From nobody Fri Dec 6 15:29:23 2019 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 38AF61200F6 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 15:29:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mnot.net header.b=wYk8XOCq; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=t/U8hQ2y 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 BwJ34ZxHPOEZ for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 15:29:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13F411200CC for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 15:29:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5362F20D12 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 18:29:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 06 Dec 2019 18:29:19 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnot.net; h=from :content-type:mime-version:subject:message-id:references:to :date; s=fm1; bh=MKbz4iYEAIsfIgUZ0etFeFBQRN690t199jgF78U+zJk=; b= wYk8XOCqijnekGBRRNWsULNWY3bBpMS1pQFJza9b7pTDhPk1mu4fdliZbz3bx+8v SDCbTVhmklxD3jLiAMllvjrYtHOPUus/sdN8q21yCOMsDw5KNr/9+Cx9G2LdCMza gZwxlJsZaf5NAL4mhI+QUiLLilOy9B8cnQ7cxXCrv4B+SF+PMSODCsZIrhc6BuUm 0F/w3sf0EJMfLRTze97ETDRZiMx1ODViMd8bhghlbtgKxXOkmgiFxm4npDAAdsI3 E4S8ONZXPQOsrl2vUpyqsE2uDiwlOthbc1sc+C+655Ug7T6MF2e7iTGlPQBv9jOz rcemEReKGMJni803W457IQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:message-id :mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=MKbz4iYEAIsfIgUZ0 etFeFBQRN690t199jgF78U+zJk=; b=t/U8hQ2yhGLduoqGPBd1ZlnrWwwigV6NV gihAbR9w+Fnc7fR0hQMt20mHMNG1aoi3ybEWfUEi/4lRJGnpZAF4ziERppLGjVfU vmYj3oqZCwp7XYxZD6iTy6DR7iRdT5LQi22r7ggRaYPsjnk8LiWuj0S1IEsKXAoJ tE2jU2XqOb8UBRroZPXkLG+9T3hKYAHrPgXOdC2TlWiZQTle+clDtHo55avXPsM/ dJpNORtKjN0iyKGkBvMHEYgEbq1fgoRgswdg4mbJyBe7AuDCIwCZJponicFaTNqM GUzWd7iCA6Ftz6RKIelVKT/cnPSFpc/1KVQw85TeQuX4sGpYYgC2A== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrudekgedgtdeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefhtggguffkfhfvfffosegrtdhmre hhtddvnecuhfhrohhmpeforghrkhcupfhothhtihhnghhhrghmuceomhhnohhtsehmnhho thdrnhgvtheqnecuffhomhgrihhnpehgihhthhhusgdrtghomhdpihgvthhfrdhorhhgpd hmnhhothdrnhgvthenucfkphepudduledrudejrdduheekrddvhedunecurfgrrhgrmhep mhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmnhhothesmhhnohhtrdhnvghtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivg epvd X-ME-Proxy: Received: from attitudadjuster.mnot.net (unknown [119.17.158.251]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A99878005C for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 18:29:17 -0500 (EST) From: Mark Nottingham Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_51D8D3C4-58C1-4461-B779-D1FAEFC260DD" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3601.0.10\)) Message-Id: <01246A3C-31EC-4B7B-841D-F799EEFADCB8@mnot.net> References: <157403781873.6404.6154827441040413193.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: hrpc@irtf.org Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2019 10:29:15 +1100 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3601.0.10) Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-iab-for-the-users-01.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2019 23:29:22 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_51D8D3C4-58C1-4461-B779-D1FAEFC260DD Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii The IAB wanted to give this draft wider exposure to folks than just = those on architecture-discuss; comment / feedback welcome (here, or on = the draft issues list at = >). Apologies if you've seen this before. Cheers, > Begin forwarded message: >=20 > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-iab-for-the-users-01.txt > Date: 18 November 2019 at 11:43:38 am AEDT > To: "Mark Nottingham" > >=20 >=20 > A new version of I-D, draft-iab-for-the-users-01.txt > has been successfully submitted by Mark Nottingham and posted to the > IETF repository. >=20 > Name: draft-iab-for-the-users > Revision: 01 > Title: The Internet is for End Users > Document date: 2019-11-18 > Group: iab > Pages: 11 > URL: = https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iab-for-the-users-01.txt = > Status: = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-for-the-users/ = > Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-for-the-users-01 = > Htmlized: = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-iab-for-the-users = > Diff: = https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-iab-for-the-users-01 = >=20 > Abstract: > This document explains why the IAB believes the IETF should consider > end users as its highest priority concern, and how that can be done. >=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/ --Apple-Mail=_51D8D3C4-58C1-4461-B779-D1FAEFC260DD Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
The IAB wanted to give = this draft wider exposure to folks than just those on = architecture-discuss; comment / feedback welcome (here, or on the draft = issues list at <https://github.com/intarchboard/for-the-users/issues>).<= div class=3D"">
Apologies if you've = seen this before.

Cheers,


Begin forwarded message:

From: = internet-drafts@ietf.org
Subject: = New Version = Notification for draft-iab-for-the-users-01.txt
Date: = 18 November 2019 at 11:43:38 am = AEDT
To: = "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>

A new version of I-D, draft-iab-for-the-users-01.txt
has been successfully submitted by Mark Nottingham and posted = to the
IETF repository.

Name: = = draft-iab-for-the-users
Revision: 01
Title:= = The Internet is for End Users
Document date: = 2019-11-18
Group: iab
Pages: 11
URL: =            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iab-for-the-users-01= .txt
Status: =         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-for-the-users/Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-for-the-users-01
Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-iab-for-the-users
Diff: =           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-iab-for-the-users-01<= /a>

Abstract:
=   This document explains why the IAB believes the IETF should = consider
  end users as its highest priority = concern, and how that can be done.




