expose' since 'exposed=0A= # might sound a bit hostile. I have no problems with that.=0A= =0A= This research group aims to explore the relations between human rights=0A= and protocols and to provide guidelines to inform future protocol=0A= development and decision making where protocols impact the effective=0A= exercise of the rights to freedom of expression or association.=0A= =0A= Objective=0A= This research has two major aims:=0A= - - to expose the relation between protocols and human rights, with a=0A= focus on the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly,=0A= and=0A= =0A= - - to propose guidelines to protect the Internet as a human-rights-=0A= enabling environment in future protocol development, in a manner=0A= similar to the work done for Privacy Considerations in RFC 6973.=0A= =0A= # Introducing awareness raising as objective as per comment of Stephen=0A= # and supported by Robin and dkg=0A= =0A= - - to increase the awareness in both the human rights community and the=0A= technical community on the importance of the technical workings of the=0A= Internet and its impact on human rights.=0A= =0A= Outputs=0A= The research group plans on using a variety of research methods to=0A= create different outputs including (but not limited to):=0A= =0A= # As Lars and Mat Ford pointed out, IRSG RFC track should be IRSG RFC=0A= # stream, and a Dirk pointed out 'tracking' might be a bit vague, to I=0A= # replaced it with 'documenting the progress'=0A= =0A= - - Internet drafts - (some of which may be put on IRSG RFC stream)=0A= These would concern documenting the progress of the project,=0A= methodology, and would define any possible protocol considerations.=0A= =0A= - - Policy and academic papers=0A= For in depth analysis and discussion on the relationship between human=0A= rights and the Internet architecture and protocols.=0A= =0A= # Based on the comments of Mary Burnes 'a diverse set' is introduced=0A= # in the following para:=0A= =0A= - - Film and textual interviews with a diverse set of community members,=0A= to give an accessible insight into the variety of opinions on this=0A= topic represented in the IETF.=0A= =0A= - - Data analysis and visualization=0A= To research and visualize the language used in current and historic=0A= RFCs and mailinglist discussions to expose core architectural=0A= principles, language and deliberations on human rights of those=0A= affected by the network.=0A= =0A= # As suggested by Seda and supported by dkg, including some language=0A= # suggestion from me:=0A= =0A= - - Protocol analysis=0A= Data analysis and visualization of (existing) protocols in the wild to=0A= research their concrete impact on human rights.=0A= =0A= Membership=0A= Membership is open to any interested parties who intend to remain=0A= current with the published documents and mailing list issues.=0A= =0A= [0] http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/=0A= [1] http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx=0A= =0A= =0A= - --=0A= Niels ten Oever=0A= Head of Digital=0A= =0A= Article 19=0A= www.article19.org=0A= =0A= PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4=0A= 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9=0A= -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----=0A= Version: GnuPG v2=0A= =0A= iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWVOlSAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpKzIH/iVIZFqq0NFFfXR73FWchGqr=0A= xCseqeVwA9wR4lNWw1sTMDpKZKO6zXPKxUyurfRwwULzPQTlvG5YTbbaj82bnfE/=0A= 3TYxIUxgbN2HYvYJlfKalxBpTJJ6ctayQwVVuUBn9lFVgWpePLaPNP/FfMmxN5/g=0A= ROnRBbzOqBccOn5RrK+EJ5KUzeyo3vPGql+mFTnrNfTWGZ4Z/j5bRUPWZSocQO3g=0A= +7UjnjEF/y9u4HV/TB3sWwlBm3yQoFcx2rcKY7CiR/FVeHB7pqfYtVSviTAAa6QR=0A= G52/17OEXGtkhS7v5qa9d3jBYMy7Tv8KBTeiw6ugtmB0GaFdxpEx3kgaKo07E2I=3D=0A= =3DM8Ya=0A= -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----=0A= =0A= =0A= From nobody Thu Nov 26 07:38:39 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E25241B3B65 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 2015 07:38:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.424 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.424 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FZkO8RR3hep0 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 2015 07:38:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.article19.io (vps784.greenhost.nl [213.108.108.114]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AFB41B3B58 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 2015 07:38:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.article19.io (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50FC217C043 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:38:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3721817C045 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:38:32 +0000 (UTC) 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 Asw5_uTDGNi8 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:38:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.43.18] (unknown [62.140.132.15]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C145717C043 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:38:31 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <56572774.4060301@article19.org> Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 16:38:28 +0100 From: Niels ten Oever User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "hrpc@irtf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] charter small change s/IRSG RFC stream/IRTF RFC stream/ X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:38:38 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 One little change: s/IRSG RFC stream/IRTF RFC stream/ Please find the new proposed text below. Hope we can agree on this soon. Best, Niels Background The Human Rights Protocol Consideration Proposed Research Group is chartered to research whether standards and protocols can enable, strengthen or threaten human rights, as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) [0] and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) [1], specifically, but not limited to the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of assembly. The research group takes as its starting point the problem statement that human-rights-enabling characteristics of the Internet might be degraded if they're not properly defined, described and sufficiently taken into account in protocol development. Not protecting these characteristics could result in (partial) loss of functionality and connectivity. As evinced by RFC 1958, the Internet aims to be the global network of networks that provides unfettered connectivity to all users at all times and for any content. Open, secure and reliable connectivity is essential for rights such as freedom of expression and freedom of association. Since the Internet's objective of connectivity makes it an enabler of human rights, its architectural design converges with the human rights framework. The Internet was designed with freedom and openness of communications as core values. But as the scale and the industrialization of the Internet has grown greatly, the influence of such world-views started to compete with other values. This research group aims to explore the relations between human rights and protocols and to provide guidelines to inform future protocol development and decision making where protocol s impact the effective exercise of the rights to freedom of expression or association. Objective This research has two major aims: - - to expose the relation between protocols and human rights, with a focus on the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, and - - to propose guidelines to protect the Internet as a human-rights- enabling environment in future protocol development, in a manner similar to the work done for Privacy Considerations in RFC 6973. - - to increase the awareness in both the human rights community and the technical community on the importance of the technical workings of the Internet and its impact on human rights. Outputs The research group plans on using a variety of research methods to create different outputs including (but not limited to): - - Internet drafts - (some of which may be put on IRTF RFC stream) These would concern progress of the project, methodology, and would define any possible protocol considerations. - - Policy and academic papers For in depth analysis and discussion on the relationship between human rights and the Internet architecture and protocols. - - Film and textual interviews with a diverse set of community members, to give an accessible insight into the variety of opinions on this topic represented in the IETF. - - Data analysis and visualization To research and visualize the language used in current and historic RFCs and mailinglist discussions to expose core architectural principles, language and deliberations on human rights of those affected by the network. - - Protocol analysis Data analysis and visualization of (existing) protocols in the wild to research their concrete impact on human rights. Membership Membership is open to any interested parties who intend to remain current with the published documents and mailing list issues. [0] http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ [1] http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx - -- 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 v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWVyd0AAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpRYEIAJmK2NZTmMputo9dfr/yukrW RBf/AIqFT5I8n7SmJSKL5TH1zWz44BsVazUqdpBuOO+Znpv29bcF766+J/XEQuzl Fz911i36flXc8q80gWHyAUqY8kg0bxsWS+17TUiNJZgHl27lp/JRGI1JLlV5rmyZ 7HTBs2y64YbXq93gRHCiMTlxm9pvsizgIauqnB1lAGhk2L+5LwWgHWn9T3Ppwodv jASuI2hZOmxdQ4v6ZLtdaaqaB7wFVEjEx7HYuZijYCAgdEAbXo/puP2xvNqJfeDn Y4DR4PKsOYU9I9juo/tN/BCIakaKv6+pnuPMipnidHA74S3e/v4N2u89e7nEHdg= =7XdK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From nobody Fri Nov 27 07:54:36 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D35B81B355E for ; Fri, 27 Nov 2015 07:54:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.124 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.124 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9HzVQM3Ji6MM for ; Fri, 27 Nov 2015 07:54:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.article19.io (vps784.greenhost.nl [213.108.108.114]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 056B91B3249 for ; Fri, 27 Nov 2015 07:54:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.article19.io (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9907D164018; Fri, 27 Nov 2015 15:54:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86A65164017; Fri, 27 Nov 2015 15:54:29 +0000 (UTC) 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 6vsCQHF-XJJg; Fri, 27 Nov 2015 15:54:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.9.0.26] (tunnel.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.22]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 23330164013; Fri, 27 Nov 2015 15:54:29 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <56587CB4.2000809@article19.org> Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 16:54:28 +0100 From: Niels ten Oever User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stanley Shanapinda , "hrpc@irtf.org" References: <5654E952.3070707@article19.org> <45272FFA14C4DA4D9E98923BA818A06D153B211D@ADFAPWEXMBX02.ad.adfa.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <45272FFA14C4DA4D9E98923BA818A06D153B211D@ADFAPWEXMBX02.ad.adfa.edu.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] resolving pending charter issues X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 15:54:35 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hi Stanley, Thanks a lot for your question. Privacy is not specifically mentioned because the problem of security as well as privacy are already much better understood in the IETF than other rights concepts. Privacy for instance is already mentioned in RFC1087 [0] and culminated in the great document RFC6973 [1] to which we are referring in the charter. So I would think it is sufficiently covered, let me know if after this you still think differently. Another nice piece of reading on this topic is by Nick Doty [2]. Happy to discuss! Best, Niels [0] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1087 [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6973 [2] https://npdoty.name/privacy-reviews/iwpe/ Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 On 11/26/2015 01:53 AM, Stanley Shanapinda wrote: > Dear All, Thanks Niels, it looks and reads pretty well. Is there a=20 > particular reason "the right to privacy' was not specified as well=20 > but is simply implied in the overall human rights context? One of > the fundamental issues considered in every protocol is security, > i.e. "security" from unauthorized access and interference. Secure=20 > communications denotes "private' communications, In would like to=20 > think. Thanks and regards Stanley=20 > ________________________________________ From: Niels ten Oever=20 > [niels@article19.