From nobody Wed Aug 3 07:31:07 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EB3D12DCC0 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 07:31:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JZrT0Ay43r8H for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 07:31:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net (mxout-08.mxes.net [216.86.168.183]) (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 B8E2612DD0C for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 07:27:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.98.220] (unknown [62.154.197.60]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 67B7550A84 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 10:27:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Mark Nottingham Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 16:27:16 +0200 References: <20160803142523.6140.42173.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: hrpc@irtf.org Message-Id: <6333B9D5-4823-4005-B9CF-F7EE59DBE5E9@mnot.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-for-the-users-03.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2016 14:31:06 -0000 FYI. The major change here is that the requirements around documenting = relevant parties have been softened to suggestions; the only requirement = in the document is that end users have precedence. It probably needs some more language around what an "end user" is. Prettier version at: https://mnot.github.io/I-D/for-the-users/ As always, feedback welcome. Cheers, > Begin forwarded message: >=20 > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org > Subject: New Version Notification for = draft-nottingham-for-the-users-03.txt > Date: 3 August 2016 at 4:25:23 PM GMT+2 > To: "Mark Nottingham" >=20 >=20 > A new version of I-D, draft-nottingham-for-the-users-03.txt > has been successfully submitted by Mark Nottingham and posted to the > IETF repository. >=20 > Name: draft-nottingham-for-the-users > Revision: 03 > Title: The Internet is for End Users > Document date: 2016-08-03 > Group: Individual Submission > Pages: 9 > URL: = https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-for-the-users-03.txt= > Status: = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-for-the-users/ > Htmlized: = https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-for-the-users-03 > Diff: = https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-nottingham-for-the-users-03 >=20 > Abstract: > Internet standards serve and are used by a variety of communities. > This document makes suggestions for explicitly identifying them, > serving them, and determining how to resolve conflicts between their > interests, when necessary. >=20 > It also requires that Internet Standards consider end users as their > highest priority concern. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of = submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >=20 > The IETF Secretariat >=20 -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ From nobody Wed Aug 3 08:20:10 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A225512DCAF for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 08:20:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.92 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iVpcRBbmFcjN for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 08:20:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pmta2.delivery5.ore.mailhop.org (pmta2.delivery5.ore.mailhop.org [54.186.218.12]) (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 A4EA912D689 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 08:18:26 -0700 (PDT) X-MHO-User: b33141cf-598d-11e6-8929-8ded99d5e9d7 X-Report-Abuse-To: https://support.duocircle.com/support/solutions/articles/5000540958-duocircle-standard-smtp-abuse-information X-Originating-IP: 108.56.132.173 X-Mail-Handler: DuoCircle Outbound SMTP Received: from fullerite.fios-router.home (unknown [108.56.132.173]) by outbound2.ore.mailhop.org (Halon Mail Gateway) with ESMTPSA; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 15:19:40 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: John Curran In-Reply-To: <6333B9D5-4823-4005-B9CF-F7EE59DBE5E9@mnot.net> Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 11:18:23 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7166C5D3-8CA3-41FD-BA4B-F4164E852240@istaff.org> References: <20160803142523.6140.42173.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6333B9D5-4823-4005-B9CF-F7EE59DBE5E9@mnot.net> To: Mark Nottingham X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Archived-At: Cc: hrpc@irtf.org Subject: Re: [hrpc] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-for-the-users-03.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2016 15:20:09 -0000 On Aug 3, 2016, at 10:27 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote: >=20 > FYI. The major change here is that the requirements around documenting = relevant parties have been softened to suggestions; the only requirement = in the document is that end users have precedence. >=20 > It probably needs some more language around what an "end user" is. Mark -=20 =20 Excellent draft. I will note that there is some inherent difficultly in = implementation of the main principle (i.e. "Internet standards MUST NOT consider any other = party to=20 have higher priority over end users.=E2=80=9D), and it comes from the = fact that sometimes=20 the other parties may actually be proxies for the interests of = particular segments=20 of the end-user community. For example, no one generally speaks for the need of fire departments, = until they=20 are part of that very small portion of the population whose homes have = been on fire=E2=80=A6 Similarly, most folks do not have express a direct interest in smoke = detectors, but the=20 very high level of interest for those who needed them (when they needed = them) means that it is not always so simple to understand the overall interests of a = large community=20 simply by engaging in discussion of what is their most widely held = views. I don=E2=80=99t think this undermines the value of the draft in any = manner, and note that this=20 difficulty is recognized somewhat with respect to information security = (where it notes=20 that =E2=80=9Cend users cannot be reasonably expected to make informed = decisions about=20 security=E2=80=A6=E2=80=9D thus resulting in computer security experts = representing their default=20 security requirements; i.e. there may be other circumstances where it is = difficult for the end-users community to engage in informed decision making, simply = due to lack=20 of familiarity with the details that might be unique to a subset of = their population. In short, significant care will be needed in applying the principles in = the document to ensure that the interests of end-users are protected, even those = interests which are not common but involve significant adverse consequences for those = end-users who are affected. Some situations that come to mind offhand include = tradeoffs in end-user interests regarding accessibility accommodation, victims of = criminal activity,=20 diverse language support, etc. Excellent job on the draft - thanks for writing this! /John Disclaimer: my views alone From nobody Sun Aug 7 21:38:09 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51AD812D7F9 for ; Sun, 7 Aug 2016 21:38:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qrwXyKiA10G5 for ; Sun, 7 Aug 2016 21:38:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) (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 C24F312D7E4 for ; Sun, 7 Aug 2016 21:38:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.101] (unknown [124.189.98.244]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A8BA922E253; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 00:37:51 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Mark Nottingham In-Reply-To: <7166C5D3-8CA3-41FD-BA4B-F4164E852240@istaff.org> Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 14:37:48 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <92D5F182-2286-4B4C-9D17-4A02343539C8@mnot.net> References: <20160803142523.6140.42173.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6333B9D5-4823-4005-B9CF-F7EE59DBE5E9@mnot.net> <7166C5D3-8CA3-41FD-BA4B-F4164E852240@istaff.org> To: John Curran X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Archived-At: Cc: hrpc@irtf.org Subject: Re: [hrpc] New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-for-the-users-03.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2016 04:38:07 -0000 Hi John, Thanks. I agree, and suspect that some wordsmithing might at least help = people misunderstand it less. As it tries to point out, it's always = going to take some interpretation.