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

The IETF Secretariat


--
Mark = Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

= --Apple-Mail=_51D8D3C4-58C1-4461-B779-D1FAEFC260DD-- From nobody Mon Dec 9 04:48:00 2019 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 B8BD01200B9 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 04:47:58 -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_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 3f1H_bChCm_k for ; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 04:47:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.88]) (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 555691200B5 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 04:47:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.110.112]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ieIRY-00051w-Qi for hrpc@irtf.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2019 13:47:53 +0100 To: hrpc@irtf.org References: <157403781873.6404.6154827441040413193.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <01246A3C-31EC-4B7B-841D-F799EEFADCB8@mnot.net> From: Niels ten Oever Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Autocrypt: addr=mail@nielstenoever.net; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQINBFgpcR0BEACnfvNwTMlN+pyZT0AFYhWqxG3N4AoPIeNfbxLQH7dk8ZL7Ls05xtORfnu9 ovoaRrZpDufkMviUFidNYePbQNdgf63vWVgwpQR7utluwWraetcmZOu6tayJuyBK2b6d2Z23 MJAQxfa2/GMlN3QkvobaoyKtgbc8rOCgNla7WwkgtiVJ89xbAUHXPFpKWZluVRjaFh4p5C5r 7E5OvUiEGLQ5Cn2ir2PGIyIVqjB+hLTyaI6dIGCz2jtL0RATjmsmYUX7UkU/pz8MPPC2BJ5P KU9pdXMRBhAStxcph8vCo2ze9xSi3+1/5A2ULVtvO4s0hZ+exbTfMxMg3H5CCRFEEJXlQEXa Cd0ZHvqcv5xq8n9w/Ccd0CqYWATIwyP8Jlzd+BY3QGTWnWlgoAbs3Guh/pFYhEFNuuAF5Jk1 k5OlNGsRE/LQJmbT5SE7AtLJLbWewcHlEyIH+K6J8uVa4ExLXmRy+eRkFaxjGy3fLlUpy1Ee 1kU7VsQ/TZ8g8ujsMzxqsdB6y0TD/kVlWaDqPL6F+b+pm3lAuCBGWM1YZROTG58R6pD7sNVm i0ift4dIttAsg+2KoShm9A8kQ3tACXZDgNPC0l7VOqnVayjnF0RmjGeiX7PjOcLQCZ9a5wAH 5mrXMaKvfszqAVkP9HSrk1QVZOipF6vEimL43Czy7Rp1aUaUwwARAQABtChOaWVscyB0ZW4g T2V2ZXIgPG1haWxAbmllbHN0ZW5vZXZlci5uZXQ+iQJZBBMBCABDAhsjBQkJZgGABwsJCAcD AgEGFQgCCQoLBBYCAwECHgECF4AWIQQkWAtwXEr9ipSIZDoO2D86RorIswUCWyJaFgIZAQAK CRAO2D86RorIs8I2D/wNc4kT+dRC3Y9lSygeVWuxNj21z/QlbNvfXx9NicgBx4uCjsCm0ZhS 6qnp0uHYZYr8rdIzrL3GazyEuG9uvNzZBvIHm92UY1x0NH0TOVbGwJCWKULStvg9S+DjmNgp x8XM9amCtuXZyCiESeoOVRUanzD1JIidJtKgDfxvC63kqYoXl3azP0ra2nZbpktMm2fW5YdN D6kp6otjBH/jtpLay1CpVDS2Ehl3rLXJVUu96hlBnQB8q+64qyhTZ23HnbU+ib5Zb3OFgYoB KHjukJ4tV4x9rQprCQeirKX627vcNniDPnMp/nr9Qww6iVidX2vsG/22cx8MqLfs4B9tOVCJ Ft9D7MOwxOWgKnaYvrPZBOEmnuGq7btQe1tQZukL1Z83jKkV/e43k1gJaRt4Nl3/6YYCAlnn aQwRmySxznojsEl+X41UaJ6QFcoCphucOHoO9MeVzuNzgOgodXXEvlA8OJAqxRbE5AqB0leJ z1PfyrF1lsy8ETPRGKUKPBVed1vpZCQBfd/5RksOYBGhyfQ8p0w0hGs8SG6Xl6UtorJ+baLZ ZtnYbakfroxQBsF4bD/0P4fZ8wvTUDNLT8WN/9KFoTXrKn2pTLD+V9iw6nQAH4LSPw0G8XsL ce3Ihkf/2bvorGCUO7YXG4u6FPzEHsa/ZNfWHA5kbpGfwe2OVYNeI7kCDQRYKXEdARAAxYOE 3/AFmEfQ0SVVFujYFhZKX+BGXolYytC2a1soZogVYTIIlypxkRtN+ljteFAY3xX/El7cx5Fx j+uXvLKAm9xQRI/DCug7/NGULMk9bDK5bzSGw817cyiL5Kb+0RkWj2Y5ArOAK6XPGBZWZTHw yIawsSCN9AhDXZQWVRqkR1QXcq3IYKl+OHWMO7+1VfixCSakNf7T/Kiq46rQEPW8Eghk6CVO BR8xUCBbyk5aRW4VSGO6pUD3H21ur+5fTLsVyan1NHhxNNiXfnEJKr+JI5dXSkj7WqA5n8IT aNdFSAttkdT56wAQpxE2h8zaOmBaFUWQ4D8SdXDVymP5QMtLG+ItMMiNV6kXgsRFugAKM5yZ tPP9gIX+ic8QO5iuct37bRXJU/rmrH54Ab0kyAeeRE7oSsfTZPKvgtUh7VLAUEw/wy6TORJH E8JMaX0yYT6h4PGRS3mNM4bka8hjdfcrexI0zSqFOl2I22zQlG3YqSzIvVh98W67hxfAIaCV aTfJLFPEru3drxNwi6ogdkRmcLGKqqTgeYItrvITyFvzqbrcO2exp0KKEK3cDIZypqHHUf4+ uPlDtuExehLsNOMpjP8qhZpFtyLeDS07qunbvstcyvR30wOJ3DyAbHGzq739UyDcO9Jt5jwO DyVwk3MK5Em4pJ0+IAJx+F6gta0Bk2MAEQEAAYkCJQQYAQgADwUCWClxHQIbDAUJCWYBgAAK CRAO2D86RorIs0ykD/4t151SZG9MbeKRVKbs9Ecjady9bO0L3oBos4rhqY12ha8smFlsUzvb gB4CtkBuXQlq+plOBWv+rFEThOzy3bezgEDjlxycoO1W2wJD6E7Fo9fkHT6UOm9fQBkuKRqK 83OGnfM02qP1Ky8d7EoZz+nTSMf/DJgWw1YRKrXkMHBwKD83lCENsmePWE5AjMqk8cojPv9O y1wWy6fHjwx3r+wQSokBNfxgQyAFonmgBbhlic/pZUYRSIcldyUlaomrjFfr4egzmNE7aWDv LwOUYKevBIeJJcqTyfAn3TtJbPCEHOC2+lP6EcmPFyhQdiia+RqOClumqbWOPeQ2VM8j7NWv KKmBNBB5OJ/rmHogbNU+wWPJ723qMBoOp1jIwFNkQhx01W6v55VMwLr+IuBKY1ggJ2BhwQiG pWv4tMc5oB/qVh3my1VO65ErcJ3S9blpwJdDj5/YDOU7BKEmpRUP+xkaryNzH2x7FzrOOHzJ BX6jeYZabGvnTicQlBAzfGpblFqV3YN6EhCF2AHmGLTZ/DrjGYToIsW8cXlEMqN4u8ODEUY0 OhbnytnopKJKk99bwMoCqDkfQvT3LKDWtZj9NzFndfuoKXsVpwAitrG0mau0/16DKDyVWdtJ 9DYmtE40zO6g70VVxUj+dKt2hbJTy/KQTb7Ijhw7wZrGp/P7nhbVyA== Message-ID: <1bb1e4be-1157-c577-2b76-af6d4e000eab@nielstenoever.net> Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 13:47:15 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <01246A3C-31EC-4B7B-841D-F799EEFADCB8@mnot.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Authenticated-As-Hash: f1842a279235a42f6aa2a2a81130733515c5a4ec X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Scan-Signature: 9426f5d1bab314603f7b21e0d362b3bd Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-iab-for-the-users-01.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2019 12:47:59 -0000 Thanks for this Mark, I have been following this draft for quite a while and am really happy with both the documents and its progress. Some notes: 1. Upon re-reading I found the apostrophe in this sentence a bit confusing: [quote] It has created wealth for some individuals and companies while destroying others' [/quote] Is the apostrophe there to indicate this is "others' wealth" ? Am not an English native speaker, but I was slightly confused about that. 2. I do like the gist of 4.1, but it could potentially be enhanced with a para that makes it clear that the IETF also doesn't always foresee the outcomes of their work. In this para it seems like only end-users don't understand what we're doing: [quote] The IETF community faces significant hurdles in doing so. Our work is specialised and often esoteric, and standard processes often occur on very long timescales. Affected parties are rarely technical experts, and their experience of the Internet is often based upon incomplete (and sometimes inaccurate) models. Often, even when we try to engage a broader audience, their participation is minimal - until a change affects someone in a way they don't like. Surprising the Internet community is rarely a good outcome. [/quote] but I think that often we also don't really know what the outcome is. Engaging other people in the review of our documents also helps with that. 3. In 4.1 the text develops from 'Engaging the Internet Community' to 'stakeholder community', and also implies 'affected communities'. How are these communities differentiated and identified? 4. Suggestion in 4.3: s/access characteristics/means of Internet access (especially since you use 'different characteristics' later in the same sentence). I hope this helps! Best, Niels On 12/7/19 12:29 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > The IAB wanted to give this draft wider exposure to folks than just those on architecture-discuss; comment / feedback welcome (here, or on the draft issues list at ). > > Apologies if you've seen this before. > > Cheers, > > >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> *From: *internet-drafts@ietf.org >> *Subject: **New Version Notification for draft-iab-for-the-users-01.txt* >> *Date: *18 November 2019 at 11:43:38 am AEDT >> *To: *"Mark Nottingham" > >> >> >> A new version of I-D, draft-iab-for-the-users-01.txt >> has been successfully submitted by Mark Nottingham and posted to the >> IETF repository. >> >> Name:draft-iab-for-the-users >> Revision:01 >> Title:The Internet is for End Users >> Document date:2019-11-18 >> Group:iab >> Pages:11 >> URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iab-for-the-users-01..txt >> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-for-the-users/ >> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-for-the-users-01 >> Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-iab-for-the-users >> Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-iab-for-the-users-01 >> >> Abstract: >>   This document explains why the IAB believes the IETF should consider >>   end users as its highest priority concern, and how that can be done. >> >> >> >> >> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission >> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org . >> >> The IETF Secretariat >> > > -- > Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/ > > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > -- Niels ten Oever Researcher and PhD Candidate DATACTIVE Research Group University of Amsterdam PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 From nobody Tue Dec 10 07:18:36 2019 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 8ADC31200E6 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 07:18:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.198 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=open-xchange.com 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 LT729Y1_LCol for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 07:18:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx4.open-xchange.com (alcatraz.open-xchange.com [87.191.39.187]) (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 B7E701200E5 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 07:18:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from open-xchange.com (imap.open-xchange.com [10.20.30.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx4.open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F38256A257 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 16:18:26 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=open-xchange.com; s=201705; t=1575991107; bh=dCPnzf3SSYyRdDGLx/M0dOqa/Jv2OyHB2EBsxrvCCgQ=; h=Date:From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From; b=kkpJtqEYvQMFjv16jNgWwM3PGx/e1Lpc29ZcdwZC03VQsm8LENOPeDWg9QsuclzJg u+A1AmGMEd6iMe11ZgYvpzaqh3KUgTKv8vcpTI+vY1DA6VV0j3e7ZT3CB86iUT1ABB 17rOZQR9geWzukyVM2wuFoGzrokIrg8AHQFQNRoSy6YkCL2giW7fe640w2pqlKyT6g ZIgGmZ/QgmwanulPnwtUPNqzAnFDj1isvrA2huIRX+If2WT7B84tDm40W/376BV+yJ I6Ls3qlALCsjGPMckS9BAp4A2Xqt+Y3gpYA/ojAb1XZ84Y5GhVYlP13fZ7E+DKvyOB wPsvsG8gRPGSQ== Received: from appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com (appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com [10.20.28.82]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E6F243C0469 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 16:18:26 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 16:18:26 +0100 (CET) From: Vittorio Bertola To: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <227662299.12784.1575991106819@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> In-Reply-To: <01246A3C-31EC-4B7B-841D-F799EEFADCB8@mnot.net> References: <157403781873.6404.6154827441040413193.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <01246A3C-31EC-4B7B-841D-F799EEFADCB8@mnot.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.3-Rev3 X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite Autocrypt: addr=vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQENBFhFR+UBCACfoywFKBRfzasiiR9/6dwY36eLePXcdScumDMR8qoXvRS55QYDjp5bs+yMq41qWV9 xp/cqryY9jnvHbeF3TsE5yEazpD1dleRbkpElUBpPwXqkrSP8uXO9KkS9KoX6gdml6M4L+F82WpqYC1 uTzOE6HPmhmQ4cGSgoia2jolxAhRpzoYN99/BwpvoZeTSLP5K6yPlMPYkMev/uZlAkMMhelli9IN6yA yxcC0AeHSnOAcNKUr13yXyMlTyi1cdMJ4sk88zIbefxwg3PAtYjkz3wgvP96cNVwAgSt4+j/ZuVaENP pgVuM512m051j9SlspWDHtzrci5pBKKFsibnTelrABEBAAG0NUJlcnRvbGEsIFZpdHRvcmlvIDx2aXR 0b3Jpby5iZXJ0b2xhQG9wZW4teGNoYW5nZS5jb20+iQFABBMBAgAqBAsJCAcGFQoJCAsCBRYCAwEAAp 4BAhsDBYkSzAMABQMAAAAABYJYRUflAAoJEIU2cHmzj8qNaG0H/ROY+suCP86hoN+9RIV66Ej8b3sb8 UgwFJOJMupZfeb9yTIJwE4VQT5lTt146CcJJ5jvxD6FZn1Htw9y4/45pPAF7xLE066jg3OqRvzeWRZ3 IDUfJJIiM5YGk1xWxDqppSwhnKcMOuI72iioWxX0nGQrWxpnWJsjt08IEEwuYucDkul1PHsrLJbTd58 fiMKLVwag+IE1SPHOwkPF6arZQZIfB5ThtOZV+36Jn8Hok9XfeXWBVyPkiWCQYVX39QsIbr0JNR9kQy 4g2ZFexOcTe8Jo12jPRL7V8OqStdDes3cje9lWFLnX05nrfLuE0l0JKWEg8akN+McFXc+oV68h7nu5A Q0EWEVH5QEIAIDKanNBe1uRfk8AjLirflZO291VNkOAeUu+dIhecGnZeQW6htlDinlYOnXhtsY1mK9W PUu+xshDq7lXn2G0LxldYwyJYZaJtDgIKqVqwxfA34Lj27oqPuXwcvGhdCgt0SW/YcalRdAi0/AzUCu 5GSaj2kaGUSnBYYUP4szGJXjaK2psP5toQSCtx2pfSXQ6MaqPK9Zzy+D5xc6VWQRp/iRImodAcPf8fg JJvRyJ8Jla3lKWyvBBzJDg6MOf6Fts78bJSt23X0uPp93g7GgbYkuRMnFI4RGoTVkxjD/HBEJ0CNg22 hoHJondhmKnZVrHEluFuSnW0wBEIYomcPSPB+cAEQEAAYkBMQQYAQIAGwUCWEVH5QIbDAQLCQgHBhUK CQgLAgUJEswDAAAKCRCFNnB5s4/KjdO8B/wNpvWtOpLdotR/Xh4fu08Fd63nnNfbIGIETWsVi0Sbr8i E5duuGaaWIcMmUvgKe/BM0Fpj9X01Zjm90uoPrlVVuQWrf+vFlbalUYVZr51gl5UyUFHk+iAZCAA0WB rsmACKvuV1P7GuiX3UV9b59T9taYJxN3dNFuftrEuvsqHimFtlekUjUwoCekTJdncFusBhwz2OrKhHr WWrEsXkfh0+pURWYAlKlTxvXuI7gAfHEQM+6OnrWvXYtlhd0M1sBPnCjbyG63Qws7Rek9bEWKtH6dA6 dmT2FQT+g1S9Mdf0WkPTQNX0x24dm8IoHuD3KYwX7Svx43Xa17aZnXqUjtj1 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-iab-for-the-users-01.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 15:18:35 -0000 =20 =20

Il 07/12/2019 00:29 Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> ha scritto:


The IAB wanted to give this draft wider exposure to folks than just tho= se on architecture-discuss; comment / feedback welcome (here, or on the dra= ft issues list at < https://github.com/intarchboard/for-the-users/issues>).
While I recognize progress in -01, I still have fundamental problems wit= h this document.

Version -00 explicitly included commercial companies operating at the ed= ge of the net as "end users". Version -01 does not mention them any more, b= ut also does not restrict clearly the term "end users" to individuals, i.e.= physical persons - actually, section 2 at a certain point mentions "indivi= dual end users", which could imply that whenever "end users" is used withou= t the qualifier, it has a broader meaning. I do not know how to interpret t= he new text, but as I already commented on -00, the IETF stating that it wi= ll prioritize the interests of commercial companies operating at the edge o= ver those of commercial companies operating within the network is highly in= appropriate.

In section 4.2, the claim that "Web browsers=E2=80=99 interests are bett= er aligned with those of their users" is unsubstantiated. Actually, one wou= ld think that such a concentrated market is exactly the one where users hav= e scarce choice and low bargaining power with the companies that supply it.= It is quite easy for the handful of browser makers to agree on something w= hich goes against user interests and just push it to the market, and even c= laim that it actually goes in the interest of the user. The lack of cultura= l and geographical diversity among browser makers also does not make them w= ell equipped to represent the global users of the Internet.

Similarly, I find the discussion on representativeness in section 4.1 qu= ite baffling. Basically, it says: ok, a government elected by 60 million ci= tizens shows up and says something, but we think that what they say is not = really representative of those people. On the other hand, we know this NGO = of ten people and wow, they are really representative! So "they are in many= ways the most representative advocates for end user concerns; they should = be considered a primary channel for engaging the broader Internet community= ". What's the logic behind that? It looks like the IETF is cherrypicking th= e stakeholders it wants to listen to.

Also, coming from 15-year discussions on multistakeholderism, the princi= ple of multistakeholderism is that all stakeholders have to be included, bu= t also that each of them keeps their distinct role. Actually, representing = the people and balancing all the contrasting interests is exactly the exist= ential purpose of Parliaments and governments; one can argue how well they = do this, but no better system than democracy and elections has been found, = and it does not look like the document proposes any better way of finding o= ut what the "end user interest" is. Saying that, instead of governments, we= will pick someone else to represent users because we like them better, is = not a better way.