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 9:48 AM > To: hrpc@irtf.org Subject: [hrpc] resolving pending charter issues >=20 > Hello everyone, >=20 > I looked at all comments provided on this list and other list and=20 > have tried to resolve them below. Let me know what you think. The=20 > edited version you can find on here on git:=20 > https://github.com/nllz/IRTF-HRPC/blob/master/hrpc%20charter.txt >=20 > Looking forward to hear if any questions, comments or burning > issues remain. >=20 > Best, >=20 > Niels >=20 >=20 > Background The Human Rights Protocol Consideration Proposed > Research Group is chartered to research whether standards and > protocols can enable, strengthen or threaten human rights, as > defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) [0] and > the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) > [1], specifically, but not limited to the right to freedom of > expression and the right to freedom of assembly. >=20 > The research group takes as its starting point the problem > statement that human-rights-enabling characteristics of the > Internet might be degraded if they're not properly defined, > described and sufficiently taken into account in protocol > development. Not protecting these characteristics could result in > (partial) loss of functionality and connectivity. >=20 > # Mat Ford pointed out that this is not a direct quote from > RFC1958, so # I changed 'stated in' into 'evinced by'. >=20 > As evinced by RFC 1958, the Internet aims to be the global network=20 > of networks that provides unfettered connectivity to all users at=20 > all times and for any content. Open, secure and reliable > connectivity is essential for rights such as freedom of expression > and freedom of association. Since the Internet's objective of > connectivity makes it an enabler of human rights, its architectural > design converges with the human rights framework. >=20 > # Both Ted Hardie and Robin Wilton made the remark that the > sentence # "Concerns for freedom of expression and association were > a strong part # of the world-view of the community involved in > developing the first # Internet protocols." might be a stretch, so > I removed it. >=20 > The Internet was designed with freedom and openness of=20 > communications as core values. But as the scale and the=20 > industrialization of the Internet has grown greatly, the influence > of such world-views started to compete with other values. >=20 > # Ted Hardie suggested 'explore' instead of 'expose' since 'exposed > # might sound a bit hostile. I have no problems with that. >=20 > This research group aims to explore the relations between human=20 > rights and protocols and to provide guidelines to inform future=20 > protocol development and decision making where protocols impact > the effective exercise of the rights to freedom of expression or=20 > association. >=20 > Objective This research has two major aims: - to expose the > relation between protocols and human rights, with a focus on the > rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, and >=20 > - to propose guidelines to protect the Internet as a human-rights- > enabling environment in future protocol development, in a manner=20 > similar to the work done for Privacy Considerations in RFC 6973. >=20 > # Introducing awareness raising as objective as per comment of=20 > Stephen # and supported by Robin and dkg >=20 > - to increase the awareness in both the human rights community and=20 > the technical community on the importance of the technical > workings of the Internet and its impact on human rights. >=20 > Outputs The research group plans on using a variety of research=20 > methods to create different outputs including (but not limited > to): >=20 > # As Lars and Mat Ford pointed out, IRSG RFC track should be IRSG=20 > RFC # stream, and a Dirk pointed out 'tracking' might be a bit > vague, to I # replaced it with 'documenting the progress' >=20 > - Internet drafts - (some of which may be put on IRSG RFC stream)=20 > These would concern documenting the progress of the project,=20 > methodology, and would define any possible protocol > considerations. >=20 > - Policy and academic papers For in depth analysis and discussion > on the relationship between human rights and the Internet > architecture and protocols. >=20 > # Based on the comments of Mary Burnes 'a diverse set' is > introduced # in the following para: >=20 > - Film and textual interviews with a diverse set of community=20 > members, to give an accessible insight into the variety of > opinions on this topic represented in the IETF. >=20 > - Data analysis and visualization To research and visualize the=20 > language used in current and historic RFCs and mailinglist=20 > discussions to expose core architectural principles, language and=20 > deliberations on human rights of those affected by the network. >=20 > # As suggested by Seda and supported by dkg, including some > language # suggestion from me: >=20 > - Protocol analysis Data analysis and visualization of (existing)=20 > protocols in the wild to research their concrete impact on human=20 > rights. >=20 > Membership Membership is open to any interested parties who intend > to remain current with the published documents and mailing list > issues. >=20 > [0] http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ [1]=20 > http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWWHy0AAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpGkoH/1dmcKIXgwNfW3FitXoyrdaq EZoQo1DhOCCPXm/zHBkYs+fPIgztRFmF1asIxDHstB6AUdn5G12a+z+4Jn8vYwTg MKyGjpewQzN+LaVR494FyGvLJKih5xumWP6mZNLWIcNu1KxjhNGBT1GGjordyCtu JuEB6YYFRM/iH9NClPez9MCll0sunN5lIpdGMkI+nJT91erD487IvQdGzcBhYWS8 OFcsCW3FEYpvmpyJhxcHGPFdkQANSAgjpISzmno9bX52yp+fqzJrSAHETan+cv2j slq33MMbqi8jcXHCsYbGYFKw/Mq7binNf/tze/Weu3iO5Ea3fdMWNT6CvbWMo7c=3D =3DgWV/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From nobody Sat Nov 28 11:28:26 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EED281B3479 for ; Sat, 28 Nov 2015 11:28:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.701 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hk0f3z9xSnWg for ; Sat, 28 Nov 2015 11:28:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x236.google.com (mail-wm0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1403A1B347C for ; Sat, 28 Nov 2015 11:28:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by wmvv187 with SMTP id v187so107095398wmv.1 for ; Sat, 28 Nov 2015 11:28:19 -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=FBjnUULAnrtnaQQrgPaBbcmpfVu80dcs1Qypq9vWCwU=; b=EC7rdyUkJBU1sz3IMMmTwuK9nHeA82rENZA2rbOnW8ak4wU/HZYIMTzrGWwyd2ZAd6 SrVxf1pfx9v/A9VKyu/kQLfRs/aUt8hcDt1k/EnQnElzonemUcCFksTAicYt/dUnC+9Y rWGta+mgojBJK5heqgtK7bB3g4itar9xQJGfliAF4m427Ukncb9oQckmRBj2fdvVKLWx i7maVLLGNC84kieYbnYWLdFSD7nYmIYLfA2n37e6NntxzhewGJIairtIcIO1YmC8bKJ4 X6/iykjp7MEpnriFjWxvhjzieLbU2SYRz5BJrqk5riTN3BOtfX/JZDWBTYOV5jUXpfsv YIDw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.28.23.83 with SMTP id 80mr18462690wmx.78.1448738899454; Sat, 28 Nov 2015 11:28:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.89.129 with HTTP; Sat, 28 Nov 2015 11:28:19 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <56587CB4.2000809@article19.org> References: <5654E952.3070707@article19.org> <45272FFA14C4DA4D9E98923BA818A06D153B211D@ADFAPWEXMBX02.ad.adfa.edu.au> <56587CB4.2000809@article19.org> Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2015 19:28:19 +0000 Message-ID: From: Corinne Cath To: Niels ten Oever Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1146e1a279724e05259ecf00 Archived-At: Cc: Stanley Shanapinda , "hrpc@irtf.org" Subject: Re: [hrpc] resolving pending charter issues X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2015 19:28:25 -0000 --001a1146e1a279724e05259ecf00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Looks great! Minor suggestion: change 'expose' (the relation between protocols and human rights) to 'clarify' (the relation between protocols and human rights). Expose feels a little like, I open the hood of the car and there by expose its underlying workings but what we are really doing goes one step beyond that we are actually trying to understand and make explicit the relations between protocols and human rights. But might be nit-picking. Best, Corinne On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Niels ten Oever wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > Hi Stanley, > > Thanks a lot for your question. Privacy is not specifically mentioned > because the problem of security as well as privacy are already much > better understood in the IETF than other rights concepts. > Privacy for instance is already mentioned in RFC1087 [0] and > culminated in the great document RFC6973 [1] to which we are referring > in the charter. > > So I would think it is sufficiently covered, let me know if after this > you still think differently. > > Another nice piece of reading on this topic is by Nick Doty [2]. > > Happy to discuss! > > Best, > > Niels > > > > [0] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1087 > [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6973 > [2] https://npdoty.name/privacy-reviews/iwpe/ > > Niels ten Oever > Head of Digital > > Article 19 > www.article19.org > > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 > > On 11/26/2015 01:53 AM, Stanley Shanapinda wrote: > > Dear All, Thanks Niels, it looks and reads pretty well. Is there a > > particular reason "the right to privacy' was not specified as well > > but is simply implied in the overall human rights context? One of > > the fundamental issues considered in every protocol is security, > > i.e. "security" from unauthorized access and interference. Secure > > communications denotes "private' communications, In would like to > > think. Thanks and regards Stanley > > ________________________________________ From: Niels ten Oever > > [niels@article19.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 9:48 AM > > To: hrpc@irtf.org Subject: [hrpc] resolving pending charter issues > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > I looked at all comments provided on this list and other list and > > have tried to resolve them below. Let me know what you think. The > > edited version you can find on here on git: > > https://github.com/nllz/IRTF-HRPC/blob/master/hrpc%20charter.txt > > > > Looking forward to hear if any questions, comments or burning > > issues remain. > > > > Best, > > > > Niels > > > > > > Background The Human Rights Protocol Consideration Proposed > > Research Group is chartered to research whether standards and > > protocols can enable, strengthen or threaten human rights, as > > defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) [0] and > > the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) > > [1], specifically, but not limited to the right to freedom of > > expression and the right to freedom of assembly. > > > > The research group takes as its starting point the problem > > statement that human-rights-enabling characteristics of the > > Internet might be degraded if they're not properly defined, > > described and sufficiently taken into account in protocol > > development. Not protecting these characteristics could result in > > (partial) loss of functionality and connectivity. > > > > # Mat Ford pointed out that this is not a direct quote from > > RFC1958, so # I changed 'stated in' into 'evinced by'. > > > > As evinced by RFC 1958, the Internet aims to be the global network > > of networks that provides unfettered connectivity to all users at > > all times and for any content. Open, secure and reliable > > connectivity is essential for rights such as freedom of expression > > and freedom of association. Since the Internet's objective of > > connectivity makes it an enabler of human rights, its architectural > > design converges with the human rights framework. > > > > # Both Ted Hardie and Robin Wilton made the remark that the > > sentence # "Concerns for freedom of expression and association were > > a strong part # of the world-view of the community involved in > > developing the first # Internet protocols." might be a stretch, so > > I removed it. > > > > The Internet was designed with freedom and openness of > > communications as core values. But as the scale and the > > industrialization of the Internet has grown greatly, the influence > > of such world-views started to compete with other values. > > > > # Ted Hardie suggested 'explore' instead of 'expose' since 'exposed > > # might sound a bit hostile. I have no problems with that. > > > > This research group aims to explore the relations between human > > rights and protocols and to provide guidelines to inform future > > protocol development and decision making where protocols impact > > the effective exercise of the rights to freedom of expression or > > association. > > > > Objective This research has two major aims: - to expose the > > relation between protocols and human rights, with a focus on the > > rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, and > > > > - to propose guidelines to protect the Internet as a human-rights- > > enabling environment in future protocol development, in a manner > > similar to the work done for Privacy Considerations in RFC 6973. > > > > # Introducing awareness raising as objective as per comment of > > Stephen # and supported by Robin and dkg > > > > - to increase the awareness in both the human rights community and > > the technical community on the importance of the technical > > workings of the Internet and its impact on human rights. > > > > Outputs The research group plans on using a variety of research > > methods to create different outputs including (but not limited > > to): > > > > # As Lars and Mat Ford pointed out, IRSG RFC track should be IRSG > > RFC # stream, and a Dirk pointed out 'tracking' might be a bit > > vague, to I # replaced it with 'documenting the progress' > > > > - Internet drafts - (some of which may be put on IRSG RFC stream) > > These would concern documenting the progress of the project, > > methodology, and would define any possible protocol > > considerations. > > > > - Policy and academic papers For in depth analysis and discussion > > on the relationship between human rights and the Internet > > architecture and protocols. > > > > # Based on the comments of Mary Burnes 'a diverse set' is > > introduced # in the following para: > > > > - Film and textual interviews with a diverse set of community > > members, to give an accessible insight into the variety of > > opinions on this topic represented in the IETF. > > > > - Data analysis and visualization To research and visualize the > > language used in current and historic RFCs and mailinglist > > discussions to expose core architectural principles, language and > > deliberations on human rights of those affected by the network. > > > > # As suggested by Seda and supported by dkg, including some > > language # suggestion from me: > > > > - Protocol analysis Data analysis and visualization of (existing) > > protocols in the wild to research their concrete impact on human > > rights. > > > > Membership Membership is open to any interested parties who intend > > to remain current with the published documents and mailing list > > issues. > > > > [0] http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ [1] > > http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx > > > > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2 > > iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWWHy0AAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpGkoH/1dmcKIXgwNfW3FitXoyrdaq > EZoQo1DhOCCPXm/zHBkYs+fPIgztRFmF1asIxDHstB6AUdn5G12a+z+4Jn8vYwTg > MKyGjpewQzN+LaVR494FyGvLJKih5xumWP6mZNLWIcNu1KxjhNGBT1GGjordyCtu > JuEB6YYFRM/iH9NClPez9MCll0sunN5lIpdGMkI+nJT91erD487IvQdGzcBhYWS8 > OFcsCW3FEYpvmpyJhxcHGPFdkQANSAgjpISzmno9bX52yp+fqzJrSAHETan+cv2j > slq33MMbqi8jcXHCsYbGYFKw/Mq7binNf/tze/Weu3iO5Ea3fdMWNT6CvbWMo7c= > =gWV/ > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > -- 'The management of normality is hard work' --001a1146e1a279724e05259ecf00 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Looks great!