=20 Suggestions welcome! > On 4 Aug 2016, at 1:18 AM, John Curran wrote: >=20 > On Aug 3, 2016, at 10:27 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote: >>=20 >> FYI. The major change here is that the requirements around = documenting relevant parties have been softened to suggestions; the only = requirement in the document is that end users have precedence. >>=20 >> It probably needs some more language around what an "end user" is. >=20 > Mark -=20 >=20 > Excellent draft. I will note that there is some inherent difficultly = in implementation of > the main principle (i.e. "Internet standards MUST NOT consider any = other party to=20 > have higher priority over end users.=E2=80=9D), and it comes from the = fact that sometimes=20 > the other parties may actually be proxies for the interests of = particular segments=20 > of the end-user community. >=20 > For example, no one generally speaks for the need of fire departments, = until they=20 > are part of that very small portion of the population whose homes have = been on fire=E2=80=A6 > Similarly, most folks do not have express a direct interest in smoke = detectors, but the=20 > very high level of interest for those who needed them (when they = needed them) means > that it is not always so simple to understand the overall interests of = a large community=20 > simply by engaging in discussion of what is their most widely held = views. >=20 > I don=E2=80=99t think this undermines the value of the draft in any = manner, and note that this=20 > difficulty is recognized somewhat with respect to information security = (where it notes=20 > that =E2=80=9Cend users cannot be reasonably expected to make informed = decisions about=20 > security=E2=80=A6=E2=80=9D thus resulting in computer security experts = representing their default=20 > security requirements; i.e. there may be other circumstances where it = is difficult for > the end-users community to engage in informed decision making, simply = due to lack=20 > of familiarity with the details that might be unique to a subset of = their population. >=20 > In short, significant care will be needed in applying the principles = in the document > to ensure that the interests of end-users are protected, even those = interests which > are not common but involve significant adverse consequences for those = end-users > who are affected. Some situations that come to mind offhand include = tradeoffs in > end-user interests regarding accessibility accommodation, victims of = criminal activity,=20 > diverse language support, etc. >=20 > Excellent job on the draft - thanks for writing this! > /John >=20 > Disclaimer: my views alone >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ From nobody Thu Aug 11 03:12:29 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 339EE12B069 for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 03:12:27 -0700 (PDT) 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, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bEqdZoDXs_fR for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 03:12:25 -0700 (PDT) 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 5BB4E12B059 for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 03:12:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.article19.io (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64845210289 for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 10:12:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.article19.io (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53D7321029E for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 10:12:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.67] (sd5112335.adsl.online.nl [213.17.35.53]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3C817210289 for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 10:12:23 +0000 (UTC) To: "hrpc@irtf.org" From: Niels ten Oever Message-ID: <9b59d18d-4c76-def8-779f-6f4425041909@article19.org> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 12:12:22 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="jR8CvSOkOchILGlXxVe4uOR07foOXJl1b" Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] UN Special Rapporteur asks for input on standards bodies for new report X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 10:12:27 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --jR8CvSOkOchILGlXxVe4uOR07foOXJl1b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear all, The UN Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression David Kaye, who also spoke at the hrpc session at IETF96 in Berlin [0], already produced two report, one on 'encryption and anonymity' [1] and one on 'The role of the private sector in the digital age [2]. Now he intend to write a report on: 'freedom of expression and the telecommunications and Internet access sector'. [3] For this he is asking for input from business enterprises [4] as well as NGOs and other stakeholders [5]. I think there is one question in which you all might be especially interested, and that is the last question mentioned under [5]: [QUOTE] Please share information concerning the role of relevant standards and Internet governance bodies in protecting and promoting freedom of expression, and how that role may be improved. [/QUOTE] The deadline for the submissions is November. Details can be found under the aforementioned links. You can also find examples of submissions under link [1] and [2] to see what submissions to the previous reports look like. It is not necessarily a lot of work and I think the UN Special Rapporteur in specific and the UN and the UN Human Rights Council at large could greatly benefit from input from the technical community. Best, Niels [0] http://recs.conf.meetecho.com/Playout/watch.jsp?recording=3DIETF96_HRPC&c= hapter=3Dchapter_1 from 30:40 onwards [1] http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomOpinion/Pages/CallForSubmission.asp= x [2] www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomOpinion/Pages/Privatesectorinthedigitalage= =2Easpx [3] http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomOpinion/Pages/Telecommunications.as= px [4] http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Expression/Telecommunications/Quest= ionnaireBusinessEnterprises.docx [5] http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomOpinion/Pages/CallTelecommunication= s.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 --jR8CvSOkOchILGlXxVe4uOR07foOXJl1b 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 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJXrE+GAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpg5wH/2NSmK/0390pF6DjFso3To96 QWbX+lSYirnY4DZ065W9oYeQO3iwFxswvG29qX377LhXPpZTU2q50G89rIzeYt7j q+zPKU1CA7CubZKd8PN3pgt0479Aq01Np5FdVoCviynd81ruUHrDNv79BLfXxNme +hKXk/WlTq4ZftRG9lWl020AjeZWpwqONy1fjMNdICR16THrOE+nYL9SOYmCsicg nIX8TT7n1XFK5pHFDL3U+hadSxuRdwd5GhM3I7PsMagcPJ1U6HguylkxR28dF1R0 T3cPyWJwcIn1xdoTMNYhih5zRd/RPDJwyBkKnMVyhVW2EoW6I/uXtoGaAryB8kA= =J9KJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --jR8CvSOkOchILGlXxVe4uOR07foOXJl1b-- From nobody Sat Aug 27 14:52:04 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@irtf.org Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E437412B027; Sat, 27 Aug 2016 14:52:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.31.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <147233472292.3325.465914304898428105.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2016 14:52:02 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: hrpc@irtf.org Subject: [hrpc] I-D Action: draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2016 21:52:03 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Human Rights Protocol Considerations of the IETF. Title : Research into Human Rights Protocol Considerations Authors : Niels ten Oever Corinne Cath Filename : draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05.txt Pages : 69 Date : 2016-08-27 Abstract: The proliferating convolution of Internet and society increases the impact of the Internet on the lives of individuals. Because of this, the design and development of the architecture of the Internet also has a growing impact on society. This has led to an broad recognition that human rights [UDHR] [ICCPR] [ICESCR] have a role in the development and management of the Internet [HRC2012] [UNGA2013] [NETmundial]. It has also been argued that the Internet should be strengthened as a human rights enabling environment [Brown]. This document provides a proposal for a vocabulary to discuss the relation between human rights and Internet protocols, an overview of the discussion in technical and academic literature and communities, a proposal for the mapping of the relation between human rights and technical concepts, and a proposal for guidelines for human rights considerations, similar to the work done on the guidelines for privacy considerations [RFC6973]. Discussion of this draft at: hrpc@irtf.org // https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-research/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Sat Aug 27 15:46:19 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50F9112D150 for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2016 15:46:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.255 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.255 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gvNOvlOBca2Z for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2016 15:46:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0047.