More generally, I think that the IETF should stop writing documents abou= t policies and values for future developments of the Internet. These are no= n-technical decisions that have to be shared with all other stakeholders, p= ossibly through discussions in other fora, and the IETF does not have a man= date to settle this on its own.

-- 

Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open=
-Xchange
vittorio.b=
ertola@open-xchange.com 
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Ital=
y
=20 From nobody Tue Dec 10 08:05:56 2019 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 AD158120100 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 08:05:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com 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 pOeQkhaVNe-b for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 08:05:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pj1-x1033.google.com (mail-pj1-x1033.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1033]) (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 36638120024 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 08:05:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pj1-x1033.google.com with SMTP id l4so7584797pjt.5 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 08:05:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to; bh=a1ObvW98dCIatn1RzyIltNdvMzOKoEs0zQeUjiDZQy0=; b=DhUBSgUAf+eplNCEQqZPPd+MmsLoTkMTAxY9saMRovnhEVw0+BBTFrYkuV8Bgztwjb Z3aIvylVeaWo05EssOCmgdRUhO2YaEP4hdW2mFi1R6BvVuQbq3uPuCCWnekM3npXXvJL iULMbOnbKZN32DKcnf4g1UWQyzjYWQFk7rMu/u3ytbdMwSx2zdtuJEru28qkcRcmKClW K+pcbwz+rxCO4tBCun3RjpwkMfyA50d6PaN/cduU32oQkd4RU32NrCT6qEy5t7xCo1t3 4AJPd2Rksi59UR9KASsOGZbTTntn0FxgrxqCPTgshdg3Yur8mAdGzf5K9gv3xzZ7OhOW LGfg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=a1ObvW98dCIatn1RzyIltNdvMzOKoEs0zQeUjiDZQy0=; b=LwqzL7TBLhNnm4O/pnFNcjcX2rvWS8fhgs0Kpo2GmoGcQbo0qYA5AdU95Di2d9Lhx4 +No3Op8N4IalSPF9dle8mOyx3kGxViYv7dWIGhQZYY0TW0oyUsISrSz8LfySC/RYLql1 cXYo5FPnvQfbPwWS29qs35lzHOXz122bS4RGn37z9nSQs6z4VgPLd6W/XFKF88nw125o zaiDjOXKF9EmwONvmtDN77AArooUX3H94BEb2dkwKBPeSONPrGwnhIWS1ms6SWXs0UIo xJlKt89H2+w59+v8T4P/97SE+Qnxk3HabezqZA/qI1nr7VfvR1GhwTnCQdXtg1kZUw/V 68SQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVJER4cy6DcSTf6VLpdpzcbba05DV9ZABWSTWj1SJFfTIf8AuUV 97s++1+7Zy5v0nDn3/vuA7OT/A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz9GqpbBfYiUXHgEFkIlsVJdFnSsHlzGrOm80eIPGXQgVXA8dYB23nH/qcnGGtw/PPKmfiqoA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:a409:: with SMTP id y9mr6211661pjp.119.1575993952644; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 08:05:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from [17.192.139.178] ([17.192.139.178]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h14sm3936204pfn.174.2019.12.10.08.05.51 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 10 Dec 2019 08:05:52 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8BC5D16B-D16E-4F5A-98BB-248DA248C6EB" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.60.0.2.1\)) From: Ted Lemon X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <227662299.12784.1575991106819@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 08:05:50 -0800 Cc: hrpc@irtf.org Message-Id: References: <157403781873.6404.6154827441040413193.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <01246A3C-31EC-4B7B-841D-F799EEFADCB8@mnot.net> <227662299.12784.1575991106819@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> To: Vittorio Bertola X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.60.0.2.1) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] New Version Notification for draft-iab-for-the-users-01.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 16:05:55 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_8BC5D16B-D16E-4F5A-98BB-248DA248C6EB Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 On Dec 10, 2019, at 7:18 AM, Vittorio Bertola = wrote: > Similarly, I find the discussion on representativeness in section 4.1 = quite baffling. Basically, it says: ok, a government elected by 60 = million citizens shows up and says something, but we think that what = they say is not really representative of those people. On the other = hand, we know this NGO of ten people and wow, they are really = representative! So "they are in many ways the most representative = advocates for end user concerns; they should be considered a primary = channel for engaging the broader Internet community". What's the logic = behind that? It looks like the IETF is cherrypicking the stakeholders it = wants to listen to. It=E2=80=99s a pretty well-understood phenomenon that current democratic = technology doesn=E2=80=99t produce governments that represent the will = of the people unless the people exert a really extreme amount of effort = to accomplish that (that is to say, not usually). There are of course = exceptions. I think your NGO-of-ten-people example is amusing and = appropriate, but it=E2=80=99s quite clearly the case that many = governments, some of them democratically elected, don=E2=80=99t really = represent the will of the people. Simply asserting that governments = must represent the will of the people, and that NGOs must not, because = of the very real representation issue you=E2=80=99ve highlighted here is = therefore misleading. In fact, I think the principle should be more that people can be trusted = to at least try to do what they want, and that if what they want to do = isn=E2=80=99t clearly harmful, the internet should by default not try to = prevent them from doing it. --Apple-Mail=_8BC5D16B-D16E-4F5A-98BB-248DA248C6EB Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 On = Dec 10, 2019, at 7:18 AM, Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola=3D40open-xchange.com@dmarc.ietf.org> = wrote:
Similarly, I find the discussion = on representativeness in section 4.1 quite baffling. Basically, it says: = ok, a government elected by 60 million citizens shows up and says = something, but we think that what they say is not really representative = of those people. On the other hand, we know this NGO of ten people and = wow, they are really representative! So "they are in many ways the most = representative advocates for end user concerns; they should be = considered a primary channel for engaging the broader Internet = community". What's the logic behind that? It looks like the IETF is = cherrypicking the stakeholders it wants to listen = to.

It=E2=80= =99s a pretty well-understood phenomenon that current democratic = technology doesn=E2=80=99t produce governments that represent the will = of the people unless the people exert a really extreme amount of effort = to accomplish that (that is to say, not usually).  There are of = course exceptions.   I think your NGO-of-ten-people example is = amusing and appropriate, but it=E2=80=99s quite clearly the case that = many governments, some of them democratically elected, don=E2=80=99t = really represent the will of the people.   Simply asserting that = governments must represent the will of the people, and that NGOs must = not, because of the very real representation issue you=E2=80=99ve = highlighted here is therefore misleading.

In fact, I think the principle should = be more that people can be trusted to at least try to do what they want, = and that if what they want to do isn=E2=80=99t clearly harmful, the = internet should by default not try to prevent them from doing = it.

= --Apple-Mail=_8BC5D16B-D16E-4F5A-98BB-248DA248C6EB-- From nobody Tue Dec 10 08:41:10 2019 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 B18C9120043 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 08:41:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.198 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=open-xchange.com 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 Ul5YNSsCGgi6 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 08:41:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx4.open-xchange.com (alcatraz.open-xchange.com [87.191.39.187]) (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 E974E1200E5 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 08:41:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from open-xchange.com (imap.open-xchange.com [10.20.30.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx4.open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB4916A257; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 17:41:04 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=open-xchange.com; s=201705; t=1575996064; bh=dwr0mlPEPWQ2lKUHw25fxG4WOj/M85qzhaDYylm7fyQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From; b=UG3sJ3BT/4OycsB/eOdEOlev8GKRboyQMeX4MZwuPNk69WnrFEazoaLWFqn1giDqs 2Cnxobj1VA0YLp6gUnujzAbwIbBuJvwzUHgG0OgR6MOJeHdKs9JziHENVItrMCHn5p 8vfduJ78XJxrSHKcARHo8kw/IzoH3xCP5yxlaxwCCBXM+IsFkn3XP7d7lDP2fZHowy 8NgG6l3Fd11zYVp+3A61r9vg5JoaTDbC+ne6tQR4PeYrDUyF1HMuHCO2aF613WWEBs ypS59C6FbCFnsw9r4EbJ81Vck8sb+gYmuMB1SeDNkNArjjL7ay0/s1awUmPwnxacgg AVG+Xlow0CDcg== Received: from appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com (appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com [10.20.28.82]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9EE333C02C8; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 17:41:04 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 17:41:03 +0100 (CET) From: Vittorio Bertola To: Ted Lemon Cc: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <429195684.13066.1575996064551@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> In-Reply-To: References: <157403781873.6404.6154827441040413193.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <01246A3C-31EC-4B7B-841D-F799EEFADCB8@mnot.net> <227662299.12784.1575991106819@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.3-Rev3 X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite Autocrypt: addr=vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQENBFhFR+UBCACfoywFKBRfzasiiR9/6dwY36eLePXcdScumDMR8qoXvRS55QYDjp5bs+yMq41qWV9 xp/cqryY9jnvHbeF3TsE5yEazpD1dleRbkpElUBpPwXqkrSP8uXO9KkS9KoX6gdml6M4L+F82WpqYC1 uTzOE6HPmhmQ4cGSgoia2jolxAhRpzoYN99/BwpvoZeTSLP5K6yPlMPYkMev/uZlAkMMhelli9IN6yA yxcC0AeHSnOAcNKUr13yXyMlTyi1cdMJ4sk88zIbefxwg3PAtYjkz3wgvP96cNVwAgSt4+j/ZuVaENP pgVuM512m051j9SlspWDHtzrci5pBKKFsibnTelrABEBAAG0NUJlcnRvbGEsIFZpdHRvcmlvIDx2aXR 0b3Jpby5iZXJ0b2xhQG9wZW4teGNoYW5nZS5jb20+iQFABBMBAgAqBAsJCAcGFQoJCAsCBRYCAwEAAp 4BAhsDBYkSzAMABQMAAAAABYJYRUflAAoJEIU2cHmzj8qNaG0H/ROY+suCP86hoN+9RIV66Ej8b3sb8 UgwFJOJMupZfeb9yTIJwE4VQT5lTt146CcJJ5jvxD6FZn1Htw9y4/45pPAF7xLE066jg3OqRvzeWRZ3 IDUfJJIiM5YGk1xWxDqppSwhnKcMOuI72iioWxX0nGQrWxpnWJsjt08IEEwuYucDkul1PHsrLJbTd58 fiMKLVwag+IE1SPHOwkPF6arZQZIfB5ThtOZV+36Jn8Hok9XfeXWBVyPkiWCQYVX39QsIbr0JNR9kQy 4g2ZFexOcTe8Jo12jPRL7V8OqStdDes3cje9lWFLnX05nrfLuE0l0JKWEg8akN+McFXc+oV68h7nu5A Q0EWEVH5QEIAIDKanNBe1uRfk8AjLirflZO291VNkOAeUu+dIhecGnZeQW6htlDinlYOnXhtsY1mK9W PUu+xshDq7lXn2G0LxldYwyJYZaJtDgIKqVqwxfA34Lj27oqPuXwcvGhdCgt0SW/YcalRdAi0/AzUCu 5GSaj2kaGUSnBYYUP4szGJXjaK2psP5toQSCtx2pfSXQ6MaqPK9Zzy+D5xc6VWQRp/iRImodAcPf8fg JJvRyJ8Jla3lKWyvBBzJDg6MOf6Fts78bJSt23X0uPp93g7GgbYkuRMnFI4RGoTVkxjD/HBEJ0CNg22 hoHJondhmKnZVrHEluFuSnW0wBEIYomcPSPB+cAEQEAAYkBMQQYAQIAGwUCWEVH5QIbDAQLCQgHBhUK CQgLAgUJEswDAAAKCRCFNnB5s4/KjdO8B/wNpvWtOpLdotR/Xh4fu08Fd63nnNfbIGIETWsVi0Sbr8i E5duuGaaWIcMmUvgKe/BM0Fpj9X01Zjm90uoPrlVVuQWrf+vFlbalUYVZr51gl5UyUFHk+iAZCAA0WB rsmACKvuV1P7GuiX3UV9b59T9taYJxN3dNFuftrEuvsqHimFtlekUjUwoCekTJdncFusBhwz2OrKhHr WWrEsXkfh0+pURWYAlKlTxvXuI7gAfHEQM+6OnrWvXYtlhd0M1sBPnCjbyG63Qws7Rek9bEWKtH6dA6 dmT2FQT+g1S9Mdf0WkPTQNX0x24dm8IoHuD3KYwX7Svx43Xa17aZnXqUjtj1 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] New Version Notification for draft-iab-for-the-users-01.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 16:41:09 -0000 =20 =20

Il 10/12/2019 17:05 Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> ha scritto:

It=E2=80=99s a pretty well-understood phenomenon that current democrati= c technology doesn=E2=80=99t produce governments that represent the will of= the people unless the people exert a really extreme amount of effort to ac= complish that (that is to say, not usually).  There are of course exce= ptions.   I think your NGO-of-ten-people example is amusing and approp= riate, but it=E2=80=99s quite clearly the case that many governments, some = of them democratically elected, don=E2=80=99t really represent the will of = the people.   Simply asserting that governments must represent the wil= l of the people, and that NGOs must not, because of the very real represent= ation issue you=E2=80=99ve highlighted here is therefore misleading.
Your objection is entirely reasonable, and indeed is one of the reasons = why many in the Internet governance community, including myself, have been = arguing in favour of the multistakeholder model, as a way to increase repre= sentation beyond what governments can provide.