Minor suggestion: change 'expose' (the rela= tion between protocols and human rights) to 'clarify' (the relation= between protocols and human rights). Expose feels a little like, I open th= e hood of the car and there by expose its underlying workings but what we a= re really doing goes one step beyond that we are actually trying to underst= and and make explicit the relations between protocols and human rights. But= might be nit-picking.

Best,

Corinne

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Niels= ten Oever <niels@article19.org> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Hi Stanley,

Thanks a lot for your question. Privacy is not specifically mentioned
because the problem of security as well as privacy are already much
better understood in the IETF than other rights concepts.
Privacy for instance is already mentioned in RFC1087 [0] and
culminated in the great document RFC6973 [1] to which we are referring
in the charter.

So I would think it is sufficiently covered, let me know if after this
you still think differently.

Another nice piece of reading on this topic is by Nick Doty [2].

Happy to discuss!

Best,

Niels



[0] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1087
[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6973
[2] https://npdoty.name/privacy-reviews/iwpe/

Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
w= ww.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

On 11/26/2015 01:53 AM, Stanley Shanapinda wrote: > Dear All, Thanks Niels, it looks and reads pretty well. Is there a
> particular reason "the right to privacy' was not specified as= well
> but is simply implied in the overall human rights context? One of
> the fundamental issues considered in every protocol is security,
> i.e. "security" from unauthorized access and interference. S= ecure
> communications denotes "private' communications, In would lik= e to
> think. Thanks and regards Stanley
> ________________________________________ From: Niels ten Oever
> [niels@article19.org] Sent:= Wednesday, November 25, 2015 9:48 AM
> To: hrpc@irtf.org Subject: [hrpc]= resolving pending charter issues
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I looked at all comments provided on this list and other list and
> have tried to resolve them below. Let me know what you think. The
> edited version you can find on here on git:
> https://github.com/nllz/IRTF-HR= PC/blob/master/hrpc%20charter.txt
>
> Looking forward to hear if any questions, comments or burning
> issues remain.
>
> Best,
>
> Niels
>
>
> Background The Human Rights Protocol Consideration Proposed
> Research Group is chartered to research whether standards and
> protocols can enable, strengthen or threaten human rights, as
> defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) [0] and > the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
> [1], specifically, but not limited to the right to freedom of
> expression and the right to freedom of assembly.
>
> The research group takes as its starting point the problem
> statement that human-rights-enabling characteristics of the
> Internet might be degraded if they're not properly defined,
> described and sufficiently taken into account in protocol
> development. Not protecting these characteristics could result in
> (partial) loss of functionality and connectivity.
>
> # Mat Ford pointed out that this is not a direct quote from
> RFC1958, so # I changed 'stated in' into 'evinced by'.=
>
> As evinced by RFC 1958, the Internet aims to be the global network
> of networks that provides unfettered connectivity to all users at
> all times and for any content. Open, secure and reliable
> connectivity is essential for rights such as freedom of expression
> and freedom of association. Since the Internet's objective of
> connectivity makes it an enabler of human rights, its architectural > design converges with the human rights framework.
>
> # Both Ted Hardie and Robin Wilton made the remark that the
> sentence # "Concerns for freedom of expression and association we= re
> a strong part # of the world-view of the community involved in
> developing the first # Internet protocols." might be a stretch, s= o
> I removed it.
>
> The Internet was designed with freedom and openness of
> communications as core values. But as the scale and the
> industrialization of the Internet has grown greatly, the influence
> of such world-views started to compete with other values.
>
> # Ted Hardie suggested 'explore' instead of 'expose' s= ince 'exposed
> # might sound a bit hostile. I have no problems with that.
>
> This research group aims to explore the relations between human
> rights and protocols and to provide guidelines to inform future
> protocol development and decision making where protocols impact
> the effective exercise of the rights to freedom of expression or
> association.
>
> Objective This research has two major aims: - to expose th= e
> relation between protocols and human rights, wi= th a focus on the
> rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, and
>
> - to propose guidelines to protect the Internet as a human-rights-
>=C2=A0 enabling environment in future protocol development, in a manner=
> similar to the work done for Privacy Considerations in RFC 6973.
>
> # Introducing awareness raising as objective as per comment of
> Stephen # and supported by Robin and dkg
>
> - to increase the awareness in both the human rights community and
> the technical community on the importance of the technical
> workings of the Internet and its impact on human rights.
>
> Outputs The research group plans on using=C2=A0 a variety of research<= br> > methods to create different outputs including (but not limited
> to):
>
> # As Lars and Mat Ford pointed out, IRSG RFC track should be IRSG
> RFC # stream, and a Dirk pointed out 'tracking' might be a bit=
> vague, to I # replaced it with 'documenting the progress'
>
> - Internet drafts - (some of which may be put on IRSG RFC stream)
> These would concern documenting the progress of the project,
> methodology, and would define any possible protocol
> considerations.
>
> - Policy and academic papers For in depth analysis and discussion
> on the relationship between human rights and the Internet
> architecture and protocols.
>
> # Based on the comments of Mary Burnes 'a diverse set' is
> introduced # in the following para:
>
> - Film and textual interviews with a diverse set of community
> members, to give an accessible insight into the variety of
> opinions on this topic represented in the IETF.
>
> - Data analysis and visualization To research and visualize the
> language used in current and historic RFCs and mailinglist
> discussions to expose core architectural principles, language and
> deliberations on human rights of those affected by the network.
>
> # As suggested by Seda and supported by dkg, including some
> language # suggestion from me:
>
> - Protocol analysis Data analysis and visualization of (existing)
> protocols in the wild to research their concrete impact on human
> rights.
>
> Membership Membership is open to any interested parties who intend
> to remain current with the published documents and mailing list
> issues.
>
> [0] http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ [1]
> http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Professiona= lInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx
>
>
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWWHy0AAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpGkoH/1dmcKIXgwNfW3FitXoyrdaq
EZoQo1DhOCCPXm/zHBkYs+fPIgztRFmF1asIxDHstB6AUdn5G12a+z+4Jn8vYwTg
MKyGjpewQzN+LaVR494FyGvLJKih5xumWP6mZNLWIcNu1KxjhNGBT1GGjordyCtu
JuEB6YYFRM/iH9NClPez9MCll0sunN5lIpdGMkI+nJT91erD487IvQdGzcBhYWS8
OFcsCW3FEYpvmpyJhxcHGPFdkQANSAgjpISzmno9bX52yp+fqzJrSAHETan+cv2j
slq33MMbqi8jcXHCsYbGYFKw/Mq7binNf/tze/Weu3iO5Ea3fdMWNT6CvbWMo7c=3D
=3DgWV/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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