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.47]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC1BE12D0F7 for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2016 15:46:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (unknown [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 837766AC55 for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2016 22:46:14 +0000 (UTC) X-Session-Marker: 6176726940646F7269612E6F7267 X-Spam-Summary: 2, -10, 0, , d41d8cd98f00b204, avri@acm.org, :, RULES_HIT:41:355:379:421:599:800:854:967:973:988:989:1042:1049:1260:1261:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1381:1437:1513:1515:1516:1518:1521:1534:1543:1593:1594:1683:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:1801:1963:2198:2199:2288:2393:2525:2553:2568:2628:2682:2685:2692:2693:2741:2771:2859:2891:2895:2933:2937:2939:2942:2945:2947:2951:2954:3022:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3355:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3873:3874:3934:3936:3938:3941:3944:3947:3950:3953:3956:3959:4184:4250:4321:4362:4605:4860:5007:6117:6119:7652:7875:7903:8660:8985:9010:9025:10004:10400:10848:11232:11658:11914:12043:12050:12109:12114:12291:12379:12438:12683:12740:13019:13071:13148:13230:13618:13846:14096:14097:14180:14181:14721:14819:21060:21080:21366:21433:30022:30046:30054:30060:30070:30090, 0, RBL:none, CacheIP:none, Bayesian:0.5, 0.5, 0.5, Netcheck:none, DomainCache:0, MSF:not bulk, SPF:fp, MSBL:0, DNSBL:none, Custom_rules:0:0:0, LFtime:10, LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: care82_8dc1c87d38a2a X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 4149 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (wsip-68-15-42-104.ri.ri.cox.net [68.15.42.104]) (Authenticated sender: avri@doria.org) by omf02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2016 22:46:13 +0000 (UTC) References: <147233472292.3325.465914304898428105.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: hrpc@irtf.org From: avri doria Message-ID: Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2016 18:46:12 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <147233472292.3325.465914304898428105.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 160827-0, 08/27/2016), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] I-D Action: draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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: Sat, 27 Aug 2016 22:46:18 -0000 Hi, Thanks for the updated draft Niels. At the meeting in Berlin I understand that there was a sense of the room that this draft would soon be ready for a RG last call. Before starting that, I want to check on two things: - does draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05.txt respond to all the open issues people brought up to date? I will read the latest in the next few days to try and determine if I think it might, but it would be most helpful to see if others think so. - does anyone object to starting a last call on this draft? Is so, why and what needs to be done before you think it is ready? Thanks avri On 27-Aug-16 17:52, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts direct= ories. > This draft is a work item of the Human Rights Protocol Considerations of = the IETF. > > Title : Research into Human Rights Protocol Considerati= ons > Authors : Niels ten Oever > Corinne Cath > Filename : draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05.txt > Pages : 69 > Date : 2016-08-27 > > Abstract: > The proliferating convolution of Internet and society increases the > impact of the Internet on the lives of individuals. Because of this, > the design and development of the architecture of the Internet also > has a growing impact on society. This has led to an broad > recognition that human rights [UDHR] [ICCPR] [ICESCR] have a role in > the development and management of the Internet [HRC2012] [UNGA2013] > [NETmundial]. It has also been argued that the Internet should be > strengthened as a human rights enabling environment [Brown]. > > This document provides a proposal for a vocabulary to discuss the > relation between human rights and Internet protocols, an overview of > the discussion in technical and academic literature and communities, > a proposal for the mapping of the relation between human rights and > technical concepts, and a proposal for guidelines for human rights > considerations, similar to the work done on the guidelines for > privacy considerations [RFC6973]. > > Discussion of this draft at: hrpc@irtf.org // > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-research/ > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05 > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submiss= ion > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon Aug 29 09:23:11 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0872F12D0AB for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 09:23:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cdt.org Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OYy23J9WATsX for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 09:23:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ua0-x231.google.com (mail-ua0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::231]) (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 3262112D500 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 09:23:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ua0-x231.google.com with SMTP id k90so254615125uak.1 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 09:23:08 -0700 (PDT) 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; bh=sKiwXHNVE8TZ1v0gAD+MlXIAS8imue/xKsGBp3u8o/M=; b=AYmmNt7n6xhJcV4BNqura8xYzJoSH03wO4shgFsFjTxntQ4uz/qaqBa44sqmG5xDA3 CbQZn0b60qoZyMPykAiR41fluLb3NAMK5HNhJ2CAiufQjwiBmrsSQ5YvVyPwu3uFdfYR d9wIqiNhPfeaV6k/GSIuYZf4VUBHWhovC3AuM= 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; bh=sKiwXHNVE8TZ1v0gAD+MlXIAS8imue/xKsGBp3u8o/M=; b=CHY5A674ekWQyMBSZKAmLLpGO9wgp7+yGrrDIQ1PbUSmKOHc5tvONmkoIJKLHW1Wn6 Vp/jOPBbxhOo2EgvThhollFaqYKezaet1HCfWPsvIeO1jsX8hMbYKVIChWpu5fnKFMcK qoE77wvh6JfMdNCTJ5Xy0f9FYSssgTNWhXXxO/zpQUT62PVryH1/yJXDLgwGSWnxvHGJ AciOa0wqdCm4879T0KQTGXMAJ8X9m1VCKUoMVUANVIeCBydSmXtROgsFOOYe9k93dFRO DWyIKgXxu4QbZeX9sgDJzzQhzCPo/RN37gZ30fAaJJLtQGBbv4qjXjUWf7o6+0nLH4p3 N3bw== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwN983aVni94+pWOud+Bw79Sgrdup5oseD1aztSnpPX28JoEdQTgL/l6t9UlX9VgZb/0vgNbrAuGzlx8PmoQ X-Received: by 10.31.95.137 with SMTP id t131mr8883930vkb.67.1472487787061; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 09:23:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.103.37.135 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 09:22:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <147233472292.3325.465914304898428105.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 12:22:46 -0400 Message-ID: To: Avri Doria Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: hrpc@irtf.org Subject: Re: [hrpc] I-D Action: draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 16:23:10 -0000 I suspect the answer to the following is "unclear" but what does RGLC mean at IRTF? That those of us having participated in the RG believe it's ready for eyeballs beyond our RG? On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 6:46 PM, avri doria wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for the updated draft Niels. > > At the meeting in Berlin I understand that there was a sense of the room > that this draft would soon be ready for a RG last call. Before starting > that, I want to check on two things: > > - does draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05.txt respond to all the open > issues people brought up to date? I will read the latest in the next > few days to try and determine if I think it might, but it would be most > helpful to see if others think so. > > - does anyone object to starting a last call on this draft? Is so, why > and what needs to be done before you think it is ready? > > Thanks > > avri > > > On 27-Aug-16 17:52, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. >> This draft is a work item of the Human Rights Protocol Considerations of the IETF. >> >> Title : Research into Human Rights Protocol Considerations >> Authors : Niels ten Oever >> Corinne Cath >> Filename : draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05.txt >> Pages : 69 >> Date : 2016-08-27 >> >> Abstract: >> The proliferating convolution of Internet and society increases the >> impact of the Internet on the lives of individuals. Because of this, >> the design and development of the architecture of the Internet also >> has a growing impact on