However, the problem is that if you want to adopt a different system to = ascertain end user will, it should clearly be more representative and democ= ratic than the one based on governments. 19 years ago, we tried global onli= ne elections - it only worked so and so, though I think that there would ha= ve been ample room for improvement and the experiment was aborted too hasti= ly. We later tried with an indirect system based on a network of NGOs, whic= h is still in use at ICANN, and it also works so and so. However, if I had = to say how representative of the "end users" that is, I'd say that the ICAN= N At Large system produces opinions discussed among 20 to 200 people, as co= mpared with several billions of Internet users - I don't think that system = is more representative than governments, though it is definitely more repre= sentative than consensus on a handful of English-only, engineer-populated m= ailing lists.

Also, it's easy to say "governments are not really representative so we = dispossess them of their role". But who judges whether a government is repr= esentative enough or not? It'd better be someone more representative than t= hem, and I don't think the IETF has that prerogative.

In fact, I think the principle should be more that people can be truste= d to at least try to do what they want, and that if what they want to do is= n=E2=80=99t clearly harmful, the internet should by default not try to prev= ent them from doing it.

Again, there is a problem here: who judges whether something a user want= s to do is clearly harmful? The Internet is full of people that do harmful = things, sometimes extremely harmful ones, not just to the network but to ot= her people. Either you take the line that all users do is acceptable by pri= nciple, so no rules and no law enforcement should ever apply to Internet co= mmunications, or you have the problem of who gets to decide and enforce tho= se rules. I still haven't seen a convincing argument that the IETF or the t= echnical community are more legitimate for that than elected governments wi= th all their shortcomings.

In any case, this is an interesting discussion to have, but in my opinio= n it also shows how simplistic and unsustainable certain statements in the = document are; the IETF needs a lot more thinking and working on issues of i= nclusiveness, diversity, representativeness and decision making processes, = before being able to claim to do anything "for the users".

-- 

Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open=
-Xchange
vittorio.b=
ertola@open-xchange.com 
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Ital=
y
=20 From nobody Tue Dec 10 09:13:00 2019 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 275E31208C7 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 09:12:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com 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 3D9H-j8fH80j for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 09:12:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pg1-x52a.google.com (mail-pg1-x52a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52a]) (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 ECF80120100 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 09:12:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pg1-x52a.google.com with SMTP id b1so9182434pgq.10 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 09:12:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to; bh=kP57p9h/n9QCA2vkBdxfSFNh/ILGDrO+7w5siBcV2NI=; b=f7iB7GyHLkQA93LqswhsXTtz419vacvghXyEzonM9eccJojorOCV6izk2Zs9f8daSk qwepMCsAwnp008WlHLEmjBfT68wE4ntEaIt9ZAdg3GzBpDQBHrhQVI5FnR96NmGg9tOd ITXog+zuh2ygOTaJyFGW+kSZWOj6uISQmK03mco35wyETAlGWatoWw9aEe8Ug0fXdDzy rqvpszJeJthQ13Z2UnnhuwBA5LnBcGeD4YudBBXywHBQ3iLerSlWDOAZMBQTaXk79o5z oGuUQ3EJGRf5mszwozim2Pgwt+PGUT7n20XjVdGCAjkk/brMSWDODuxjOCtmTk8XxwQP Io+g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=kP57p9h/n9QCA2vkBdxfSFNh/ILGDrO+7w5siBcV2NI=; b=qob51pPhqv8E22a2g3fZjASzTxii8jCv8OJd7ujULDtSqsoudTjYgqJURCJbsCioR6 ZLjP8sq40thTYhqD39XhYanqAxqYNia23sPh09cYpaHSJyA8P0LxqDdeqpaAzbQmXc51 +wfh828VthXSFd4Nyi7wuXl1S7NwMmYfWC2rRtQDZWlN+jjGo23BOju7wHZp1E+dPpgu RRvaRkJu31vZ7spetlzMrusC0UTAiAhN1UPIFmKTX3PCih7LThHPS+Eyyypq/Cqb4wvq RqCRUbW5u5Ci3LX/WmhM/rZilm3GELjSCh07OVzw0RZfd+HSGSqMz3qwZ4yOLwXmh2S4 GvsQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXroz8JcEy1WHo8kwWCs+GKsmvQvgrony/KIeKuPH4wE5uNAIvf f6NvX1lFWv/x9BHNkim6o6IWbQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxZaiLlMkmQI8cavZwrO4V57uTIBJVNSfj9ZfYFZAfx5FhdjZvNyVnMacGP3iS0Y/ZmxGb8bg== X-Received: by 2002:a62:2cd7:: with SMTP id s206mr36024421pfs.106.1575997976470; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 09:12:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from [17.192.139.178] ([17.192.139.178]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q15sm3926361pgi.55.2019.12.10.09.12.55 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 10 Dec 2019 09:12:55 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_AFFED38D-5158-4114-BA2E-123138AB9C83" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.60.0.2.1\)) From: Ted Lemon X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <429195684.13066.1575996064551@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 09:12:54 -0800 Cc: hrpc@irtf.org Message-Id: <0C729385-1361-460C-9C16-E1BE1680A3E6@fugue.com> References: <157403781873.6404.6154827441040413193.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <01246A3C-31EC-4B7B-841D-F799EEFADCB8@mnot.net> <227662299.12784.1575991106819@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <429195684.13066.1575996064551@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> To: Vittorio Bertola X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.60.0.2.1) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] New Version Notification for draft-iab-for-the-users-01.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 17:12:58 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_AFFED38D-5158-4114-BA2E-123138AB9C83 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 On Dec 10, 2019, at 8:41 AM, Vittorio Bertola = wrote: > However, the problem is that if you want to adopt a different system = to ascertain end user will, it should clearly be more representative and = democratic than the one based on governments. No, this is a really fundamental point of disagreement. You are = arguing for =E2=80=9Ceverything that is not explicitly permitted is = forbidden,=E2=80=9D perhaps without realizing it. I am arguing for = =E2=80=9Ceverything not explicitly forbidden is permitted.=E2=80=9D The idea that whether I should be allowed to do something should be = subject to a majority vote is the problem. Unless the majority can = agree that what I want to do is harmful to the public, I should not be = in any way constrained from doing it. If you think about it this way, then the problems you have raised go = away. Since it=E2=80=99s not the government=E2=80=99s default role to = give me permission to do what I want to do, there is no need for the = government to be involved at all. Only when the government determines = that I am doing something that should be stopped, does the government = need to intervene. This can still cause great harm (see the =E2=80=9Cthi= nk of the children=E2=80=9D attack surface), but it=E2=80=99s at least = relatively benign, and doesn=E2=80=99t subject every potential = innovation to majority approval. --Apple-Mail=_AFFED38D-5158-4114-BA2E-123138AB9C83 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 On = Dec 10, 2019, at 8:41 AM, Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com> = wrote:
However, the problem is that if = you want to adopt a different system to ascertain end user will, it = should clearly be more representative and democratic than the one based = on governments.

No, this is a really fundamental point of disagreement. =   You are arguing for =E2=80=9Ceverything that is not explicitly = permitted is forbidden,=E2=80=9D perhaps without realizing it.   I = am arguing for =E2=80=9Ceverything not explicitly forbidden is = permitted.=E2=80=9D

The idea that whether I should be allowed to do something = should be subject to a majority vote is the problem.   Unless the = majority can agree that what I want to do is harmful to the public, I = should not be in any way constrained from doing it.

If you think about it = this way, then the problems you have raised go away.   Since it=E2=80= =99s not the government=E2=80=99s default role to give me permission to = do what I want to do, there is no need for the government to be involved = at all.  Only when the government determines that I am doing = something that should be stopped, does the government need to intervene. =   This can still cause great harm (see the =E2=80=9Cthink of the = children=E2=80=9D attack surface), but it=E2=80=99s at least relatively = benign, and doesn=E2=80=99t subject every potential innovation to = majority approval.