--


'The management of normality is hard work&= #39;

--001a1146e1a279724e05259ecf00-- From nobody Sat Nov 28 18:32:02 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AD4A1B39C7 for ; Sat, 28 Nov 2015 18:32:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 51aJGskcclfn for ; Sat, 28 Nov 2015 18:31:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail1.bemta17.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta17.messagelabs.com [117.120.20.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17D0A1B39C5 for ; Sat, 28 Nov 2015 18:31:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from [117.120.20.147] by server-1.bemta-17.messagelabs.com id 8F/EC-15290-A936A565; Sun, 29 Nov 2015 02:31:54 +0000 X-Env-Sender: Stanley.Shanapinda@student.adfa.edu.au X-Msg-Ref: server-7.tower-81.messagelabs.com!1448764311!1788824!1 X-Originating-IP: [131.236.3.171] X-StarScan-Received: X-StarScan-Version: 7.19.2; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 24617 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2015 02:31:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ADFAPWEXCAS01.ad.adfa.edu.au) (131.236.3.171) by server-7.tower-81.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 29 Nov 2015 02:31:53 -0000 Received: from ADFAPWEXMBX02.ad.adfa.edu.au ([169.254.2.246]) by ADFAPWEXCAS01.ad.adfa.edu.au ([131.236.3.171]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Sun, 29 Nov 2015 13:31:50 +1100 From: Stanley Shanapinda To: Niels ten Oever , "hrpc@irtf.org" Thread-Topic: [hrpc] resolving pending charter issues Thread-Index: AQHRJ7vjnc2AXfvpmkmYfTD0vSt+KJ6teDbTgAHXtgCAAvy6mg== Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 02:31:49 +0000 Message-ID: <45272FFA14C4DA4D9E98923BA818A06D153B2545@ADFAPWEXMBX02.ad.adfa.edu.au> References: <5654E952.3070707@article19.org> <45272FFA14C4DA4D9E98923BA818A06D153B211D@ADFAPWEXMBX02.ad.adfa.edu.au>, <56587CB4.2000809@article19.org> In-Reply-To: <56587CB4.2000809@article19.org> Accept-Language: en-US, en-AU Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [131.236.3.179] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] resolving pending charter issues X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 02:32:01 -0000 Thanks Niels.=0A= ________________________________________=0A= From: Niels ten Oever [niels@article19.org]=0A= Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 2:54 AM=0A= To: Stanley Shanapinda; hrpc@irtf.org=0A= Subject: Re: [hrpc] resolving pending charter issues=0A= =0A= -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----=0A= Hash: SHA256=0A= =0A= Hi Stanley,=0A= =0A= Thanks a lot for your question. Privacy is not specifically mentioned=0A= because the problem of security as well as privacy are already much=0A= better understood in the IETF than other rights concepts.=0A= Privacy for instance is already mentioned in RFC1087 [0] and=0A= culminated in the great document RFC6973 [1] to which we are referring=0A= in the charter.=0A= =0A= So I would think it is sufficiently covered, let me know if after this=0A= you still think differently.=0A= =0A= Another nice piece of reading on this topic is by Nick Doty [2].=0A= =0A= Happy to discuss!=0A= =0A= Best,=0A= =0A= Niels=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= [0] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1087=0A= [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6973=0A= [2] https://npdoty.name/privacy-reviews/iwpe/=0A= =0A= Niels ten Oever=0A= Head of Digital=0A= =0A= Article 19=0A= www.article19.org=0A= =0A= PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4=0A= 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9=0A= =0A= On 11/26/2015 01:53 AM, Stanley Shanapinda wrote:=0A= > Dear All, Thanks Niels, it looks and reads pretty well. Is there a=0A= > particular reason "the right to privacy' was not specified as well=0A= > but is simply implied in the overall human rights context? One of=0A= > the fundamental issues considered in every protocol is security,=0A= > i.e. "security" from unauthorized access and interference. Secure=0A= > communications denotes "private' communications, In would like to=0A= > think. Thanks and regards Stanley=0A= > ________________________________________ From: Niels ten Oever=0A= > [niels@article19.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 9:48 AM=0A= > To: hrpc@irtf.org Subject: [hrpc] resolving pending charter issues=0A= >=0A= > Hello everyone,=0A= >=0A= > I looked at all comments provided on this list and other list and=0A= > have tried to resolve them below. Let me know what you think. The=0A= > edited version you can find on here on git:=0A= > https://github.com/nllz/IRTF-HRPC/blob/master/hrpc%20charter.txt=0A= >=0A= > Looking forward to hear if any questions, comments or burning=0A= > issues remain.=0A= >=0A= > Best,=0A= >=0A= > Niels=0A= >=0A= >=0A= > Background The Human Rights Protocol Consideration Proposed=0A= > Research Group is chartered to research whether standards and=0A= > protocols can enable, strengthen or threaten human rights, as=0A= > defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) [0] and=0A= > the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)=0A= > [1], specifically, but not limited to the right to freedom of=0A= > expression and the right to freedom of assembly.=0A= >=0A= > The research group takes as its starting point the problem=0A= > statement that human-rights-enabling characteristics of the=0A= > Internet might be degraded if they're not properly defined,=0A= > described and sufficiently taken into account in protocol=0A= > development. Not protecting these characteristics could result in=0A= > (partial) loss of functionality and connectivity.=0A= >=0A= > # Mat Ford pointed out that this is not a direct quote from=0A= > RFC1958, so # I changed 'stated in' into 'evinced by'.=0A= >=0A= > As evinced by RFC 1958, the Internet aims to be the global network=0A= > of networks that provides unfettered connectivity to all users at=0A= > all times and for any content. Open, secure and reliable=0A= > connectivity is essential for rights such as freedom of expression=0A= > and freedom of association. Since the Internet's objective of=0A= > connectivity makes it an enabler of human rights, its architectural=0A= > design converges with the human rights framework.=0A= >=0A= > # Both Ted Hardie and Robin Wilton made the remark that the=0A= > sentence # "Concerns for freedom of expression and association were=0A= > a strong part # of the world-view of the community involved in=0A= > developing the first # Internet protocols." might be a stretch, so=0A= > I removed it.=0A= >=0A= > The Internet was designed with freedom and openness of=0A= > communications as core values. But as the scale and the=0A= > industrialization of the Internet has grown greatly, the influence=0A= > of such world-views started to compete with other values.=0A= >=0A= > # Ted Hardie suggested 'explore' instead of 'expose' since 'exposed=0A= > # might sound a bit hostile. I have no problems with that.=0A= >=0A= > This research group aims to explore the relations between human=0A= > rights and protocols and to provide guidelines to inform future=0A= > protocol development and decision making where protocols impact=0A= > the effective exercise of the rights to freedom of expression or=0A= > association.=0A= >=0A= > Objective This research has two major aims: - to expose the=0A= > relation between protocols and human rights, with a focus on the=0A= > rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, and=0A= >=0A= > - to propose guidelines to protect the Internet as a human-rights-=0A= > enabling environment in future protocol development, in a manner=0A= > similar to the work done for Privacy Considerations in RFC 6973.=0A= >=0A= > # Introducing awareness raising as objective as per comment of=0A= > Stephen # and supported by Robin and dkg=0A= >=0A= > - to increase the awareness in both the human rights community and=0A= > the technical community on the importance of the technical=0A= > workings of the Internet and its impact on human rights.=0A= >=0A= > Outputs The research group plans on using a variety of research=0A= > methods to create different outputs including (but not limited=0A= > to):=0A= >=0A= > # As Lars and Mat Ford pointed out, IRSG RFC track should be IRSG=0A= > RFC # stream, and a Dirk pointed out 'tracking' might be a bit=0A= > vague, to I # replaced it with 'documenting the progress'=0A= >=0A= > - Internet drafts - (some of which may be put on IRSG RFC stream)=0A= > These would concern documenting the progress of the project,=0A= > methodology, and would define any possible protocol=0A= > considerations.=0A= >=0A= > - Policy and academic papers For in depth analysis and discussion=0A= > on the relationship between human rights and the Internet=0A= > architecture and protocols.=0A= >=0A= > # Based on the comments of Mary Burnes 'a diverse set' is=0A= > introduced # in the following para:=0A= >=0A= > - Film and textual interviews with a diverse set of community=0A= > members, to give an accessible insight into the variety of=0A= > opinions on this topic represented in the IETF.=0A= >=0A= > - Data analysis and visualization To research and visualize the=0A= > language used in current and historic RFCs and mailinglist=0A= > discussions to expose core architectural principles, language and=0A= > deliberations on human rights of those affected by the network.=0A= >=0A= > # As suggested by Seda and supported by dkg, including some=0A= > language # suggestion from me:=0A= >=0A= > - Protocol analysis Data analysis and visualization of (existing)=0A= > protocols in the wild to research their concrete impact on human=0A= > rights.=0A= >=0A= > Membership Membership is open to any interested parties who intend=0A= > to remain current with the published documents and mailing list=0A= > issues.=0A= >=0A= > [0] http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ [1]=0A= > http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx=0A= >=0A= >=0A= >=0A= >=0A= -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----=0A= Version: GnuPG v2=0A= =0A= iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWWHy0AAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpGkoH/1dmcKIXgwNfW3FitXoyrdaq=0A= EZoQo1DhOCCPXm/zHBkYs+fPIgztRFmF1asIxDHstB6AUdn5G12a+z+4Jn8vYwTg=0A= MKyGjpewQzN+LaVR494FyGvLJKih5xumWP6mZNLWIcNu1KxjhNGBT1GGjordyCtu=0A= JuEB6YYFRM/iH9NClPez9MCll0sunN5lIpdGMkI+nJT91erD487IvQdGzcBhYWS8=0A= OFcsCW3FEYpvmpyJhxcHGPFdkQANSAgjpISzmno9bX52yp+fqzJrSAHETan+cv2j=0A= slq33MMbqi8jcXHCsYbGYFKw/Mq7binNf/tze/Weu3iO5Ea3fdMWNT6CvbWMo7c=3D=0A= =3DgWV/=0A= -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----=0A= From nobody Sun Nov 29 15:45:13 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6D7B1B3BDD for ; Sun, 29 Nov 2015 15:45:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.424 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.424 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nHs7_EgkET7F for ; Sun, 29 Nov 2015 15:45:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.article19.io (vps784.greenhost.nl [213.108.108.114]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D1871B3BDA for ; Sun, 29 Nov 2015 15:45:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.article19.io (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52CEB164008; Sun, 29 Nov 2015 23:45:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29362164012; Sun, 29 Nov 2015 23:45:07 +0000 (UTC) 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 b2RDQnubbvr9; Sun, 29 Nov 2015 23:45:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.78] (sd5112335.adsl.online.nl [213.17.35.53]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1A704164008; Sun, 29 Nov 2015 23:45:06 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <565B8E01.907@article19.org> Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 00:45:05 +0100 From: Niels ten Oever User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Corinne Cath References: <5654E952.3070707@article19.org> <45272FFA14C4DA4D9E98923BA818A06D153B211D@ADFAPWEXMBX02.ad.adfa.edu.au> <56587CB4.2000809@article19.