society. This has led to an broad >> recognition that human rights [UDHR] [ICCPR] [ICESCR] have a role in >> the development and management of the Internet [HRC2012] [UNGA2013] >> [NETmundial]. It has also been argued that the Internet should be >> strengthened as a human rights enabling environment [Brown]. >> >> This document provides a proposal for a vocabulary to discuss the >> relation between human rights and Internet protocols, an overview of >> the discussion in technical and academic literature and communities, >> a proposal for the mapping of the relation between human rights and >> technical concepts, and a proposal for guidelines for human rights >> considerations, similar to the work done on the guidelines for >> privacy considerations [RFC6973]. >> >> Discussion of this draft at: hrpc@irtf.org // >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >> >> >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-research/ >> >> There's also a htmlized version available at: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05 >> >> A diff from the previous version is available at: >> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05 >> >> >> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission >> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >> >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall Chief Technologist, Center for Democracy & Technology [https://www.cdt.org] 1401 K ST NW STE 200, Washington DC 20005-3497 e: joe@cdt.org, p: 202.407.8825, pgp: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key Fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10 1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871 From nobody Mon Aug 29 12:16:24 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92EE112D820 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 12:16:22 -0700 (PDT) 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, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lkZ-cfEuhis7 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 12:16:13 -0700 (PDT) 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 762B412D814 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 12:16:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.article19.io (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BE19230615 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 19:16:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.article19.io (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C12D230624 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 19:16:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.182.23] (unknown [109.129.244.172]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 598AF230615 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 19:16:06 +0000 (UTC) To: hrpc@irtf.org References: <147233472292.3325.465914304898428105.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Niels ten Oever X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <8d99c782-e84a-1971-aef4-e3ef80205653@article19.org> Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 21:16:05 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="kjqThN4pqFfUpU2ihFfw19f8uAOrlsFEj" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] I-D Action: draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 19:16:22 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --kjqThN4pqFfUpU2ihFfw19f8uAOrlsFEj Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Joe, In the IRTF RGs we can choose any process we want for the publications of documents (as long as we document it in the ID / RFC). We decided it would be most transparent if we chose the IETF WG process, which includes a WG last call before the document is forwarded to the IRSG. So the RG last call is to ensure that we have consensus in the RG on a document, before we forward it to the IRSG for review, after which the document will be forwarded to the RFC editor. Hope this helps! More info here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2014 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 08/29/2016 06:22 PM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote: > I suspect the answer to the following is "unclear" but what does RGLC > mean at IRTF? That those of us having participated in the RG believe > it's ready for eyeballs beyond our RG? >=20 > On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 6:46 PM, avri doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Thanks for the updated draft Niels. >> >> At the meeting in Berlin I understand that there was a sense of the ro= om >> that this draft would soon be ready for a RG last call. Before starti= ng >> that, I want to check on two things: >> >> - does draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05.txt respond to all the open >> issues people brought up to date? I will read the latest in the next >> few days to try and determine if I think it might, but it would be mos= t >> helpful to see if others think so. >> >> - does anyone object to starting a last call on this draft? Is so, wh= y >> and what needs to be done before you think it is ready? >> >> Thanks >> >> avri >> >> >> On 27-Aug-16 17:52, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts di= rectories. >>> This draft is a work item of the Human Rights Protocol Considerations= of the IETF. >>> >>> Title : Research into Human Rights Protocol Conside= rations >>> Authors : Niels ten Oever >>> Corinne Cath >>> Filename : draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05.txt >>> Pages : 69 >>> Date : 2016-08-27 >>> >>> Abstract: >>> The proliferating convolution of Internet and society increases th= e >>> impact of the Internet on the lives of individuals. Because of th= is, >>> the design and development of the architecture of the Internet als= o >>> has a growing impact on society. This has led to an broad >>> recognition that human rights [UDHR] [ICCPR] [ICESCR] have a role = in >>> the development and management of the Internet [HRC2012] [UNGA2013= ] >>> [NETmundial]. It has also been argued that the Internet should be= >>> strengthened as a human rights enabling environment [Brown]. >>> >>> This document provides a proposal for a vocabulary to discuss the >>> relation between human rights and Internet protocols, an overview = of >>> the discussion in technical and academic literature and communitie= s, >>> a proposal for the mapping of the relation between human rights an= d >>> technical concepts, and a proposal for guidelines for human rights= >>> considerations, similar to the work done on the guidelines for >>> privacy considerations [RFC6973]. >>> >>> Discussion of this draft at: hrpc@irtf.org // >>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >>> >>> >>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-research/ >>> >>> There's also a htmlized version available at: >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05 >>> >>> A diff from the previous version is available at: >>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05 >>> >>> >>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of sub= mission >>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >>> >>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> hrpc mailing list >> hrpc@irtf.org >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >=20 >=20 >=20 --kjqThN4pqFfUpU2ihFfw19f8uAOrlsFEj 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 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJXxIn1AAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpQ08H/R1L9XBMDwWyrlYY/5FEJLYq gl1W9NhYcoCQalcZSyRrcatHAzU40pAObkvFQdmgZdRIe7IPHq8raNKpEZBTqZo0 4yPZ0+dF3S1vfNbwOVv8Nn/sBl+piv/OlDdgHJbNpRQYmqiSPg2TQ/7QZLGRbHTF y7GCSsPuzZH30E5+9KQlqIH8b+YpwzGIsM33pzAQhlaZ+lzSv1v68D+Tv1hnLAL4 KkoMZNc3iG7IPH5Ts3zF2geCi4wzQxuP4t04EMemjtYK5b6xgul24w5WiZ3pTXBG 8wz6qQhZi8bm1NxNtccs1sVOFkQZjkdOf27CPcwmk0fF2fgRebhtjfusGaQijcU= =+y5d -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --kjqThN4pqFfUpU2ihFfw19f8uAOrlsFEj-- From nobody Mon Aug 29 12:43:34 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFA1C12D837 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 12:43:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.235 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2tfDvoTEJdKb for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 12:43:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0037.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.37]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A422312B008 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 12:43:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (unknown [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay06.