= --Apple-Mail=_AFFED38D-5158-4114-BA2E-123138AB9C83-- From nobody Tue Dec 10 09:29:17 2019 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 070C412080F for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 09:29:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.com 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 NDkuMDZFtk0d for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 09:29:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9001:583::1]) (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 CBC831208FA for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 09:29:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0122332.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id xBAHS05F011270; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 17:29:12 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=zFZXIG3b3v29YKD/VWV2qCf00k9L1HL87s3VP4dPX68=; b=NnegQrJGvNER1WDLGgFNS7f2HnI/FeN9lBRIm6NorOFkxMg7UzomwNOS93mDpYeVFK9V HNWBbQUHMXztLLzNAh+4xzx1bSflJUpCysLpDQzP1BxmCXp85u3n0JzCFhe8C0L+/mow eV84gUjWnl0zV85uYzNQnwNM85e4ZJrzrOQ6bRBl5eolHETv2KxK8FfwAtG1nxWPZuNZ hMVdu6BAYNYowZOZ1Ff/VZae3Zje9InMk9K3l0pzrIipzm2SrPZG0enZlCxcjdC1q8BM e9p1KgTv/rH0CcKUgq40Xn5Z6LD0ohl5wpX9T77V28NqnfYN4b4BHHWVn41Vs+Fevm7C pg== Received: from prod-mail-ppoint5 (prod-mail-ppoint5.akamai.com [184.51.33.60] (may be forged)) by mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2wr50pdq8a-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 10 Dec 2019 17:29:12 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint5.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint5.akamai.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id xBAHHYKb026120; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 09:29:11 -0800 Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.31]) by prod-mail-ppoint5.akamai.com with ESMTP id 2wraxbe040-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 10 Dec 2019 09:29:11 -0800 Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB3.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.103) by usma1ex-dag1mb3.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.103) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 12:29:10 -0500 Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB3.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.103]) by usma1ex-dag1mb3.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.103]) with mapi id 15.00.1473.005; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 12:29:10 -0500 From: "Salz, Rich" To: Vittorio Bertola , "hrpc@irtf.org" Thread-Topic: [hrpc] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-iab-for-the-users-01.txt Thread-Index: AQHVrI0CIx57aCCG4ki+yimNqMnvTaez1NoA///QtgA= Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 17:29:09 +0000 Message-ID: <51F77EC7-6734-4AB5-BD53-323A6BABF52C@akamai.com> References: <157403781873.6404.6154827441040413193.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <01246A3C-31EC-4B7B-841D-F799EEFADCB8@mnot.net> <227662299.12784.1575991106819@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> In-Reply-To: <227662299.12784.1575991106819@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.20.0.191208 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [172.19.113.3] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_51F77EC767344AB5BD53323A6BABF52Cakamaicom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-12-10_05:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=800 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1911140001 definitions=main-1912100148 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.95,18.0.572 definitions=2019-12-10_05:2019-12-10,2019-12-10 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 clxscore=1011 priorityscore=1501 spamscore=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxlogscore=746 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-1910280000 definitions=main-1912100149 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-iab-for-the-users-01.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 17:29:17 -0000 --_000_51F77EC767344AB5BD53323A6BABF52Cakamaicom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SSBoYXZlIHByb2JsZW1zIGFzIHdlbGwuIGh0dHBzOi8vZ2l0aHViLmNvbS9pbnRhcmNoYm9hcmQv Zm9yLXRoZS11c2Vycy9pc3N1ZXMvMQ0KDQpJdCBpcyB1bmZvcnR1bmF0ZSB0aGF0IHRoaXMgZW1h aWwgd2FzIHNlbnQgc2VwYXJhdGVseSB0byBtYW55IG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdHM7IGRpc2N1c3Npb24g d2lsbCBiZSBmcmFnbWVudGVkLiA6KA0KDQo= --_000_51F77EC767344AB5BD53323A6BABF52Cakamaicom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <6B92B1C5A17A594386115FFAB59E841D@akamai.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6bz0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6b2ZmaWNlIiB4 bWxuczp3PSJ1cm46c2NoZW1hcy1taWNyb3NvZnQtY29tOm9mZmljZTp3b3JkIiB4bWxuczptPSJo dHRwOi8vc2NoZW1hcy5taWNyb3NvZnQuY29tL29mZmljZS8yMDA0LzEyL29tbWwiIHhtbG5zPSJo dHRwOi8vd3d3LnczLm9yZy9UUi9SRUMtaHRtbDQwIj4NCjxoZWFkPg0KPG1ldGEgaHR0cC1lcXVp dj0iQ29udGVudC1UeXBlIiBjb250ZW50PSJ0ZXh0L2h0bWw7IGNoYXJzZXQ9dXRmLTgiPg0KPG1l dGEgbmFtZT0iR2VuZXJhdG9yIiBjb250ZW50PSJNaWNyb3NvZnQgV29yZCAxNSAoZmlsdGVyZWQg bWVkaXVtKSI+DQo8c3R5bGU+PCEtLQ0KLyogRm9udCBEZWZpbml0aW9ucyAqLw0KQGZvbnQtZmFj ZQ0KCXtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FtYnJpYSBNYXRoIjsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDQgNSAzIDUgNCA2 IDMgMiA0O30NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6Q2FsaWJyaTsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToy IDE1IDUgMiAyIDIgNCAzIDIgNDt9DQpAZm9udC1mYWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OkNvbnNvbGFz Ow0KCXBhbm9zZS0xOjIgMTEgNiA5IDIgMiA0IDMgMiA0O30NCi8qIFN0eWxlIERlZmluaXRpb25z ICovDQpwLk1zb05vcm1hbCwgbGkuTXNvTm9ybWFsLCBkaXYuTXNvTm9ybWFsDQoJe21hcmdpbjow aW47DQoJbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbTouMDAwMXB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1m YW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLHNhbnMtc2VyaWY7fQ0KYTpsaW5rLCBzcGFuLk1zb0h5cGVybGluaw0K CXttc28tc3R5bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6OTk7DQoJY29sb3I6Ymx1ZTsNCgl0ZXh0LWRlY29yYXRpb246 dW5kZXJsaW5lO30NCnNwYW4uRW1haWxTdHlsZTIxDQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS10eXBlOnBlcnNvbmFs LXJlcGx5Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIixzYW5zLXNlcmlmOw0KCWNvbG9yOndpbmRv d3RleHQ7fQ0KLk1zb0NocERlZmF1bHQNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXR5cGU6ZXhwb3J0LW9ubHk7DQoJ Zm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDt9DQpAcGFnZSBXb3JkU2VjdGlvbjENCgl7c2l6ZTo4LjVpbiAxMS4w aW47DQoJbWFyZ2luOjEuMGluIDEuMGluIDEuMGluIDEuMGluO30NCmRpdi5Xb3JkU2VjdGlvbjEN Cgl7cGFnZTpXb3JkU2VjdGlvbjE7fQ0KLS0+PC9zdHlsZT4NCjwvaGVhZD4NCjxib2R5IGxhbmc9 IkVOLVVTIiBsaW5rPSJibHVlIiB2bGluaz0icHVycGxlIj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IldvcmRTZWN0 aW9uMSI+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj5JIGhhdmUgcHJvYmxlbXMgYXMgd2VsbC4gPGEg aHJlZj0iaHR0cHM6Ly9naXRodWIuY29tL2ludGFyY2hib2FyZC9mb3ItdGhlLXVzZXJzL2lzc3Vl cy8xIj4NCmh0dHBzOi8vZ2l0aHViLmNvbS9pbnRhcmNoYm9hcmQvZm9yLXRoZS11c2Vycy9pc3N1 ZXMvMTwvYT48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7 PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+SXQgaXMgdW5mb3J0dW5hdGUgdGhhdCB0 aGlzIGVtYWlsIHdhcyBzZW50IHNlcGFyYXRlbHkgdG8gbWFueSBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3RzOyBkaXNj dXNzaW9uIHdpbGwgYmUgZnJhZ21lbnRlZC4gOig8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJN c29Ob3JtYWwiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2JvZHk+DQo8L2h0bWw+ DQo= --_000_51F77EC767344AB5BD53323A6BABF52Cakamaicom_-- From nobody Tue Dec 10 11:51:46 2019 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 1EB30120AA0 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 11:51:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca 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 x0-0uBi14rum for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 11:51:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (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 C8B11120A9C for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 11:51:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47XW0Q4WfkzFhf; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:51:34 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1576007494; bh=V1mOVYUPhs2nyZl3BR38AHGQodEarukxHsAM16xkR84=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=NVC+ZTJyNPMRuPHptTOxIh95s3DTDtJzidFIhZ+uoyYUElYZ450BpcY1vRa3+kRjc eXyWyUwceq7QDJQolYEKj7eFXGQSSYAVUiCc7wnDke9hIihrWYEzLORi+gTlu/7q3W 6gcpca61+2rvTIy5AW8Ye7A2T7GJBEKbXVrPeVGc= X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5IpOAL_KUzUf; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:51:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:51:32 +0100 (CET) Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5EF936007C4F; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 14:51:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B1B323D1AA; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 14:51:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 14:51:31 -0500 (EST) From: Paul Wouters To: "Salz, Rich" cc: Vittorio Bertola , "hrpc@irtf.org" In-Reply-To: <51F77EC7-6734-4AB5-BD53-323A6BABF52C@akamai.com> Message-ID: References: <157403781873.6404.6154827441040413193.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <01246A3C-31EC-4B7B-841D-F799EEFADCB8@mnot.net> <227662299.12784.1575991106819@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <51F77EC7-6734-4AB5-BD53-323A6BABF52C@akamai.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-iab-for-the-users-01.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 19:51:44 -0000 On Tue, 10 Dec 2019, Salz, Rich wrote: > I have problems as well. https://github.com/intarchboard/for-the-users/issues/1 I agree that paragraph can be written simpler, without using User Agent. > It is unfortunate that this email was sent separately to many mailing lists; discussion will be fragmented. :( It is. In general, I like the document and I think it is a useful document that can be used when Enterprise people come back and demand various compromises in the protocol, that should be implemented in their curated systems. Paul From nobody Wed Dec 11 05:56:34 2019 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 5462412007A for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 05:56:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.198 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=open-xchange.com 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 iEtTr80ima5w for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 05:56:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx4.open-xchange.com (alcatraz.open-xchange.com [87.191.39.187]) (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 C56BB120018 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 05:56:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from open-xchange.com (imap.open-xchange.com [10.20.30.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx4.open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A2596A28C; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 14:56:28 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=open-xchange.com; s=201705; t=1576072588; bh=brFTZCPrgerT3Stgxm9pbdeZ/RPpg0PoCJU/4N/GEJE=; h=Date:From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From; b=tvKf9jl4ykv+01yRnt1+p6gotF3otdyxZ0DnJ3Iw31F2JVfTD+veE55SjBWl16UzI 9zL5lA0sM0Je0Ipx8AnAiTVtx8L0ZaaR+BD4mrpL9j5U1ozJtGHFsYO6ez0B1yRqJg yRFmuKaIpuJWvhdzgBvTCxCS3bde+o1klIg+HpL9HyjbfV26ysD0dhCd42ZLR3XzfL wMkVsURFNFZhlLcoiEPfirPTAOoLkVHbFcfh22s9/uSQAQ2AaHXxp1ERCG9eGuPiKH lj6NK6V/lmBRnkVBaR24B+/rzdOl2kpRuCUAHWaKrXyHLyc49lJar07Vpnje905G2i 6UqOnMCiXbr9g== Received: from appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com (appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com [10.20.28.82]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2C9953C03DD; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 14:56:28 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 14:56:27 +0100 (CET) From: Vittorio Bertola To: Ted Lemon , "hrpc@irtf.org" Message-ID: <1100636076.15285.1576072588087@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> In-Reply-To: <0C729385-1361-460C-9C16-E1BE1680A3E6@fugue.com> References: <157403781873.6404.6154827441040413193.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <01246A3C-31EC-4B7B-841D-F799EEFADCB8@mnot.net> <227662299.12784.1575991106819@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <429195684.13066.1575996064551@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <0C729385-1361-460C-9C16-E1BE1680A3E6@fugue.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.3-Rev3 X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite Autocrypt: addr=vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQENBFhFR+UBCACfoywFKBRfzasiiR9/6dwY36eLePXcdScumDMR8qoXvRS55QYDjp5bs+yMq41qWV9 xp/cqryY9jnvHbeF3TsE5yEazpD1dleRbkpElUBpPwXqkrSP8uXO9KkS9KoX6gdml6M4L+F82WpqYC1 uTzOE6HPmhmQ4cGSgoia2jolxAhRpzoYN99/BwpvoZeTSLP5K6yPlMPYkMev/uZlAkMMhelli9IN6yA yxcC0AeHSnOAcNKUr13yXyMlTyi1cdMJ4sk88zIbefxwg3PAtYjkz3wgvP96cNVwAgSt4+j/ZuVaENP pgVuM512m051j9SlspWDHtzrci5pBKKFsibnTelrABEBAAG0NUJlcnRvbGEsIFZpdHRvcmlvIDx2aXR 0b3Jpby5iZXJ0b2xhQG9wZW4teGNoYW5nZS5jb20+iQFABBMBAgAqBAsJCAcGFQoJCAsCBRYCAwEAAp 4BAhsDBYkSzAMABQMAAAAABYJYRUflAAoJEIU2cHmzj8qNaG0H/ROY+suCP86hoN+9RIV66Ej8b3sb8 UgwFJOJMupZfeb9yTIJwE4VQT5lTt146CcJJ5jvxD6FZn1Htw9y4/45pPAF7xLE066jg3OqRvzeWRZ3 IDUfJJIiM5YGk1xWxDqppSwhnKcMOuI72iioWxX0nGQrWxpnWJsjt08IEEwuYucDkul1PHsrLJbTd58 fiMKLVwag+IE1SPHOwkPF6arZQZIfB5ThtOZV+36Jn8Hok9XfeXWBVyPkiWCQYVX39QsIbr0JNR9kQy 4g2ZFexOcTe8Jo12jPRL7V8OqStdDes3cje9lWFLnX05nrfLuE0l0JKWEg8akN+McFXc+oV68h7nu5A Q0EWEVH5QEIAIDKanNBe1uRfk8AjLirflZO291VNkOAeUu+dIhecGnZeQW6htlDinlYOnXhtsY1mK9W PUu+xshDq7lXn2G0LxldYwyJYZaJtDgIKqVqwxfA34Lj27oqPuXwcvGhdCgt0SW/YcalRdAi0/AzUCu 5GSaj2kaGUSnBYYUP4szGJXjaK2psP5toQSCtx2pfSXQ6MaqPK9Zzy+D5xc6VWQRp/iRImodAcPf8fg JJvRyJ8Jla3lKWyvBBzJDg6MOf6Fts78bJSt23X0uPp93g7GgbYkuRMnFI4RGoTVkxjD/HBEJ0CNg22 hoHJondhmKnZVrHEluFuSnW0wBEIYomcPSPB+cAEQEAAYkBMQQYAQIAGwUCWEVH5QIbDAQLCQgHBhUK CQgLAgUJEswDAAAKCRCFNnB5s4/KjdO8B/wNpvWtOpLdotR/Xh4fu08Fd63nnNfbIGIETWsVi0Sbr8i E5duuGaaWIcMmUvgKe/BM0Fpj9X01Zjm90uoPrlVVuQWrf+vFlbalUYVZr51gl5UyUFHk+iAZCAA0WB rsmACKvuV1P7GuiX3UV9b59T9taYJxN3dNFuftrEuvsqHimFtlekUjUwoCekTJdncFusBhwz2OrKhHr WWrEsXkfh0+pURWYAlKlTxvXuI7gAfHEQM+6OnrWvXYtlhd0M1sBPnCjbyG63Qws7Rek9bEWKtH6dA6 dmT2FQT+g1S9Mdf0WkPTQNX0x24dm8IoHuD3KYwX7Svx43Xa17aZnXqUjtj1 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] New Version Notification for draft-iab-for-the-users-01.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 13:56:32 -0000 =20 =20

Il 10/12/2019 18:12 Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> ha scritto:


On Dec 10, 2019, at 8:41 AM, Vittorio Bertola < vittorio= .bertola@open-xchange.com> wrote:
However, the problem is that if you want to adopt a different syste= m to ascertain end user will, it should clearly be more representative and = democratic than the one based on governments.