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Cc: Stanley Shanapinda , "hrpc@irtf.org" Subject: Re: [hrpc] resolving pending charter issues X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 23:45:13 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hi Corinne, The first mention of 'expose' was replaced by 'explore' as suggested by Ted Hardie. But I still think there is value in keeping 'expose' in there in the current instances because for me it goes back to the thinking in phenomenology where one, if one studies an object or relation close enough, the object or relation shows itself (Heidegger calls it 'zeigen' [0] and Merleau-Ponty calls it 'd=C3=A9couvrir' [1] if = I am not mistaken). So it let's the explanation come for the phenomena itself instead of 'explaining' or 'clarifying' it, which implies much more interpretation. Always happy to think of other wording, even though I would also like to get the charter out of the door and get on with the real work ;) Let me know what you think. Cheers, Niels [0] In: Kunst, Koennen und Technik [1] In: Ph=C3=A9nom=C3=A9nologie de la perception Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 On 11/28/2015 08:28 PM, Corinne Cath wrote: > Looks great! >=20 > Minor suggestion: change 'expose' (the relation between protocols > and human rights) to 'clarify' (the relation between protocols and > human rights). Expose feels a little like, I open the hood of the > car and there by expose its underlying workings but what we are > really doing goes one step beyond that we are actually trying to > understand and make explicit the relations between protocols and > human rights. But might be nit-picking. >=20 > Best, >=20 > Corinne >=20 > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Niels ten Oever > > wrote: >=20 > Hi Stanley, >=20 > Thanks a lot for your question. Privacy is not specifically > mentioned because the problem of security as well as privacy are > already much better understood in the IETF than other rights > concepts. Privacy for instance is already mentioned in RFC1087 [0] > and culminated in the great document RFC6973 [1] to which we are > referring in the charter. >=20 > So I would think it is sufficiently covered, let me know if after > this you still think differently. >=20 > Another nice piece of reading on this topic is by Nick Doty [2]. >=20 > Happy to discuss! >=20 > Best, >=20 > Niels >=20 >=20 >=20 > [0] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1087 [1] > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6973 [2] > https://npdoty.name/privacy-reviews/iwpe/ >=20 > Niels ten Oever Head of Digital >=20 > Article 19 www.article19.org >=20 > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D > 68E9 >=20 > On 11/26/2015 01:53 AM, Stanley Shanapinda wrote: >> Dear All, Thanks Niels, it looks and reads pretty well. Is there >> a particular reason "the right to privacy' was not specified as >> well but is simply implied in the overall human rights context? >> One of the fundamental issues considered in every protocol is >> security, i.e. "security" from unauthorized access and >> interference. Secure communications denotes "private' >> communications, In would like to think. Thanks and regards >> Stanley ________________________________________ From: Niels ten >> Oever [niels@article19.org ] Sent: >> Wednesday, > November 25, 2015 9:48 AM >> To: hrpc@irtf.org Subject: [hrpc] >> resolving > pending charter issues >=20 >> Hello everyone, >=20 >> I looked at all comments provided on this list and other list >> and have tried to resolve them below. Let me know what you think. >> The edited version you can find on here on git:=20 >> https://github.com/nllz/IRTF-HRPC/blob/master/hrpc%20charter.txt >=20 >> Looking forward to hear if any questions, comments or burning=20 >> issues remain. >=20 >> Best, >=20 >> Niels >=20 >=20 >> Background The Human Rights Protocol Consideration Proposed=20 >> Research Group is chartered to research whether standards and=20 >> protocols can enable, strengthen or threaten human rights, as=20 >> defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) [0] >> and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights >> (ICCPR) [1], specifically, but not limited to the right to >> freedom of expression and the right to freedom of assembly. >=20 >> The research group takes as its starting point the problem=20 >> statement that human-rights-enabling characteristics of the=20 >> Internet might be degraded if they're not properly defined,=20 >> described and sufficiently taken into account in protocol=20 >> development. Not protecting these characteristics could result >> in (partial) loss of functionality and connectivity. >=20 >> # Mat Ford pointed out that this is not a direct quote from=20 >> RFC1958, so # I changed 'stated in' into 'evinced by'. >=20 >> As evinced by RFC 1958, the Internet aims to be the global >> network of networks that provides unfettered connectivity to all >> users at all times and for any content. Open, secure and >> reliable connectivity is essential for rights such as freedom of >> expression and freedom of association. Since the Internet's >> objective of connectivity makes it an enabler of human rights, >> its architectural design converges with the human rights >> framework. >=20 >> # Both Ted Hardie and Robin Wilton made the remark that the=20 >> sentence # "Concerns for freedom of expression and association >> were a strong part # of the world-view of the community involved >> in developing the first # Internet protocols." might be a >> stretch, so I removed it. >=20 >> The Internet was designed with freedom and openness of=20 >> communications as core values. But as the scale and the=20 >> industrialization of the Internet has grown greatly, the >> influence of such world-views started to compete with other >> values. >=20 >> # Ted Hardie suggested 'explore' instead of 'expose' since >> 'exposed # might sound a bit hostile. I have no problems with >> that. >=20 >> This research group aims to explore the relations between human=20 >> rights and protocols and to provide guidelines to inform future=20 >> protocol development and decision making where protocols impact=20 >> the effective exercise of the rights to freedom of expression or=20 >> association. >=20 >> Objective This research has two major aims: - to expose the=20 >> relation between protocols and human rights, with a focus on the=20 >> rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, and >=20 >> - to propose guidelines to protect the Internet as a >> human-rights- enabling environment in future protocol >> development, in a manner similar to the work done for Privacy >> Considerations in RFC 6973. >=20 >> # Introducing awareness raising as objective as per comment of=20 >> Stephen # and supported by Robin and dkg >=20 >> - to increase the awareness in both the human rights community >> and the technical community on the importance of the technical=20 >> workings of the Internet and its impact on human rights. >=20 >> Outputs The research group plans on using a variety of research=20 >> methods to create different outputs including (but not limited=20 >> to): >=20 >> # As Lars and Mat Ford pointed out, IRSG RFC track should be >> IRSG RFC # stream, and a Dirk pointed out 'tracking' might be a >> bit vague, to I # replaced it with 'documenting the progress' >=20 >> - Internet drafts - (some of which may be put on IRSG RFC >> stream) These would concern documenting the progress of the >> project, methodology, and would define any possible protocol=20 >> considerations. >=20 >> - Policy and academic papers For in depth analysis and >> discussion on the relationship between human rights and the >> Internet architecture and protocols. >=20 >> # Based on the comments of Mary Burnes 'a diverse set' is=20 >> introduced # in the following para: >=20 >> - Film and textual interviews with a diverse set of community=20 >> members, to give an accessible insight into the variety of=20 >> opinions on this topic represented in the IETF. >=20 >> - Data analysis and visualization To research and visualize the=20 >> language used in current and historic RFCs and mailinglist=20 >> discussions to expose core architectural principles, language >> and deliberations on human rights of those affected by the >> network. >=20 >> # As suggested by Seda and supported by dkg, including some=20 >> language # suggestion from me: >=20 >> - Protocol analysis Data analysis and visualization of >> (existing) protocols in the wild to research their concrete >> impact on human rights. >=20 >> Membership Membership is open to any interested parties who >> intend to remain current with the published documents and mailing >> list issues. >=20 >> [0] http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ [1]=20 >> http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ hrpc mailing list=20 > hrpc@irtf.org =20 > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > -- >=20 >=20 > 'The management of normality is hard work' >=20 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWW44BAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjptwQH/3D/yNb/fySOJLhU6zS1UhKX Lr2QV0jfHNVT409MHrXxzvb2l3S3SfjzRy1GzyjP7Mrzaq2Szn+nfaL+E/5kcu4h WfP7uuZ4YcIqpTxzVCXwOCb4issZe3068xZtzEVsozYTBWvBNu1TjsJWViltupzk Y+7T67ayHjzx2ONIxlgkAAusHTcxwo3SfP2Moj1pAYZqediqlk8nqFS6Jcn6qG2l +S7C6xgkBWyV4CdpgOBOgYZh88mdwQ6G9nZ2vpXtU3AR2pUo7jeRBg5i+u4tcIHX A8fyDSDeEzu/UfusYfDt+fp7eAbPM5TWGvzxLAB3VULKq+s7DaiAQMp2k0V6dz0=3D =3DmsmI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From nobody Mon Nov 30 01:51:58 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06B091A8938 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 01:51:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3idP8WHcJG1j for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 01:51:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x22a.google.com (mail-wm0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 555081A8937 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 01:51:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by wmec201 with SMTP id c201so130099151wme.1 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 01:51:50 -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=3f9NLoWtdxR3elCliI9xZSiAN+7ZiTgVDxdSlJtNZEM=; b=Ecfu6oXOSfp5Ep77nEKgEJjnDyB9f5w+j2QdOhQY6wP7qEsMBy2Oa+gn7d0QkK4uVM 