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76CA49EA1A for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 19:43:28 +0000 (UTC) X-Session-Marker: 6176726940646F7269612E6F7267 X-Spam-Summary: 2, -15, 0, , d41d8cd98f00b204, avri@acm.org, ::, RULES_HIT:2:41:355:379:421:599:800:854:871:960:967:973:988:989:1000:1042:1049:1260:1261:1313:1314:1345:1359:1381:1431:1437:1516:1518:1535:1575:1594:1605:1606:1730:1747:1777:1792:1801:1963:2110:2198:2199:2288:2393:2525:2553:2568:2631:2682:2685:2691:2692:2693:2741:2771:2829:2859:2891:2895:2903:2911:2924:2926:2933:2937:2939:2942:2945:2947:2951:2954:3022:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3873:3874:3934:3936:3938:3941:3944:3947:3950:3953:3956:3959:4118:4184:4250:4321:4425:4557:4605:4860:5007:6117:6119:6506:6747:6748:7281:7652:7875:7903:7909:8660:8666:9010:9025:9036:9040:10004:10848:11232:11604:11658:11914:12043:12050:12109:12114:12291:12379:12438:12683:12740:12926:13019:13148:13151:13228:13230:13846:14095:14096:14227:14658:14659:21060:21080:21324:21366:21433:30006:30022:30046:30054:30060:30070:30075:30080:30090:30091, 0, RBL:none, CacheIP:none, Bayesian:0.5, 0.5, 0.5, Netcheck:none, DomainCache:0, MSF:not bulk, SPF: X-HE-Tag: mark74_7592888fbec40 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 7905 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (wsip-68-15-42-104.ri.ri.cox.net [68.15.42.104]) (Authenticated sender: avri@doria.org) by omf10.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 19:43:27 +0000 (UTC) References: <147233472292.3325.465914304898428105.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <8d99c782-e84a-1971-aef4-e3ef80205653@article19.org> To: hrpc@irtf.org From: avri doria Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 15:43:13 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8d99c782-e84a-1971-aef4-e3ef80205653@article19.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="6ARISji1IgKDAaLINE0f2VenproPs2sEn" X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 160829-0, 08/29/2016), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] I-D Action: draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 19:43:32 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --6ARISji1IgKDAaLINE0f2VenproPs2sEn Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="qLLUfS5CN2T58Ns8m6UK9b5Uika0oIjml" From: avri doria Reply-To: "avri@ACM.ORG" To: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: Subject: Re: [hrpc] I-D Action: draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05.txt References: <147233472292.3325.465914304898428105.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <8d99c782-e84a-1971-aef4-e3ef80205653@article19.org> In-Reply-To: <8d99c782-e84a-1971-aef4-e3ef80205653@article19.org> --qLLUfS5CN2T58Ns8m6UK9b5Uika0oIjml Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Right, so this is a review of the degree to which the HRPC, you all, think it is ready to become an RFC. avri On 29-Aug-16 15:16, Niels ten Oever wrote: > Hi Joe, > > In the IRTF RGs we can choose any process we want for the publications > of documents (as long as we document it in the ID / RFC). We decided it= > would be most transparent if we chose the IETF WG process, which > includes a WG last call before the document is forwarded to the IRSG. > > So the RG last call is to ensure that we have consensus in the RG on a > document, before we forward it to the IRSG for review, after which the > document will be forwarded to the RFC editor. > > Hope this helps! > > More info here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2014 > > 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 08/29/2016 06:22 PM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote: >> I suspect the answer to the following is "unclear" but what does RGLC >> mean at IRTF? That those of us having participated in the RG believe >> it's ready for eyeballs beyond our RG? >> >> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 6:46 PM, avri doria wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Thanks for the updated draft Niels. >>> >>> At the meeting in Berlin I understand that there was a sense of the r= oom >>> that this draft would soon be ready for a RG last call. Before start= ing >>> that, I want to check on two things: >>> >>> - does draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05.txt respond to all the open >>> issues people brought up to date? I will read the latest in the next= >>> few days to try and determine if I think it might, but it would be mo= st >>> helpful to see if others think so. >>> >>> - does anyone object to starting a last call on this draft? Is so, w= hy >>> and what needs to be done before you think it is ready? >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 27-Aug-16 17:52, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts d= irectories. >>>> This draft is a work item of the Human Rights Protocol Consideration= s of the IETF. >>>> >>>> Title : Research into Human Rights Protocol Consid= erations >>>> Authors : Niels ten Oever >>>> Corinne Cath >>>> Filename : draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05.txt >>>> Pages : 69 >>>> Date : 2016-08-27 >>>> >>>> Abstract: >>>> The proliferating convolution of Internet and society increases t= he >>>> impact of the Internet on the lives of individuals. Because of t= his, >>>> the design and development of the architecture of the Internet al= so >>>> has a growing impact on society. This has led to an broad >>>> recognition that human rights [UDHR] [ICCPR] [ICESCR] have a role= in >>>> the development and management of the Internet [HRC2012] [UNGA201= 3] >>>> [NETmundial]. It has also been argued that the Internet should b= e >>>> strengthened as a human rights enabling environment [Brown]. >>>> >>>> This document provides a proposal for a vocabulary to discuss the= >>>> relation between human rights and Internet protocols, an overview= of >>>> the discussion in technical and academic literature and communiti= es, >>>> a proposal for the mapping of the relation between human rights a= nd >>>> technical concepts, and a proposal for guidelines for human right= s >>>> considerations, similar to the work done on the guidelines for >>>> privacy considerations [RFC6973]. >>>> >>>> Discussion of this draft at: hrpc@irtf.org // >>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >>>> >>>> >>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-research/ >>>> >>>> There's also a htmlized version available at: >>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05 >>>> >>>> A diff from the previous version is available at: >>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05 >>>> >>>> >>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of su= bmission >>>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.= >>>> >>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 --qLLUfS5CN2T58Ns8m6UK9b5Uika0oIjml-- --6ARISji1IgKDAaLINE0f2VenproPs2sEn 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 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJXxJBbAAoJEOo+L8tCe36HA2oH+wQRKAQpUhzJjVcp8VbKkY0U bk9WBxoPrjUKzgZwcWzAV82gi32NuiiO7cJ0zJhdE0LyiaCyRimQY2S9Tp4ml1aC Q+Jl0yosRwUnQZYQBljaGhmHb94EQQyBgZGF/9lfhgNCR2T6eKpEfbgjJM4rLpS2 W1oAqfg2cJAR7WiJpsStg/rt5A5CURvNCeLZTfsv+5b7AVZuEFjXElczf42sVfGT lpcyhqUN+3TxuastZJYVPaE/P7Hz4tJaZLp9uSXZWisvWcmfeXx4uGQoDIcXX6W0 VMzObveAIpDg+ag18ZpED9KK0og1OHkkClK0ULE3HwexGnDjJ9CJzomdorjhT7M= =LejD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --6ARISji1IgKDAaLINE0f2VenproPs2sEn-- From nobody Mon Aug 29 13:09:15 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2586C12D88D for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 13:09:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cdt.org Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id up2bmGAvz0DE for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 13:09:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ua0-x22f.google.com (mail-ua0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::22f]) (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 5440112D88B for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 13:09:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ua0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id i32so95267534uai.2 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 13:09:10 -0700 (PDT) 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; bh=I21y6tGuEZPC7BN/8zvfKBlkWYv428/5tTWKZycv+HI=; b=N9mPwJDs5U5bpjqZAfJGyRrbc45xxzriHHE3PR8u/EQiuKYSS+1OM36CGVYrGkrrQS TjNaaHWtsOXI30pVxlLoyangyPcpE0r53M0wXJ14SXWENegv3K9xY1hY+yBHg1EMVY1b 23Wf7j4mr5YV2Gtb/0ydrpJvXulqXvZ0U1H24= 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; bh=I21y6tGuEZPC7BN/8zvfKBlkWYv428/5tTWKZycv+HI=; b=DSni/A1fVXzF3p07MoPT/xgAKayjIIiD4ObrcUrZrKpj56NuYu1bM8lJWvBW7Rmkko L78PnmuXVrxw7ulpioU8AusApbIMFVVyp4Qf+EJunjSDDQ4B5LIiIysIxNbpZoI1RTyL BubjdutF4QJBYM3lahhyWbz0ERo1hKLm0kcX16deZkcYDd5INo6polXZrN/WhaH38frS rktMp5rdT/o8g8CBeiUFhjWHkQ8+TlRMoyHL5YoQ+1SJzQ407PhmeI6HGLxJYjrrxX6C Lk5lSybA4ZEOn2RBP8WogMS+71eqqTkufwvxinZosrh+QRH7KWt4yX5+xIU1FNsSqxC7 hBfw== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwO2WSY+fPOVkecr7XzJ8W6ru7duoZ40dxy6af2qqrKniVsXw1eYBfSlFlCLBYruxcTFPkGZN/hapqIKBmzV X-Received: by 10.31.94.70 with SMTP id s67mr10732882vkb.43.1472501349414; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 13:09:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.103.37.135 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 13:08:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <8d99c782-e84a-1971-aef4-e3ef80205653@article19.org> References: <147233472292.3325.465914304898428105.