No, this is a really fundamental point of disagreement.   You are = arguing for =E2=80=9Ceverything that is not explicitly permitted is forbidd= en,=E2=80=9D perhaps without realizing it.   I am arguing for =E2=80= =9Ceverything not explicitly forbidden is permitted.=E2=80=9D
No, this is not what I am discussing here. The document says that the IE= TF should prioritize "end-user interests" whenever there is a conflict. Thi= s implies that the IETF is able to determine what the "end-user interests" = are, before deciding on a proposed standard. The discussion is exactly on h= ow does the IETF do that - the document seems to argue that it should ask "= civil society organizations specialise[d] in technology and Internet policy= "(*), while I argue that it should ask all stakeholders, and specifically t= hat governments are the ones less ill-equipped to convey "end-user interest= s", especially if the point is about balancing conflicting classes of end-u= sers.

Whether you then use the "procedure to determine end-user interests" all= the times or just once in a while, to vet all standards in advance or only= when a complaint arises, etc... is a different question.

(*) It would be quicker to just say "ISOC" and avoid the euphemism :-D

-- 

Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open=
-Xchange
vittorio.b=
ertola@open-xchange.com 
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Ital=
y
=20 From nobody Wed Dec 11 06:09:28 2019 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 285AB12007A for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 06:09:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.997 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yahoo.com 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 tiD9TUY5asYH for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 06:09:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from sonic309-13.consmr.mail.bf2.yahoo.com (sonic309-13.consmr.mail.bf2.yahoo.com [74.6.129.123]) (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 F20A812000F for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 06:09:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s2048; t=1576073363; bh=kDDVyWvcGRwEk38/ILVVukDDUzS43NUH1Y5PsUjkrfA=; h=Date:From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=Xcz9dnBtCTZefBSPU/sV7cPQ03rZwwBRn8wv0sIF6I5rNSxx+ethub7wKf9VpI6nzRxml9ZphhnMz4CJ6nRkMBzPF6QkOweutkxcniiIcCZY6evWlEKpuQOIEzEqQYaweQRDyrBJQrlLKjJ0jYHNLcM5PmcDo41CWS5m+1U1zlOfLv4i5sTdVXpDqIoZpN+BzduuwaDiRcCJ0iSVlLiU35pQgM6y2bsmDyCi2cwr5HPSEqHJ+3gDoTyJXgkH5JmTeHtLsFL8q0xwUQxPsuLzg8UIeliih2QqC8Yb1IWtuxsRunkdmB4K651GB4+pxwSRemQ+7P+5Pd2xeltMypwWAg== X-YMail-OSG: rloVkLIVM1n4P1HEsOViWvpHmm96SN98cwOuWirrzJy5XpFK2jj5saxKCoFPfa9 6CVvml7aANll53YxvzqGtEUMN6uirKYK.QQf8PzBcSzjiadh31TCZjQNwxKn7010lDrMEDbNmzdw 8COvEAE_kfMehmL3nWiUYR4fWvKZiaWKNi3OxiFblEEyH3bVDYQj_TpRdMX.Q7Gerlr.K43WIrR6 8jdwxyo74OCej3tDvP0P5ZoRx_uwBk2zzME_VsiSP8AeTIHIAw33PGn716oL_Rm3NPi9obtBCGPN rZno_7wTqdMlbHNn3Zw0KRTc8BareNs5VievAi376dpnfAYMVla_z5hKCO3ofSp5Y2JxFqkYxhFb _FErjws4llHSNgkF904QEW1pWTFl3GVDMJxQ9Bz3INIlt6pXO7mOpJWgNstNZ.vfYCedBvhrs26D pHCcW0dZ66opeJVRy1a_zSVA5qFwideoMR5gE9JsQ5rtW_Dl.jpnwbhFee2Bq3zWGRExa2nal0Ok dkUTYHNCY79k_OekIOd0XD3gdhg1frwrRZjWXFdvee845ISeafdTTZj05X9oxZSEqwDMPpKJG4Kv DwwqAChpZglPRjsqy8Wwgqp.EPjPxovCxDPPcfp6yPdiMCfejS__HeCK9HdKLCovZhF.HkXlF3md G893YDHr_95juvBiKxkeZ0O6s2pK6A3O_ls0cAZpVQpUnhx6jQAAy8aywx2BIgrIcht2yiKuHogs .7wE9IaaTLH7V5.UiKzhGgQN6AVbXp8kEIWWRM3wSCFz4yUDUc7YWuztBvVcHp6rrhFkyGxOO7tw fQj4QCGpTd6x2mXSHCIFrQtW93N9R67nQbIeECg77jrTaxpSfVZFZqxjIunQCqZE5G4vWQwIKWV5 DPAL14_xNt0hfyejboWXVPmDg5tjBoCvonip_hb.uMP6kEJYOHCe5EEX4r1dRlwY196d8krvPpFS N8hu3rL5aNLoTkjXQESJjnkoaIV8dPio4mUj9D5CwiDqQIAp4V4snaSnKhlmDTBqsEKCOxBQvxT2 pjBFChK47uWZ_ptK8NKEe0bEKM3HI837JYtWY1RArH62h9o.r3D3Xa.rSFvFQOKwshwe8PRJ4xMe vAYdoNKyTKIEv5igWx5PU_.I1TXqlxw5wDVdtlEsFRfun.DEdFy3YWerYj.pAIVZ0I3_w8pOB7AS gaH2OztLwWrlz0q92EFmOVCcYaB.246MArF_tIXJnVNgd1ac6mjVG.EZPBrcbEjJ1ZfGp1q2O9h4 YimXNqwq82OfJRcOGuuqdEzU7eFoG7ZxmiWGIY4s8OpGnzg1MjvErwdYtz8j.Ea6vIeVwcpdHFp0 ZcLrgPtKxuWPaHYXmvBG_5_f5s9dTSoHRnA-- Received: from sonic.gate.mail.ne1.yahoo.com by sonic309.consmr.mail.bf2.yahoo.com with HTTP; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 14:09:23 +0000 Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 14:09:20 +0000 (UTC) From: Bill Jouris To: Ted Lemon , "hrpc@irtf.org" , Vittorio Bertola Message-ID: <1317632025.4031541.1576073360783@mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <1100636076.15285.1576072588087@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> References: <157403781873.6404.6154827441040413193.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <01246A3C-31EC-4B7B-841D-F799EEFADCB8@mnot.net> <227662299.12784.1575991106819@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <429195684.13066.1575996064551@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <0C729385-1361-460C-9C16-E1BE1680A3E6@fugue.com> <1100636076.15285.1576072588087@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_4031540_1258539184.1576073360781" X-Mailer: WebService/1.1.14728 YMailNorrin Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/78.0.3904.108 Safari/537.36 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] New Version Notification for draft-iab-for-the-users-01.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 14:09:27 -0000 ------=_Part_4031540_1258539184.1576073360781 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If the issue is how to determine end user interests, note that ICANN has a= n entire group (At Large) devoted to advocating for exactly that.=C2=A0 So = there's a specific mechanism already available within the Internet governan= ce infrastructure. Bill Jouris On Wednesday, December 11, 2019, 05:56:43 AM PST, Vittorio Bertola wrote: =20 =20 =20 =20 Il 10/12/2019 18:12 Ted Lemon ha scritto: =20 =20 On Dec 10, 2019, at 8:41 AM, Vittorio Bertola < vittorio..bertola@open-xch= ange.com> wrote: =20 However, the problem is that if you want to adopt a different system to a= scertain end user will, it should clearly be more representative and democr= atic than the one based on governments. =20 =20 No, this is a really fundamental point of disagreement. =C2=A0 You are ar= guing for =E2=80=9Ceverything that is not explicitly permitted is forbidden= ,=E2=80=9D perhaps without realizing it. =C2=A0 I am arguing for =E2=80=9Ce= verything not explicitly forbidden is permitted.=E2=80=9D =20 No, this is not what I am discussing here. The document says that the IET= F should prioritize "end-user interests" whenever there is a conflict. This= implies that the IETF is able to determine what the "end-user interests" a= re, before deciding on a proposed standard. The discussion is exactly on ho= w does the IETF do that - the document seems to argue that it should ask "c= ivil society organizations specialise[d] in technology and Internet policy"= (*), while I argue that it should ask all stakeholders, and specifically th= at governments are the ones less ill-equipped to convey "end-user interests= ", especially if the point is about balancing conflicting classes of end-us= ers.=20 =20 Whether you then use the "procedure to determine end-user interests" all= the times or just once in a while, to vet all standards in advance or only= when a complaint arises, etc... is a different question. =20 (*) It would be quicker to just say "ISOC" and avoid the euphemism :-D= =20 =20 --=20 Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com=20 Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy _____________________________= __________________ hrpc mailing list hrpc@irtf.org https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc =20 ------=_Part_4031540_1258539184.1576073360781 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=
If the issue is how to deter= mine end user interests, note that ICANN has an entire group (At Large) dev= oted to advocating for exactly that.  So there's a specific mechanism = already available within the Internet governance infrastructure.

Bill Jouris

=20
=20
On Wednesday, December 11, 2019, 05:56:43 AM PST, Vitto= rio Bertola <vittorio.bertola=3D40open-xchange.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wr= ote:



Il 10/12/2019 18:12 Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> ha scritto:


On Dec 10, 2019, at 8:41 AM, Vittorio Bertola < vittorio..bertola@open-xchange.com>= wrote:
However, the problem is tha= t if you want to adopt a different system to ascertain end user will, it sh= ould clearly be more representative and democratic than the one based on go= vernments.

No, this is a really fundamental point of disagreement.   You are = arguing for =E2=80=9Ceverything that is not explicitly permitted is forbidd= en,=E2=80=9D perhaps without realizing it.   I am arguing for =E2=80= =9Ceverything not explicitly forbidden is permitted.=E2=80=9D
No, this is not what I am discussing here. The document says that the IE= TF should prioritize "end-user interests" whenever there is a conflict. Thi= s implies that the IETF is able to determine what the "end-user interests" = are, before deciding on a proposed standard. The discussion is exactly on h= ow does the IETF do that - the document seems to argue that it should ask "= civil society organizations specialise[d] in technology and Internet policy= "(*), while I argue that it should ask all stakeholders, and specifically t= hat governments are the ones less ill-equipped to convey "end-user interest= s", especially if the point is about balancing conflicting classes of end-u= sers.

Whether you then use the "procedure to determine end-user interests" all= the times or just once in a while, to vet all standards in advance or only= when a complaint arises, etc... is a different question.