5rTYdxbd+ifj1dTdcw/aYx0dTBJnNzUgGDrEzKAmkXsrYrFaWosfjLE5OuqRuFiZ99dp cvY651sTSMSmwl08hC8w6EMh7QwFkdhSbb3DlVr8TaorlGsUk6egdhr02Ibpdd5m/kaf EgctDsutxwUCRtRhPd0x77yBpVhjftXl7uyX/Vbvae4/pMGC7UR2eqLv/XHfyNT2qQe7 RY0T3kiCredj0gVMorx4qJeCG0hrzcthWp1/2Ozyil1h7sqPYlOb28PQqXCtuz27HoMn rK0w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.28.23.83 with SMTP id 80mr27264889wmx.78.1448877110642; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 01:51:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.89.129 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 01:51:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <565B8E01.907@article19.org> References: <5654E952.3070707@article19.org> <45272FFA14C4DA4D9E98923BA818A06D153B211D@ADFAPWEXMBX02.ad.adfa.edu.au> <56587CB4.2000809@article19.org> <565B8E01.907@article19.org> Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 09:51:50 +0000 Message-ID: From: Corinne Cath To: Niels ten Oever Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1146e1a280d1d40525befd82 Archived-At: Cc: Stanley Shanapinda , "hrpc@irtf.org" Subject: Re: [hrpc] resolving pending charter issues X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 09:51:57 -0000 --001a1146e1a280d1d40525befd82 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable All for getting it out the door! On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 11:45 PM, Niels ten Oever wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > Hi Corinne, > > The first mention of 'expose' was replaced by 'explore' as suggested > by Ted Hardie. But I still think there is value in keeping 'expose' in > there in the current instances because for me it goes back to the > thinking in phenomenology where one, if one studies an object or > relation close enough, the object or relation shows itself (Heidegger > calls it 'zeigen' [0] and Merleau-Ponty calls it 'd=C3=A9couvrir' [1] if = I > am not mistaken). > > So it let's the explanation come for the phenomena itself instead of > 'explaining' or 'clarifying' it, which implies much more interpretation. > > Always happy to think of other wording, even though I would also like > to get the charter out of the door and get on with the real work ;) > > Let me know what you think. > > Cheers, > > Niels > > [0] In: Kunst, Koennen und Technik > [1] In: Ph=C3=A9nom=C3=A9nologie de la perception > > > > Niels ten Oever > Head of Digital > > Article 19 > www.article19.org > > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 > > On 11/28/2015 08:28 PM, Corinne Cath wrote: > > Looks great! > > > > Minor suggestion: change 'expose' (the relation between protocols > > and human rights) to 'clarify' (the relation between protocols and > > human rights). Expose feels a little like, I open the hood of the > > car and there by expose its underlying workings but what we are > > really doing goes one step beyond that we are actually trying to > > understand and make explicit the relations between protocols and > > human rights. But might be nit-picking. > > > > Best, > > > > Corinne > > > > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Niels ten Oever > > > wrote: > > > > Hi Stanley, > > > > Thanks a lot for your question. Privacy is not specifically > > mentioned because the problem of security as well as privacy are > > already much better understood in the IETF than other rights > > concepts. Privacy for instance is already mentioned in RFC1087 [0] > > and culminated in the great document RFC6973 [1] to which we are > > referring in the charter. > > > > So I would think it is sufficiently covered, let me know if after > > this you still think differently. > > > > Another nice piece of reading on this topic is by Nick Doty [2]. > > > > Happy to discuss! > > > > Best, > > > > Niels > > > > > > > > [0] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1087 [1] > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6973 [2] > > https://npdoty.name/privacy-reviews/iwpe/ > > > > Niels ten Oever Head of Digital > > > > Article 19 www.article19.org > > > > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D > > 68E9 > > > > On 11/26/2015 01:53 AM, Stanley Shanapinda wrote: > >> Dear All, Thanks Niels, it looks and reads pretty well. Is there > >> a particular reason "the right to privacy' was not specified as > >> well but is simply implied in the overall human rights context? > >> One of the fundamental issues considered in every protocol is > >> security, i.e. "security" from unauthorized access and > >> interference. Secure communications denotes "private' > >> communications, In would like to think. Thanks and regards > >> Stanley ________________________________________ From: Niels ten > >> Oever [niels@article19.org ] Sent: > >> Wednesday, > > November 25, 2015 9:48 AM > >> To: hrpc@irtf.org Subject: [hrpc] > >> resolving > > pending charter issues > > > >> Hello everyone, > > > >> I looked at all comments provided on this list and other list > >> and have tried to resolve them below. Let me know what you think. > >> The edited version you can find on here on git: > >> https://github.com/nllz/IRTF-HRPC/blob/master/hrpc%20charter.txt > > > >> Looking forward to hear if any questions, comments or burning > >> issues remain. > > > >> Best, > > > >> Niels > > > > > >> Background The Human Rights Protocol Consideration Proposed > >> Research Group is chartered to research whether standards and > >> protocols can enable, strengthen or threaten human rights, as > >> defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) [0] > >> and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights > >> (ICCPR) [1], specifically, but not limited to the right to > >> freedom of expression and the right to freedom of assembly. > > > >> The research group takes as its starting point the problem > >> statement that human-rights-enabling characteristics of the > >> Internet might be degraded if they're not properly defined, > >> described and sufficiently taken into account in protocol > >> development. Not protecting these characteristics could result > >> in (partial) loss of functionality and connectivity. > > > >> # Mat Ford pointed out that this is not a direct quote from > >> RFC1958, so # I changed 'stated in' into 'evinced by'. > > > >> As evinced by RFC 1958, the Internet aims to be the global > >> network of networks that provides unfettered connectivity to all > >> users at all times and for any content. Open, secure and > >> reliable connectivity is essential for rights such as freedom of > >> expression and freedom of association. Since the Internet's > >> objective of connectivity makes it an enabler of human rights, > >> its architectural design converges with the human rights > >> framework. > > > >> # Both Ted Hardie and Robin Wilton made the remark that the > >> sentence # "Concerns for freedom of expression and association > >> were a strong part # of the world-view of the community involved > >> in developing the first # Internet protocols." might be a > >> stretch, so I removed it. > > > >> The Internet was designed with freedom and openness of > >> communications as core values. But as the scale and the > >> industrialization of the Internet has grown greatly, the > >> influence of such world-views started to compete with other > >> values. > > > >> # Ted Hardie suggested 'explore' instead of 'expose' since > >> 'exposed # might sound a bit hostile. I have no problems with > >> that. > > > >> This research group aims to explore the relations between human > >> rights and protocols and to provide guidelines to inform future > >> protocol development and decision making where protocols impact > >> the effective exercise of the rights to freedom of expression or > >> association. > > > >> Objective This research has two major aims: - to expose the > >> relation between protocols and human rights, with a focus on the > >> rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, and > > > >> - to propose guidelines to protect the Internet as a > >> human-rights- enabling environment in future protocol > >> development, in a manner similar to the work done for Privacy > >> Considerations in RFC 6973. > > > >> # Introducing awareness raising as objective as per comment of > >> Stephen # and supported by Robin and dkg > > > >> - to increase the awareness in both the human rights community > >> and the technical community on the importance of the technical > >> workings of the Internet and its impact on human rights. > > > >> Outputs The research group plans on using a variety of research > >> methods to create different outputs including (but not limited > >> to): > > > >> # As Lars and Mat Ford pointed out, IRSG RFC track should be > >> IRSG RFC # stream, and a Dirk pointed out 'tracking' might be a > >> bit vague, to I # replaced it with 'documenting the progress' > > > >> - Internet drafts - (some of which may be put on IRSG RFC > >> stream) These would concern documenting the progress of the > >> project, methodology, and would define any possible protocol > >> considerations. > > > >> - Policy and academic papers For in depth analysis and > >> discussion on the relationship between human rights and the > >> Internet architecture and protocols. > > > >> # Based on the comments of Mary Burnes 'a diverse set' is > >> introduced # in the following para: > > > >> - Film and textual interviews with a diverse set of community > >> members, to give an accessible insight into the variety of > >> opinions on this topic represented in the IETF. > > > >> - Data analysis and visualization To research and visualize the > >> language used in current and historic RFCs and mailinglist > >> discussions to expose core architectural principles, language > >> and deliberations on human rights of those affected by the > >> network. > > > >> # As suggested by Seda and supported by dkg, including some > >> language # suggestion from me: > > > >> - Protocol analysis Data analysis and visualization of > >> (existing) protocols in the wild to research their concrete > >> impact on human rights. > > > >> Membership Membership is open to any interested parties who > >> intend to remain current with the published documents and mailing > >> list issues. > > > >> [0] http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ [1] > >> http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ hrpc mailing list > > hrpc@irtf.org > > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > 'The management of normality is hard work' > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2 > > iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWW44BAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjptwQH/3D/yNb/fySOJLhU6zS1UhKX > Lr2QV0jfHNVT409MHrXxzvb2l3S3SfjzRy1GzyjP7Mrzaq2Szn+nfaL+E/5kcu4h > WfP7uuZ4YcIqpTxzVCXwOCb4issZe3068xZtzEVsozYTBWvBNu1TjsJWViltupzk > Y+7T67ayHjzx2ONIxlgkAAusHTcxwo3SfP2Moj1pAYZqediqlk8nqFS6Jcn6qG2l > +S7C6xgkBWyV4CdpgOBOgYZh88mdwQ6G9nZ2vpXtU3AR2pUo7jeRBg5i+u4tcIHX > A8fyDSDeEzu/UfusYfDt+fp7eAbPM5TWGvzxLAB3VULKq+s7DaiAQMp2k0V6dz0=3D > =3DmsmI > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > --=20 'The management of normality is hard work' --001a1146e1a280d1d40525befd82 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
All for getting it out the door!