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <8d99c782-e84a-1971-aef4-e3ef80205653@article19.org> From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 16:08:49 -0400 Message-ID: To: Niels ten Oever Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: hrpc@irtf.org Subject: Re: [hrpc] I-D Action: draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 20:09:12 -0000 Thanks! I'm ashamed to admit I didn't know there is an IRSG, but that makes sense. So, it sounds like RGLC would last some amount of time, and we'd all want to make sure we give the document a good review and post those here for discussion? Sounds good. Sorry if I'm being dense! best, Joe On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Niels ten Oever wrote: > Hi Joe, > > In the IRTF RGs we can choose any process we want for the publications > of documents (as long as we document it in the ID / RFC). We decided it > would be most transparent if we chose the IETF WG process, which > includes a WG last call before the document is forwarded to the IRSG. > > So the RG last call is to ensure that we have consensus in the RG on a > document, before we forward it to the IRSG for review, after which the > document will be forwarded to the RFC editor. > > Hope this helps! > > More info here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2014 > > 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 08/29/2016 06:22 PM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote: >> I suspect the answer to the following is "unclear" but what does RGLC >> mean at IRTF? That those of us having participated in the RG believe >> it's ready for eyeballs beyond our RG? >> >> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 6:46 PM, avri doria wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Thanks for the updated draft Niels. >>> >>> At the meeting in Berlin I understand that there was a sense of the room >>> that this draft would soon be ready for a RG last call. Before starting >>> that, I want to check on two things: >>> >>> - does draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05.txt respond to all the open >>> issues people brought up to date? I will read the latest in the next >>> few days to try and determine if I think it might, but it would be most >>> helpful to see if others think so. >>> >>> - does anyone object to starting a last call on this draft? Is so, why >>> and what needs to be done before you think it is ready? >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 27-Aug-16 17:52, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. >>>> This draft is a work item of the Human Rights Protocol Considerations of the IETF. >>>> >>>> Title : Research into Human Rights Protocol Considerations >>>> Authors : Niels ten Oever >>>> Corinne Cath >>>> Filename : draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05.txt >>>> Pages : 69 >>>> Date : 2016-08-27 >>>> >>>> Abstract: >>>> The proliferating convolution of Internet and society increases the >>>> impact of the Internet on the lives of individuals. Because of this, >>>> the design and development of the architecture of the Internet also >>>> has a growing impact on society. This has led to an broad >>>> recognition that human rights [UDHR] [ICCPR] [ICESCR] have a role in >>>> the development and management of the Internet [HRC2012] [UNGA2013] >>>> [NETmundial]. It has also been argued that the Internet should be >>>> strengthened as a human rights enabling environment [Brown]. >>>> >>>> This document provides a proposal for a vocabulary to discuss the >>>> relation between human rights and Internet protocols, an overview of >>>> the discussion in technical and academic literature and communities, >>>> a proposal for the mapping of the relation between human rights and >>>> technical concepts, and a proposal for guidelines for human rights >>>> considerations, similar to the work done on the guidelines for >>>> privacy considerations [RFC6973]. >>>> >>>> Discussion of this draft at: hrpc@irtf.org // >>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >>>> >>>> >>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-research/ >>>> >>>> There's also a htmlized version available at: >>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05 >>>> >>>> A diff from the previous version is available at: >>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05 >>>> >>>> >>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission >>>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >>>> >>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 [https://www.cdt.org] 1401 K ST NW STE 200, Washington DC 20005-3497 e: joe@cdt.org, p: 202.407.8825, pgp: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key Fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10 1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871 From nobody Mon Aug 29 15:03:15 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F068112D8A9 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 15:03:13 -0700 (PDT) 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, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nH-93Ky_5nb9 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 15:03:11 -0700 (PDT) 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 D51E912D8A6 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 15:03:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.article19.io (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C1A814CE73B; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 22:03:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.article19.io (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89AD114CE754; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 22:03:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.182.25] (40.186-240-81.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be [81.240.186.40]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 73DAC14CE73B; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 22:03:08 +0000 (UTC) To: Joseph Lorenzo Hall References: <147233472292.3325.465914304898428105.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <8d99c782-e84a-1971-aef4-e3ef80205653@article19.org> From: Niels ten Oever Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 00:03:07 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="iB0K7HkLdx2ieOflXrimGQhEo4k1uEBOw" Archived-At: Cc: hrpc@irtf.org Subject: Re: [hrpc] I-D Action: draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 22:03:14 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --iB0K7HkLdx2ieOflXrimGQhEo4k1uEBOw Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 08/29/2016 10:08 PM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote: > Thanks! I'm ashamed to admit I didn't know there is an IRSG, but that > makes sense. No problem! >=20 > So, it sounds like RGLC would last some amount of time, and we'd all > want to make sure we give the document a good review and post those > here for discussion? >=20 Exactly! > Sounds good. Sorry if I'm being dense! best, Joe >=20 Cheers, Niels > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Niels ten Oever = wrote: >> Hi Joe, >> >> In the IRTF RGs we can choose any process we want for the publications= >> of documents (as long as we document it in the ID / RFC). We decided i= t >> would be most transparent if we chose the IETF WG process, which >> includes a WG last call before the document is forwarded to the IRSG. >> >> So the RG last call is to ensure that we have consensus in the RG on a= >> document, before we forward it to the IRSG for review, after which the= >> document will be forwarded to the RFC editor. >> >> Hope this helps! >> >> More info here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2014 >> >> 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 08/29/2016 06:22 PM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote: >>> I suspect the answer to the following is "unclear" but what does RGLC= >>> mean at IRTF? That those of us having participated in the RG believe >>> it's ready for eyeballs beyond our RG? >>> >>> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 6:46 PM, avri doria wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Thanks for the updated draft Niels. >>>> >>>> At the meeting in Berlin I understand that there was a sense of the = room >>>> that this draft would soon be ready for a RG last call. Before star= ting >>>> that, I want to check on two things: >>>> >>>> - does draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05.txt respond to all the open >>>> issues people brought up to date? I will read the latest in the nex= t >>>> few days to try and