(*) It would be quicker to just say "ISOC" and avoid the euphemism :-D

-- 

Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Inn=
ovation, Open-Xchange 
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, It=
aly
=20
_________= ______________________________________
hrpc mailing list<= br clear=3D"none">hrpc@irtf.org
= https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
------=_Part_4031540_1258539184.1576073360781-- From nobody Wed Dec 11 08:54:40 2019 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 D0458120118 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 08:54:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 7r4RGToGDrkW for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 08:54:38 -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 C62DE12000F for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 08:54:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 9218928071A for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:54:35 +0100 (CET) Received: by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 500) id 8D13B280723; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:54:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from relay01.prive.nic.fr (unknown [10.1.50.11]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8590D28071A for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:54:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from b12.nic.fr (b12.users.prive.nic.fr [10.10.86.133]) by relay01.prive.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82551642BE40 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:54:35 +0100 (CET) Received: by b12.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 782404339B; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:54:35 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:54:35 +0100 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <20191211165435.GA22498@nic.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 10.2 X-Kernel: Linux 4.19.0-6-amd64 x86_64 X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie Organization: NIC France X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000931, version=1.2.2 X-PMX-Version: 6.0.0.2142326, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2019.11.5.63017 Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 16:54:40 -0000 A very interesting paper about the importance of protocols, and why to build services over open protocols, not proprietary platforms. It talks about censorship, privacy, etc. Very relevant for the IETF. https://knightcolumbia.org/content/protocols-not-platforms-a-technological-approach-to-free-speech I regret that there is no examination of the *existing* protocols (not Usenet!) that are in use today to build social networks. ActivityPub and friends is actively used, so the author could have tested in the real world if his ideas work or not. From nobody Wed Dec 11 09:03:11 2019 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 0CA46120045 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 09:03:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com 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 a8V_HelbfdGt for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 09:03:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pl1-x634.google.com (mail-pl1-x634.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::634]) (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 38D4112000F for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 09:03:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pl1-x634.google.com with SMTP id d15so1657417pll.3 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 09:03:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to; bh=znOkYeDvUr2AyjlI19RAKGlWQlNYMJI+JPwj/fa6pQg=; b=dOVBbxHm/XxBwElzqPPKpiorhtlYiP7mN02LMxtD+QL0Q/EulZm3XO1h0ZuLFck34g 33ODVCxVUhouiAnpTPelne4biPAh+yuYJfbhu+bqhcNMY3S4RAlFxdTv/Th3O0wdo+bk /2W/VUYik2SgdBW+DQx1A6BFH0YMXBuHxVa0ir6KTj75w4RFV+HC3a9SyP3DhmtgJa4A t3bdkRPRPUR/GYYtyyf/PM66jewtGoYkuz9b1Qncbbaq72RjK6ssw9fzP8LWlFTlNP/Z HGP/fC4z36akVLeSnj4GiSPtBKYtczYBVHWGj+M1sgOTN3gcTvOnHz0U774eIiPS2NrN zF9Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=znOkYeDvUr2AyjlI19RAKGlWQlNYMJI+JPwj/fa6pQg=; b=dNKizsXmOi7bUvW/FOxMcK34HgxLpmhayDjLgkGiq58kL9UMpXqxePwFXKec3h+95J WsK/KSfjt6zEfrCg3GoVBTpbfcwLO1rHWaBzOa/Td4V/0nStVNFpmBh76eUp63gjgVhz 63P9mtn7IZMGzbvpfM1m0li/62GFaiEVc1S2EOrQPdLCCPFWUGNHHSVEtWroXI8vpc45 cpxPgvm3+QeZqs2wBEORjeHhvuIchxe5JKtyhZHCQsZYl5NclOhesgTKnP0E94w7pYHu vQVk/kkNTfpwrsekr95mI5dRAeaCiKNP6d169Y66jDzFpNooKuOKFJh3nsGGUW5G4K7F tseA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUm/T5BAokIp1b3qMJ9Rus/KFolFojwJimUpVOdaC8xT8jUQqsD 94CZ+efYe2zfBWTN3HztAEd+wJyI4QU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwz2VeLJuyFhSiUFvv4V8aMy9irmvo5VtKNbhimWA/Cv0dhTs5vgT+jPserPs5LfF0lOuk6ZQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:fe12:: with SMTP id g18mr4339181plj.20.1576083786506; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 09:03:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from [17.192.139.178] ([17.192.139.178]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p16sm3578618pgm.8.2019.12.11.09.03.04 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 11 Dec 2019 09:03:05 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7994A681-B1B1-4C08-AF49-4BA04AC10C60" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.60.0.2.1\)) From: Ted Lemon X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <1100636076.15285.1576072588087@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 09:03:03 -0800 Cc: "hrpc@irtf.org" Message-Id: <4A034991-E5C8-4797-B6BF-9484BB2FA614@fugue.com> References: <157403781873.6404.6154827441040413193.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <01246A3C-31EC-4B7B-841D-F799EEFADCB8@mnot.net> <227662299.12784.1575991106819@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <429195684.13066.1575996064551@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <0C729385-1361-460C-9C16-E1BE1680A3E6@fugue.com> <1100636076.15285.1576072588087@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> To: Vittorio Bertola X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.60.0.2.1) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] New Version Notification for draft-iab-for-the-users-01.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:03:10 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_7994A681-B1B1-4C08-AF49-4BA04AC10C60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 On Dec 11, 2019, at 5:56 AM, Vittorio Bertola = wrote: >> No, this is a really fundamental point of disagreement. You are = arguing for =E2=80=9Ceverything that is not explicitly permitted is = forbidden,=E2=80=9D perhaps without realizing it. I am arguing for = =E2=80=9Ceverything not explicitly forbidden is permitted.=E2=80=9D > No, this is not what I am discussing here. The document says that the = IETF should prioritize "end-user interests" whenever there is a = conflict. This implies that the IETF is able to determine what the = "end-user interests" are, before deciding on a proposed standard.=20 I see why you are trying to draw a distinction here, but I think you are = pretty much wrong. User interests are diverse, and we don=E2=80=99t = control them. Actions that we take that make it less likely that = users=E2=80=99 diverse interests will be able to be realized are actions = we should avoid. Actions that we take that make it more likely that = users=E2=80=99 diverse interests will be able to be realized are actions = we should prefer. So e.g. if we were to abandon the end-to-end principle, or advocate = blocking protocols by default, that would be against the user=E2=80=99s = interests. If we were to advocate censorship, that would be against = the users=E2=80=99 interests. This is clear, because an act of = censorship necessarily implies that something the user wanted to do, the = user can=E2=80=99t do. That=E2=80=99s acting against the user=E2=80=99s = interests. Another example of the user=E2=80=99s interest is the user=E2=80=99s = interest in privacy. You will not find a user out there who doesn=E2=80=99= t care about their own privacy. You may find users who would like to = violate other user=E2=80=99s privacy, but ask any online service = provider if they are willing to be completely transparent about the data = they are collecting and you will get a resounding =E2=80=9Cno.=E2=80=9D = So there is unanimous agreement that =E2=80=9Cmy privacy=E2=80=9D is = important, even though that same service provider considers it quite = important to be able to violate their user=E2=80=99s privacy. So in = the case of privacy, absent other concerns, it seems pretty clear that = the user=E2=80=99s interest is in more privacy, not less privacy. So there isn=E2=80=99t really a need for the IETF to decide =E2=80=9Cwhat = the user specifically wants.=E2=80=9D The IETF should be able to = understand principles like this, and act on them, without any knowledge = of what specifically the user wants to do online. --Apple-Mail=_7994A681-B1B1-4C08-AF49-4BA04AC10C60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 On = Dec 11, 2019, at 5:56 AM, Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com> = wrote:
No, this is a really fundamental point of disagreement. =   You are arguing for =E2=80=9Ceverything that is not explicitly = permitted is forbidden,=E2=80=9D perhaps without realizing it.   I = am arguing for =E2=80=9Ceverything not explicitly forbidden is = permitted.=E2=80=9D
No, this is not what I am discussing = here. The document says that the IETF should prioritize "end-user = interests" whenever there is a conflict. This implies that the IETF is = able to determine what the "end-user interests" are, before deciding on = a proposed standard. 

I see why you are trying to draw = a distinction here, but I think you are pretty much wrong.  User = interests are diverse, and we don=E2=80=99t control them.  Actions = that we take that make it less likely that users=E2=80=99 diverse = interests will be able to be realized are actions we should avoid. =  Actions that we take that make it more likely that users=E2=80=99 = diverse interests will be able to be realized are actions we should = prefer.

So = e.g. if we were to abandon the end-to-end principle, or advocate = blocking protocols by default, that would be against the user=E2=80=99s = interests.   If we were to advocate censorship, that would be = against the users=E2=80=99 interests.   This is clear, because an = act of censorship necessarily implies that something the user wanted to = do, the user can=E2=80=99t do.   That=E2=80=99s acting against the = user=E2=80=99s interests.

Another example of the user=E2=80=99s interest is the = user=E2=80=99s interest in privacy.  You will not find a user out = there who doesn=E2=80=99t care about their own privacy.  You may = find users who would like to violate other user=E2=80=99s privacy, but = ask any online service provider if they are willing to be completely = transparent about the data they are collecting and you will get a = resounding =E2=80=9Cno.=E2=80=9D   So there is unanimous agreement = that =E2=80=9Cmy privacy=E2=80=9D is important, even though that same = service provider considers it quite important to be able to violate = their user=E2=80=99s privacy.   So in the case of privacy, absent = other concerns, it seems pretty clear that the user=E2=80=99s interest = is in more privacy, not less privacy.

So there isn=E2=80=99t really a need = for the IETF to decide =E2=80=9Cwhat the user specifically wants.=E2=80=9D=   The IETF should be able to understand principles like this, and = act on them, without any knowledge of what specifically the user wants = to do online.

= --Apple-Mail=_7994A681-B1B1-4C08-AF49-4BA04AC10C60-- From nobody Wed Dec 11 10:08:39 2019 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 AFF8D12010D for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:08:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.198 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=open-xchange.com 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 LJ731Y3u0mRF for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:08:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx4.open-xchange.com (alcatraz.open-xchange.com [87.191.39.187]) (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 B3C20120170 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:08:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from open-xchange.com (imap.open-xchange.com [10.20.30.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx4.open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE97D6A27D; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 19:08:33 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=open-xchange.com; s=201705; t=1576087713; bh=LvWZu0UHsfX8dJq4P1zQx3vbGOrG4IJ9UG1ig5Q3RbU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From; b=QFoy+iwEh7EY3YX8a1gsMl8zaySgAQB7Vw5JpWhYLCzGebh7ju3N8GcC3ojRFi1h7 K/APXHVKOF7+CYZUyAo6vsoOAzM+qYAQK3JuyKJMExQzPaIkETf3TvJ8MMHPt2me+x 2b/MpQ98FQhVlge9vt1OWVIMpp5E5tDuLbFcjwJuT1H3OvvBEGjQOubTpDwmpvvCa5 eT9Ue4pJ8gI5KS2OQrykqEA3ypyLbu/Mxjt7cs8hLPw2Ho8XS1aHuEi4c86x18BSG6 CpNoy0KPMK97eJlA3hZvcnSpp3TdI2nFxO1JkURJs0ZWZaUv9AxKE3tdbHKpZYAdg+ +by8IHoTyeBgQ== Received: from appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com (appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com [10.20.28.82]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C1F743C005B; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 19:08:33 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 19:08:33 +0100 (CET) From: Vittorio Bertola To: Ted Lemon Cc: "hrpc@irtf.org" Message-ID: <1932581161.17251.1576087713696@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> In-Reply-To: <4A034991-E5C8-4797-B6BF-9484BB2FA614@fugue.com> References: <157403781873.6404.6154827441040413193.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <01246A3C-31EC-4B7B-841D-F799EEFADCB8@mnot.net> <227662299.12784.1575991106819@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <429195684.13066.1575996064551@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <0C729385-1361-460C-9C16-E1BE1680A3E6@fugue.com> <1100636076.15285.1576072588087@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <4A034991-E5C8-4797-B6BF-9484BB2FA614@fugue.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.3-Rev3 X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite Autocrypt: addr=vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQENBFhFR+UBCACfoywFKBRfzasiiR9/6dwY36eLePXcdScumDMR8qoXvRS55QYDjp5bs+yMq41qWV9 xp/cqryY9jnvHbeF3TsE5yEazpD1dleRbkpElUBpPwXqkrSP8uXO9KkS9KoX6gdml6M4L+F82WpqYC1 uTzOE6HPmhmQ4cGSgoia2jolxAhRpzoYN99/BwpvoZeTSLP5K6yPlMPYkMev/uZlAkMMhelli9IN6yA yxcC0AeHSnOAcNKUr13yXyMlTyi1cdMJ4sk88zIbefxwg3PAtYjkz3wgvP96cNVwAgSt4+j/ZuVaENP pgVuM512m051j9SlspWDHtzrci5pBKKFsibnTelrABEBAAG0NUJlcnRvbGEsIFZpdHRvcmlvIDx2aXR 0b3Jpby5iZXJ0b2xhQG9wZW4teGNoYW5nZS5jb20+iQFABBMBAgAqBAsJCAcGFQoJCAsCBRYCAwEAAp 4BAhsDBYkSzAMABQMAAAAABYJYRUflAAoJEIU2cHmzj8qNaG0H/ROY+suCP86hoN+9RIV66Ej8b3sb8 UgwFJOJMupZfeb9yTIJwE4VQT5lTt146CcJJ5jvxD6FZn1Htw9y4/45pPAF7xLE066jg3OqRvzeWRZ3 IDUfJJIiM5YGk1xWxDqppSwhnKcMOuI72iioWxX0nGQrWxpnWJsjt08IEEwuYucDkul1PHsrLJbTd58 fiMKLVwag+IE1SPHOwkPF6arZQZIfB5ThtOZV+36Jn8Hok9XfeXWBVyPkiWCQYVX39QsIbr0JNR9kQy 4g2ZFexOcTe8Jo12jPRL7V8OqStdDes3cje9lWFLnX05nrfLuE0l0JKWEg8akN+McFXc+oV68h7nu5A Q0EWEVH5QEIAIDKanNBe1uRfk8AjLirflZO291VNkOAeUu+dIhecGnZeQW6htlDinlYOnXhtsY1mK9W PUu+xshDq7lXn2G0LxldYwyJYZaJtDgIKqVqwxfA34Lj27oqPuXwcvGhdCgt0SW/YcalRdAi0/AzUCu 5GSaj2kaGUSnBYYUP4szGJXjaK2psP5toQSCtx2pfSXQ6MaqPK9Zzy+D5xc6VWQRp/iRImodAcPf8fg JJvRyJ8Jla3lKWyvBBzJDg6MOf6Fts78bJSt23X0uPp93g7GgbYkuRMnFI4RGoTVkxjD/HBEJ0CNg22 hoHJondhmKnZVrHEluFuSnW0wBEIYomcPSPB+cAEQEAAYkBMQQYAQIAGwUCWEVH5QIbDAQLCQgHBhUK CQgLAgUJEswDAAAKCRCFNnB5s4/KjdO8B/wNpvWtOpLdotR/Xh4fu08Fd63nnNfbIGIETWsVi0Sbr8i E5duuGaaWIcMmUvgKe/BM0Fpj9X01Zjm90uoPrlVVuQWrf+vFlbalUYVZr51gl5UyUFHk+iAZCAA0WB rsmACKvuV1P7GuiX3UV9b59T9taYJxN3dNFuftrEuvsqHimFtlekUjUwoCekTJdncFusBhwz2OrKhHr WWrEsXkfh0+pURWYAlKlTxvXuI7gAfHEQM+6OnrWvXYtlhd0M1sBPnCjbyG63Qws7Rek9bEWKtH6dA6 dmT2FQT+g1S9Mdf0WkPTQNX0x24dm8IoHuD3KYwX7Svx43Xa17aZnXqUjtj1 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] New Version Notification for draft-iab-for-the-users-01.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 18:08:38 -0000 =20 =20