On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 11:45 PM, Nie= ls ten Oever <niels@article19.org> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Hi Corinne,

The first mention of 'expose' was replaced by 'explore' as = suggested
by Ted Hardie. But I still think there is value in keeping 'expose'= in
there in the current instances because for me it goes back to the
thinking in phenomenology where one, if one studies an object or
relation close enough, the object or relation shows itself (Heidegger
calls it 'zeigen' [0] and Merleau-Ponty calls it 'd=C3=A9couvri= r' [1] if I
am not mistaken).

So it let's the explanation come for the phenomena itself instead of 'explaining' or 'clarifying' it, which implies much more in= terpretation.

Always happy to think of other wording, even though I would also like
to get the charter out of the door and get on with the real work ;)

Let me know what you think.

Cheers,

Niels

[0] In: Kunst, Koennen und Technik
[1] In: Ph=C3=A9nom=C3=A9nologie de la perception



Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
w= ww.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

On 11/28/2015 08:28 PM, Corinne Cath wrote:
> Looks great!
>
> Minor suggestion: change 'expose' (the relation between protoc= ols
> and human rights) to 'clarify' (the relation between protocols= and
> human rights). Expose feels a little like, I open the hood of the
> car and there by expose its underlying workings but what we are
> really doing goes one step beyond that we are actually trying to
> understand and make explicit the relations between protocols and
> human rights. But might be nit-picking.
>
> Best,
>
> Corinne
>
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Niels ten Oever
> <nie= ls@article19.org <mailto:niel= s@article19.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi Stanley,
>
> Thanks a lot for your question. Privacy is not specifically
> mentioned because the problem of security as well as privacy are
> already much better understood in the IETF than other rights
> concepts. Privacy for instance is already mentioned in RFC1087 [0]
> and culminated in the great document RFC6973 [1] to which we are
> referring in the charter.
>
> So I would think it is sufficiently covered, let me know if after
> this you still think differently.
>
> Another nice piece of reading on this topic is by Nick Doty [2].
>
> Happy to discuss!
>
> Best,
>
> Niels
>
>
>
> [0] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1087 [1]
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6973 [2]
> https://npdoty.name/privacy-reviews/iwpe/
>
> Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
>
> Article 19 www.article19.org <http://www.article19.org= >
>
> PGP fingerprint=C2=A0 =C2=A0 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 6= 36D
> 68E9
>
> On 11/26/2015 01:53 AM, Stanley Shanapinda wrote:
>> Dear All, Thanks Niels, it looks and reads pretty well. Is there >> a particular reason "the right to privacy' was not specif= ied as
>> well but is simply implied in the overall human rights context? >> One of the fundamental issues considered in every protocol is
>> security, i.e. "security" from unauthorized access and >> interference. Secure communications denotes "private'
>> communications, In would like to think. Thanks and regards
>> Stanley ________________________________________ From: Niels ten >> Oever [niels@article= 19.org <mailto:niels@article1= 9.org>] Sent:
>> Wednesday,
> November 25, 2015 9:48 AM
>> To: hrpc@irtf.org <= mailto:hrpc@irtf.org> Subject: [hrp= c]
>> resolving
> pending charter issues
>
>> Hello everyone,
>
>> I looked at all comments provided on this list and other list
>> and have tried to resolve them below. Let me know what you think.<= br> >> The edited version you can find on here on git:
>> https://github.com/nllz/IRT= F-HRPC/blob/master/hrpc%20charter.txt
>
>> Looking forward to hear if any questions, comments or burning
>> issues remain.
>
>> Best,
>
>> Niels
>
>
>> Background The Human Rights Protocol Consideration Proposed
>> Research Group is chartered to research whether standards and
>> protocols can enable, strengthen or threaten human rights, as
>> defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) [0] >> and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
>> (ICCPR) [1], specifically, but not limited to the right to
>> freedom of expression and the right to freedom of assembly.
>
>> The research group takes as its starting point the problem
>> statement that human-rights-enabling characteristics of the
>> Internet might be degraded if they're not properly defined, >> described and sufficiently taken into account in protocol
>> development. Not protecting these characteristics could result
>> in (partial) loss of functionality and connectivity.
>
>> # Mat Ford pointed out that this is not a direct quote from
>> RFC1958, so # I changed 'stated in' into 'evinced by&#= 39;.
>
>> As evinced by RFC 1958, the Internet aims to be the global
>> network of networks that provides unfettered connectivity to all >> users at all times and for any content. Open, secure and
>> reliable connectivity is essential for rights such as freedom of >> expression and freedom of association. Since the Internet's >> objective of connectivity makes it an enabler of human rights,
>> its architectural design converges with the human rights
>> framework.
>
>> # Both Ted Hardie and Robin Wilton made the remark that the
>> sentence # "Concerns for freedom of expression and associatio= n
>> were a strong part # of the world-view of the community involved >> in developing the first # Internet protocols." might be a
>> stretch, so I removed it.
>
>> The Internet was designed with freedom and openness of
>> communications as core values. But as the scale and the
>> industrialization of the Internet has grown greatly, the
>> influence of such world-views started to compete with other
>> values.
>
>> # Ted Hardie suggested 'explore' instead of 'expose= 9; since
>> 'exposed # might sound a bit hostile. I have no problems with<= br> >> that.
>
>> This research group aims to explore the relations between human >> rights and protocols and to provide guidelines to inform future >> protocol development and decision making where protocols impact >> the effective exercise of the rights to freedom of expression or >> association.
>
>> Objective This research has two major aims: - to expose the
>> relation between protocols and human rights, with a focus on the >> rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, and
>
>> - to propose guidelines to protect the Internet as a
>> human-rights- enabling environment in future protocol
>> development, in a manner similar to the work done for Privacy
>> Considerations in RFC 6973.
>
>> # Introducing awareness raising as objective as per comment of
>> Stephen # and supported by Robin and dkg
>
>> - to increase the awareness in both the human rights community
>> and the technical community on the importance of the technical
>> workings of the Internet and its impact on human rights.
>
>> Outputs The research group plans on using=C2=A0 a variety of resea= rch
>> methods to create different outputs including (but not limited
>> to):
>
>> # As Lars and Mat Ford pointed out, IRSG RFC track should be
>> IRSG RFC # stream, and a Dirk pointed out 'tracking' might= be a
>> bit vague, to I # replaced it with 'documenting the progress&#= 39;
>
>> - Internet drafts - (some of which may be put on IRSG RFC
>> stream) These would concern documenting the progress of the
>> project, methodology, and would define any possible protocol
>> considerations.
>
>> - Policy and academic papers For in depth analysis and
>> discussion on the relationship between human rights and the
>> Internet architecture and protocols.
>
>> # Based on the comments of Mary Burnes 'a diverse set' is<= br> >> introduced # in the following para:
>
>> - Film and textual interviews with a diverse set of community
>> members, to give an accessible insight into the variety of
>> opinions on this topic represented in the IETF.
>
>> - Data analysis and visualization To research and visualize the >> language used in current and historic RFCs and mailinglist
>> discussions to expose core architectural principles, language
>> and deliberations on human rights of those affected by the
>> network.
>
>> # As suggested by Seda and supported by dkg, including some
>> language # suggestion from me:
>
>> - Protocol analysis Data analysis and visualization of
>> (existing) protocols in the wild to research their concrete
>> impact on human rights.
>
>> Membership Membership is open to any interested parties who
>> intend to remain current with the published documents and mailing<= br> >> list issues.
>
>> [0] http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ [1]
>> http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Profess= ionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ hrpc maili= ng list
> hrpc@irtf.org <mailto:hrpc@irtf.org>
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinf= o/hrpc
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> 'The management of normality is hard work'
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWW44BAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjptwQH/3D/yNb/fySOJLhU6zS1UhKX
Lr2QV0jfHNVT409MHrXxzvb2l3S3SfjzRy1GzyjP7Mrzaq2Szn+nfaL+E/5kcu4h
WfP7uuZ4YcIqpTxzVCXwOCb4issZe3068xZtzEVsozYTBWvBNu1TjsJWViltupzk
Y+7T67ayHjzx2ONIxlgkAAusHTcxwo3SfP2Moj1pAYZqediqlk8nqFS6Jcn6qG2l
+S7C6xgkBWyV4CdpgOBOgYZh88mdwQ6G9nZ2vpXtU3AR2pUo7jeRBg5i+u4tcIHX
A8fyDSDeEzu/UfusYfDt+fp7eAbPM5TWGvzxLAB3VULKq+s7DaiAQMp2k0V6dz0=3D
=3DmsmI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