determine if I think it might, but it would be m= ost >>>> helpful to see if others think so. >>>> >>>> - does anyone object to starting a last call on this draft? Is so, = why >>>> and what needs to be done before you think it is ready? >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> On 27-Aug-16 17:52, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts = directories. >>>>> This draft is a work item of the Human Rights Protocol Consideratio= ns of the IETF. >>>>> >>>>> Title : Research into Human Rights Protocol Consi= derations >>>>> Authors : Niels ten Oever >>>>> Corinne Cath >>>>> Filename : draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05.txt >>>>> Pages : 69 >>>>> Date : 2016-08-27 >>>>> >>>>> Abstract: >>>>> The proliferating convolution of Internet and society increases = the >>>>> impact of the Internet on the lives of individuals. Because of = this, >>>>> the design and development of the architecture of the Internet a= lso >>>>> has a growing impact on society. This has led to an broad >>>>> recognition that human rights [UDHR] [ICCPR] [ICESCR] have a rol= e in >>>>> the development and management of the Internet [HRC2012] [UNGA20= 13] >>>>> [NETmundial]. It has also been argued that the Internet should = be >>>>> strengthened as a human rights enabling environment [Brown]. >>>>> >>>>> This document provides a proposal for a vocabulary to discuss th= e >>>>> relation between human rights and Internet protocols, an overvie= w of >>>>> the discussion in technical and academic literature and communit= ies, >>>>> a proposal for the mapping of the relation between human rights = and >>>>> technical concepts, and a proposal for guidelines for human righ= ts >>>>> considerations, similar to the work done on the guidelines for >>>>> privacy considerations [RFC6973]. >>>>> >>>>> Discussion of this draft at: hrpc@irtf.org // >>>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-research/ >>>>> >>>>> There's also a htmlized version available at: >>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05 >>>>> >>>>> A diff from the previous version is available at: >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05= >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of s= ubmission >>>>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org= =2E >>>>> >>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >>>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >=20 >=20 --iB0K7HkLdx2ieOflXrimGQhEo4k1uEBOw 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 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJXxLEbAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjp8jUH/2ranAJlkjd/XBD/+NW6ZVQr 5+M1NAgW5VjUVAyuhrQbMwd77itJA+VMEgG8gxPp7P6Ak8012NseSkk4tIwoEM76 IrFii2Z5qKnpVmrHu6f0x3JBTM4ej4Ptyh11kwm7KRExsB84giKYmsZSPSGA1Qgd mRBZ2RqK+rHzNhTDRm/EuOj9n/dYsTTIUeWjt5JuaQ6ZtFCJ3IEtDUTznR5YBVf9 2vUmrM0cZdXIRQMT1FEBxsbTxzJ6O9XLuWJGH6Z1dEqaCj9n96VE+Qls4SvMENvM r5uv499Pa32+LSwVGHtQBYqUxzAK881y8UFB4DX/Zr/v6cm2MwO7XoJQaxztzAk= =3ssZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --iB0K7HkLdx2ieOflXrimGQhEo4k1uEBOw-- From nobody Wed Aug 31 08:47:55 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D17812D64F for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 08:47:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.235 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OE4FwlrMowfd for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 08:47:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0239.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.239]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BD7412D5D2 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 08:32:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (unknown [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay06.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDA749ED83 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 15:32:18 +0000 (UTC) X-Session-Marker: 6176726940646F7269612E6F7267 X-Spam-Summary: 2, -10, 0, , d41d8cd98f00b204, avri@acm.org, :, RULES_HIT:2:41:355:379:421:599:800:854:960:967:973:988:989:1042:1049:1260:1261:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1381:1431:1437:1513:1515:1516:1518:1521:1535:1593:1594:1605:1606:1683:1730:1747:1777:1792:1801:1963:2110:2194:2198:2199:2200:2288:2393:2525:2553:2568:2632:2682:2685:2691:2692:2693:2741:2771:2829:2859:2891:2895:2903:2911:2924:2926:2933:2937:2939:2942:2945:2947:2951:2954:3022:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3673:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3873:3874:3934:3936:3938:3941:3944:3947:3950:3953:3956:3959:4117:4184:4250:4321:4425:4557:4605:4860:5007:6117:6119:7652:7875:7903:8660:8985:9010:9025:9036:9040:9108:9704:10004:10848:11232:11658:11914:12043:12050:12109:12114:12291:12379:12438:12663:12683:12740:12926:13019:13148:13230:13846:13869:14096:14097:21060:21080:21324:21366:21433:30005:30006:30022:30046:30054:30060:30070:30075:30080:30090:30091, 0, RBL:none, CacheIP:none, Bayesian:0.5, 0.5, 0.5, Netcheck:none, DomainCache:0, MSF:not bulk, SP X-HE-Tag: spoon74_4e56abc0cbf62 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 6978 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (wsip-68-15-42-104.ri.ri.cox.net [68.15.42.104]) (Authenticated sender: avri@doria.org) by omf03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 15:32:18 +0000 (UTC) References: <147233472292.3325.465914304898428105.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <8d99c782-e84a-1971-aef4-e3ef80205653@article19.org> To: hrpc@irtf.org From: avri doria Message-ID: Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 11:32:13 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 160830-0, 08/30/2016), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] I-D Action: draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 15:47:54 -0000 Hi, Normally it is a 2 week period, but we can make it longer if needs be. But if we think we need much longer, perhaps we are not quite ready yet. avri On 29-Aug-16 16:08, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote: > Thanks! I'm ashamed to admit I didn't know there is an IRSG, but that > makes sense. > > So, it sounds like RGLC would last some amount of time, and we'd all > want to make sure we give the document a good review and post those > here for discussion? > > Sounds good. Sorry if I'm being dense! best, Joe > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Niels ten Oever wr= ote: >> Hi Joe, >> >> In the IRTF RGs we can choose any process we want for the publications >> of documents (as long as we document it in the ID / RFC). We decided it >> would be most transparent if we chose the IETF WG process, which >> includes a WG last call before the document is forwarded to the IRSG. >> >> So the RG last call is to ensure that we have consensus in the RG on a >> document, before we forward it to the IRSG for review, after which the >> document will be forwarded to the RFC editor. >> >> Hope this helps! >> >> More info here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2014 >> >> 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 08/29/2016 06:22 PM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote: >>> I suspect the answer to the following is "unclear" but what does RGLC >>> mean at IRTF? That those of us having participated in the RG believe >>> it's ready for eyeballs beyond our RG? >>> >>> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 6:46 PM, avri doria wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Thanks for the updated draft Niels. >>>> >>>> At the meeting in Berlin I understand that there was a sense of the ro= om >>>> that this draft would soon be ready for a RG last call. Before starti= ng >>>> that, I want to check on two things: >>>> >>>> - does draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05.txt respond to all the open >>>> issues people brought up to date? I will read the latest in the next >>>> few days to try and determine if I think it might, but it would be mos= t >>>> helpful to see if others think so. >>>> >>>> - does anyone object to starting a last call on this draft? Is so, wh= y >>>> and what needs to be done before you think it is ready? >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> On 27-Aug-16 17:52, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts di= rectories. >>>>> This draft is a work item of the Human Rights Protocol Considerations= of the IETF. >>>>> >>>>> Title : Research into Human Rights Protocol Conside= rations >>>>> Authors : Niels ten Oever >>>>> Corinne Cath >>>>> Filename : draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05.txt >>>>> Pages : 69 >>>>> Date : 2016-08-27 >>>>> >>>>> Abstract: >>>>> The proliferating convolution of Internet and society increases th= e >>>>> impact of the Internet on the lives of individuals. Because of th= is, >>>>> the design and development of the architecture of the Internet als= o >>>>> has a growing impact on society. This has