--


'The management of normality is hard work'

<= /div>
--001a1146e1a280d1d40525befd82-- From nobody Mon Nov 30 08:27:04 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D5AD1ACECB for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 08:27:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.323 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.323 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UwRGtT4HGn8p for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 08:27:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.article19.io (vps784.greenhost.nl [213.108.108.114]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69CA51ACEC0 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 08:27:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.article19.io (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29FF2124033 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 16:26:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19CF7124032 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 16:26:59 +0000 (UTC) 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 CA7VNxq_Fa0i for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 16:26:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [145.18.163.99] (wcw-staff-145-18-163-99.wireless.uva.nl [145.18.163.99]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D1282124030 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 16:26:58 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <565C78D2.2010801@article19.org> Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 17:26:58 +0100 From: Niels ten Oever User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "hrpc@irtf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] we've been chartered! X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 16:27:03 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 https://irtf.org/hrpc Cheers, 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 v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWXHjSAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjp8NcIAJVPFq8wex9YOBmczdOVYVt7 bnikgIkeCS/ffvJla+f/UjRLgzW/YAMcGVK9UUvjZwNDOffqfSDZshFf48lwZqIw h1LmWVeF0GXlmwJKw8YnXYVK3mF2ES0lUflumZb/ts9rDc4Tz5GvNKobWniID2uL uEhWGL/GSIw7ABoUoonsd3SE+7MEfeJWSCc12XgdOLr1Udr8nYb8PPrRO6AQO8/Q EnBZCUPINoRPISBKcF6HgLoBAlnsf2Y4QEgeBi4r38uZFDNsLx85+NCeyrlx7gfg J2Sdb6XzgnHI9KAANJ4HJzXQRrjIEiYLM1zib7Wvheywc949xODwVVgjlFJHVog= =IRaA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From nobody Mon Nov 30 08:37:43 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EBC11ACF58 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 08:37:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HEV8d69NnrEE for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 08:37:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x22e.google.com (mail-wm0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6E3E1ACF54 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 08:37:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by wmvv187 with SMTP id v187so165781618wmv.1 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 08:37:38 -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=uDEbhoxIy0UVNJfM++c3gSqu6BQ26Nhv5RaF7TLdveE=; b=XiNMLl5YEgO0l1V5lFf7cPs9G02c2HU3gk9A7vdouDAq/mj+iaBavPA2xFDO2urUUa hL48OpEqLC5XbSgmxQOIGMoLOEKMiFNYgQUNspDSuFwzglovV2+fZdaLN9SCVUm/fXeU Iy5/GqIMUlekyfyYm8ANB3YsYx1dWUyZ6CuOoLar7FSjpUXzNBl/1s2ZnlH2lajDWqcC Zrt7ShTo/unFI4IoFJ0Rs9G3RlNlaGJ5ljksmL63RHDAYppgmMooi872GhJRJG6qBW2O /PdB6HxWvmQFPJiIBzwhpeBCfHDqY9y+ehiV9lnLCdvCtGRXGLsloXQlPqdXvJ8Sou0g 1dXQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.23.33 with SMTP id j1mr73349084wjf.4.1448901458149; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 08:37:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.89.129 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 08:37:38 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <565C78D2.2010801@article19.org> References: <565C78D2.2010801@article19.org> Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 16:37:38 +0000 Message-ID: From: Corinne Cath To: Niels ten Oever Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f234dd3ba49710525c4a837 Archived-At: Cc: "hrpc@irtf.org" Subject: Re: [hrpc] we've been chartered! X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 16:37:41 -0000 --e89a8f234dd3ba49710525c4a837 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 whoop whoop! On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Niels ten Oever wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > https://irtf.org/hrpc > > Cheers, > > 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 v2 > > iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWXHjSAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjp8NcIAJVPFq8wex9YOBmczdOVYVt7 > bnikgIkeCS/ffvJla+f/UjRLgzW/YAMcGVK9UUvjZwNDOffqfSDZshFf48lwZqIw > h1LmWVeF0GXlmwJKw8YnXYVK3mF2ES0lUflumZb/ts9rDc4Tz5GvNKobWniID2uL > uEhWGL/GSIw7ABoUoonsd3SE+7MEfeJWSCc12XgdOLr1Udr8nYb8PPrRO6AQO8/Q > EnBZCUPINoRPISBKcF6HgLoBAlnsf2Y4QEgeBi4r38uZFDNsLx85+NCeyrlx7gfg > J2Sdb6XzgnHI9KAANJ4HJzXQRrjIEiYLM1zib7Wvheywc949xODwVVgjlFJHVog= > =IRaA > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > -- 'The management of normality is hard work' --e89a8f234dd3ba49710525c4a837 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
whoop whoop!

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Niels ten Oever <nie= ls@article19.org> wrote:
--= ---BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

http= s://irtf.org/hrpc

Cheers,

Niels
- --
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
w= ww.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 v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWXHjSAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjp8NcIAJVPFq8wex9YOBmczdOVYVt7
bnikgIkeCS/ffvJla+f/UjRLgzW/YAMcGVK9UUvjZwNDOffqfSDZshFf48lwZqIw
h1LmWVeF0GXlmwJKw8YnXYVK3mF2ES0lUflumZb/ts9rDc4Tz5GvNKobWniID2uL
uEhWGL/GSIw7ABoUoonsd3SE+7MEfeJWSCc12XgdOLr1Udr8nYb8PPrRO6AQO8/Q
EnBZCUPINoRPISBKcF6HgLoBAlnsf2Y4QEgeBi4r38uZFDNsLx85+NCeyrlx7gfg
J2Sdb6XzgnHI9KAANJ4HJzXQRrjIEiYLM1zib7Wvheywc949xODwVVgjlFJHVog=3D
=3DIRaA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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



--


'The management of normality is hard work'

<= /div>
--e89a8f234dd3ba49710525c4a837-- From nobody Mon Nov 30 11:48:14 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC6711B2FEA for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 11:48:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qcml4cTsP1A8 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 11:48:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.bortzmeyer.org (aetius.bortzmeyer.org [IPv6:2001:4b98:dc0:41:216:3eff:fece:1902]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA94A1B2FE9 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 11:48:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id 0CF8E3BB87; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 20:48:07 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail.sources.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3F762CB6BC; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 20:43:10 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 20:43:10 +0100 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <20151130194310.GA18142@sources.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Transport: UUCP rules X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 8.2 X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] "Everyday Surveillance" (workshop at CHI) X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 19:48:12 -0000 This workshop will take place at CHI, the largest international conference on user interfaces. This is a new world for computer security: until now, security experts and user interface experts did not work a lot together. http://www.everydaysurveillance.com/