led to an broad >>>>> recognition that human rights [UDHR] [ICCPR] [ICESCR] have a role = in >>>>> the development and management of the Internet [HRC2012] [UNGA2013= ] >>>>> [NETmundial]. It has also been argued that the Internet should be= >>>>> strengthened as a human rights enabling environment [Brown]. >>>>> >>>>> This document provides a proposal for a vocabulary to discuss the >>>>> relation between human rights and Internet protocols, an overview = of >>>>> the discussion in technical and academic literature and communitie= s, >>>>> a proposal for the mapping of the relation between human rights an= d >>>>> technical concepts, and a proposal for guidelines for human rights= >>>>> considerations, similar to the work done on the guidelines for >>>>> privacy considerations [RFC6973]. >>>>> >>>>> Discussion of this draft at: hrpc@irtf.org // >>>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-research/ >>>>> >>>>> There's also a htmlized version available at: >>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05 >>>>> >>>>> A diff from the previous version is available at: >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of sub= mission >>>>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >>>>> >>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >>>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From nobody Wed Aug 31 09:11:37 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C321112B074 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 09:11:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cdt.org Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XEPZn8F-M_3l for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 09:11:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ua0-x22c.google.com (mail-ua0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::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 B6BDB12D0FA for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 09:11:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ua0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id i32so97037024uai.2 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 09:11:31 -0700 (PDT) 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; bh=YI9Y5UK2K5jocNjRpcGLeiDY/EMiLDb7ne3GKMjm1lI=; b=Vm74q5uiwX0Iu2XoFswDgsd80SwU7IZwR5GD+UTU6Vvs89lfTCPYzztweqOjqzCgUn tuzfrKIBu5gkkIqZ7QEPv9PgTSbVXi0KkoVMb0Wsq99/85i9FFJ0auxXqgWqXsaCspUL 0DhnLXQHBVXdOPQdgJlEbgAcdJiHsC0XatXlM= 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; bh=YI9Y5UK2K5jocNjRpcGLeiDY/EMiLDb7ne3GKMjm1lI=; b=kZpqYNUqYWHC/FKW53r0PMREGAVC8F72Cpgi5V+u/ZCBc44rwSCA7nGQ1JW9QLjJKI pkGC1rsr3PlROvAZZLFBqFD1qInHxgt2D91oM3IcwTSzQm9S56IjU5j090pX58XxP6Wb d0TYi2ghYFELag9YrC0r1/S1eFdhfKFPg0q6cr7mcFbGH4SidDgo3DE9i66lHLu0Ucnr rGMJifnWG3KxxRoZzzQrFbOcKXUIn9wp9YS3hkQDsEYNeHHaJtKjfIP2KiJO2aVriKRs dXaGFSBlTf+7AAuO/Tfhwi5xXjoD6wnyuxpBdUrJRp1z2s2ZqCgyGHpD3Y6Skyu7x/0X xL3A== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwMFJPCJJYy2qeA8ZL5zcTmzsvUClOO6NQyC6IqREtAcXcprBaEctnnaLw18ND1KTIVUpUxnJncbxdcsvEaC X-Received: by 10.31.94.70 with SMTP id s67mr6054865vkb.43.1472659890384; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 09:11:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.103.37.135 with HTTP; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 09:11:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <147233472292.3325.465914304898428105.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <8d99c782-e84a-1971-aef4-e3ef80205653@article19.org> From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 12:11:09 -0400 Message-ID: To: Avri Doria Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: hrpc@irtf.org Subject: Re: [hrpc] I-D Action: draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 16:11:36 -0000 Great, two weeks sounds fine. (We've had a number of full reviews, so it should be in good shape for that.) best, Joe On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 11:32 AM, avri doria wrote: > Hi, > > Normally it is a 2 week period, but we can make it longer if needs be. > > But if we think we need much longer, perhaps we are not quite ready yet. > > avri > > On 29-Aug-16 16:08, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote: >> Thanks! I'm ashamed to admit I didn't know there is an IRSG, but that >> makes sense. >> >> So, it sounds like RGLC would last some amount of time, and we'd all >> want to make sure we give the document a good review and post those >> here for discussion? >> >> Sounds good. Sorry if I'm being dense! best, Joe >> >> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Niels ten Oever wrote: >>> Hi Joe, >>> >>> In the IRTF RGs we can choose any process we want for the publications >>> of documents (as long as we document it in the ID / RFC). We decided it >>> would be most transparent if we chose the IETF WG process, which >>> includes a WG last call before the document is forwarded to the IRSG. >>> >>> So the RG last call is to ensure that we have consensus in the RG on a >>> document, before we forward it to the IRSG for review, after which the >>> document will be forwarded to the RFC editor. >>> >>> Hope this helps! >>> >>> More info here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2014 >>> >>> 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 08/29/2016 06:22 PM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote: >>>> I suspect the answer to the following is "unclear" but what does RGLC >>>> mean at IRTF? That those of us having participated in the RG believe >>>> it's ready for eyeballs beyond our RG? >>>> >>>> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 6:46 PM, avri doria wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the updated draft Niels. >>>>> >>>>> At the meeting in Berlin I understand that there was a sense of the room >>>>> that this draft would soon be ready for a RG last call. Before starting >>>>> that, I want to check on two things: >>>>> >>>>> - does draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05.txt respond to all the open >>>>> issues people brought up to date? I will read the latest in the next >>>>> few days to try and determine if I think it might, but it would be most >>>>> helpful to see if others think so. >>>>> >>>>> - does anyone object to starting a last call on this draft? Is so, why >>>>> and what needs to be done before you think it is ready? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>> avri >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 27-Aug-16 17:52, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >>>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. >>>>>> This draft is a work item of the Human Rights Protocol Considerations of the IETF. >>>>>> >>>>>> Title : Research into Human Rights Protocol Considerations >>>>>> Authors : Niels ten Oever >>>>>> Corinne Cath >>>>>> Filename : draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05.txt >>>>>> Pages : 69 >>>>>> Date : 2016-08-27 >>>>>> >>>>>> Abstract: >>>>>> The proliferating convolution of Internet and society increases the >>>>>> impact of the Internet on the lives of individuals. Because of this, >>>>>> the design and development of the architecture of the Internet also >>>>>> has a growing impact on society. This has led to an broad >>>>>> recognition that human rights [UDHR] [ICCPR] [ICESCR] have a role in >>>>>> the development and management of the Internet [HRC2012] [UNGA2013] >>>>>> [NETmundial]. It has also been argued that the Internet should be >>>>>> strengthened as a human rights enabling environment [Brown]. >>>>>> >>>>>> This document provides a proposal for a vocabulary to discuss the >>>>>> relation between human rights and Internet protocols, an overview of >>>>>> the discussion in technical and academic literature and communities, >>>>>> a proposal for the mapping of the relation between human rights and >>>>>> technical concepts, and a proposal for guidelines for human rights >>>>>> considerations, similar to the work done on the guidelines for >>>>>> privacy considerations [RFC6973]. >>>>>> >>>>>> Discussion of this draft at: hrpc@irtf.org // >>>>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-research/ >>>>>> >>>>>> There's also a htmlized version available at: >>>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05 >>>>>> >>>>>> A diff from the previous version is available at: >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission >>>>>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >>>>>> >>>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >>>>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>> >> >> > > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall Chief Technologist, Center for Democracy & Technology [https://www.cdt.org] 1401 K ST NW STE 200, Washington DC 20005-3497 e: joe@cdt.org, p: 202.407.8825, pgp: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key Fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10 1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871