Il 11/12/2019 18:03 Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> ha scritto:

So e.g. if we were to abandon the end-to-end principle, or advocate blo= cking protocols by default, that would be against the user=E2=80=99s intere= sts.   If we were to advocate censorship, that would be against the us= ers=E2=80=99 interests.   This is clear, because an act of censorship = necessarily implies that something the user wanted to do, the user can=E2= =80=99t do.   That=E2=80=99s acting against the user=E2=80=99s interes= ts.
Unfortunately, the world is not so simple. Let's say, for example, that = the user is a malware author and wants to spread that malware online. Or th= at the user is an ex who wants to embarrass his former girlfriend by upload= ing private intimate videos and making them public. Or that the user is a r= acist and wants to organize physical violence against an ethnic minority. A= ll of these cases are real, they already happened and continue to happen. I= n all these cases, blocking that user is against that user's interests, but= not blocking that user is against the interests of other users, sometimes = vital ones. So you need to balance contrasting "end-user interests" to deci= de whether to stop or not to stop the user, and in some cases, "censoring" = that user will actually be in the interest of the broad majority of end-use= rs.

This is why we have ~2500 years of political thought on how to collectiv= ely create and apply rules, starting from the principle that your freedom e= nds where mine begins, and so you need to limit someone's freedoms to prote= ct other people's rights.

I also note that where to draw that line is highly cultural, and this is= also a driver for the "national digital sovereignty" trend, as countries e= xpect that they can apply their own balance of values and interests to Inte= rnet usage in their country, and not that of some other part of the world; = so the end-user interest balance might actually differ by country. This is = also a dimension that the draft fails to address or even to note.

-- 

Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open=
-Xchange
vittorio.b=
ertola@open-xchange.com 
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Ital=
y
=20 From nobody Wed Dec 11 10:33:13 2019 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 794181202DD for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:33:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com 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 BB-r1ufpcVSF for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:33:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pg1-x52f.google.com (mail-pg1-x52f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52f]) (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 9CBA7120273 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:33:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pg1-x52f.google.com with SMTP id z124so11135813pgb.13 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:33:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to; bh=+bDz7a3UBsLVLVREOrrZKrPo4LJFbiNxp8avZ5aJCWY=; b=VTnxVeL9CG/SeFOZtYS8zu/6ve4AwYEFSwC5htnvXxmGObzzrb7ExbC7HLvdIN5y+a Vu36VQqoYHP2YysZ9f02onRewNWnUpeBpJKzp1qwUJN368OxQmZT1uNVg79Yx44XUNi/ kdL6QL5230Wd3Pq+76ZAhVzkl5Fwj01+L3O0h+2oPuJtIg7VdiqkQnhWqioy9NmaWl9D zxpHrBgDag/12xLPZ9IKgmLJi+nORdbj6jtPwHBwAffAn0mkOSBOfrkQVP0VgVXALle/ tbvC7oYX+/W6G0FrDz2PasqwRg+95q8f0l5eyobluo2A0Pk82isTPOrxTs/aZKab/ojN AACw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=+bDz7a3UBsLVLVREOrrZKrPo4LJFbiNxp8avZ5aJCWY=; b=k4NaVcU7pNgDIIfuUji3MvDRFHh1k6Hdf/A7haL/pdd8zrWkz8sCT2nuGlQdPx42gi M2mi2e1bHll4RKR1OwOXXV8LMWJc496HLOj/W0uT7fM98OeFiUdrQ+h7wQUpFp7Zihna ddeuZNPYVxQnfrfOibifRdFarQ0MsoiVA/QX2fsUIMkB51GNBkqxuCSFiFDeOHPLK52h vphC95vJUN/XEEWSSs4Ywt4e/Fo5WFkPiM+DZ+l5P4CI5PfIgK9U8+ie3FSOoShRxA2F S19rO/xjEjYUIpKAuM6vWhKNHZdoYNb0t35nLAhUWZDpXCeq7Qfvy/iMktkpg4OKe6am xJ3w== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVLvolhA1zezcbT02Gpiy0DJ55EuQqnd6sYhCu7BRZjq6WFGOJt XD7Zip5vwZtISQh4TIGjNv44gQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwC0UB1B94pDBDt1wUhGoXbRDCxfxFQn4cfsDlVNAY4Ro+bW4XJUkTyopJppsHtOofObLttvw== X-Received: by 2002:a63:3404:: with SMTP id b4mr5645973pga.438.1576089189038; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:33:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from [17.192.139.178] ([17.192.139.178]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m34sm3622084pgb.26.2019.12.11.10.33.07 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:33:08 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5D66D00C-5018-4D7D-B863-0CEFA5376A38" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.60.0.2.1\)) From: Ted Lemon X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <1932581161.17251.1576087713696@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:33:06 -0800 Cc: "hrpc@irtf.org" Message-Id: <16124A89-9F12-47A2-982B-5E5147F54E0F@fugue.com> References: <157403781873.6404.6154827441040413193.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <01246A3C-31EC-4B7B-841D-F799EEFADCB8@mnot.net> <227662299.12784.1575991106819@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <429195684.13066.1575996064551@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <0C729385-1361-460C-9C16-E1BE1680A3E6@fugue.com> <1100636076.15285.1576072588087@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <4A034991-E5C8-4797-B6BF-9484BB2FA614@fugue.com> <1932581161.17251.1576087713696@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> To: Vittorio Bertola X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.60.0.2.1) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] New Version Notification for draft-iab-for-the-users-01.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 18:33:11 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_5D66D00C-5018-4D7D-B863-0CEFA5376A38 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 On Dec 11, 2019, at 10:08 AM, Vittorio Bertola = wrote: > Unfortunately, the world is not so simple. Let's say, for example, = that the user is a malware author and wants to spread that malware = online. Or that the user is an ex who wants to embarrass his former = girlfriend by uploading private intimate videos and making them public. = Or that the user is a racist and wants to organize physical violence = against an ethnic minority. All of these cases are real, they already = happened and continue to happen. In all these cases, blocking that user = is against that user's interests, but not blocking that user is against = the interests of other users, sometimes vital ones. So you need to = balance contrasting "end-user interests" to decide whether to stop or = not to stop the user, and in some cases, "censoring" that user will = actually be in the interest of the broad majority of end-users.=20 >=20 > This is why we have ~2500 years of political thought on how to = collectively create and apply rules, starting from the principle that = your freedom ends where mine begins, and so you need to limit someone's = freedoms to protect other people's rights.=20 >=20 > I also note that where to draw that line is highly cultural, and this = is also a driver for the "national digital sovereignty" trend, as = countries expect that they can apply their own balance of values and = interests to Internet usage in their country, and not that of some other = part of the world; so the end-user interest balance might actually = differ by country. This is also a dimension that the draft fails to = address or even to note.=20 Indeed. And what do we do in the real world when someone is racist? = Nothing. Why do we want to do something different online? Because = it=E2=80=99s easier and cheaper. Imagine if we had the ability to monitor every word ever spoken. To = know every time you have even the most trivial contact with another = person, like when you run into a barista in Starbucks, or wave to a = janitor on the way to your office. With sufficient monitoring = capability, we could punish every utterance of a racist epithet, every = act of bias. We could enforce stringent rules about kindness and = generosity. We could make machine learning models that would reveal = who knows whom, and while they might result in you being arrested along = with the barista when the barista turns out to be involved in a = subversive organization, it=E2=80=99s all for the greater good, so = it=E2=80=99s okay. With this capability, we could force people to be = good people. Wouldn=E2=80=99t that be a nice world to live in, where = everybody is forced to be nice, and where you are guilty by association? This is what you are advocating. I agree that racism online is a problem, and that there are many other = similar problems. And if we follow the principle of allowing the user = their privacy, things that we would rather not see flourish will = nevertheless flourish. As another example, I happen to be concerned = about global warming. There are very powerful people in the world who = consider my concern to be an existential threat to their welfare. If = they could, they would definitely want to punish me for acting against = their interests by trying to raise awareness about global warming. If = we make the Internet into a panopticon, they will be able to do that. The point of this is simply to call your attention to a very important = fact: trying to figure out whose interests to support is a useless game. = If you want to support the interests of people who stop racism, you = are also supporting the interests of people who want to stop climate = activism. And so whatever the solution to the problem of online racism and online = disinformation, it is not turning Internet into a panopticon. It turns = out that =E2=80=9Cletting the user generally do what they want unless = there=E2=80=99s a good, specific reason to stop them=E2=80=9D supports = this conclusion. If we want to deal with the problem of online harassment, online = anti-social collaboration, and so on, turning the Internet into a = panopticon isn=E2=80=99t the way to do it. I say this not as an = editorial opinion, but as a statement of fact. Unless you really are = willing to live in a panopticon, where every conversation you have, = every connection you make, every credit card number you possess, and so = on, is made visible to the world, then =E2=80=9Cwhat the user wants=E2=80=9D= is the only useful guide for serving the user=E2=80=99s interests. = And that=E2=80=99s why the document says that specifically. There is = no work to do to figure out what the user=E2=80=99s interests are. The = work is in figuring out when to act against the user=E2=80=99s interests = for the protection of society. Not an exception list, but a block = list. --Apple-Mail=_5D66D00C-5018-4D7D-B863-0CEFA5376A38 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 On = Dec 11, 2019, at 10:08 AM, Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com> = wrote:
Unfortunately, the world is not so simple. Let's say, for = example, that the user is a malware author and wants to spread that = malware online. Or that the user is an ex who wants to embarrass his = former girlfriend by uploading private intimate videos and making them = public. Or that the user is a racist and wants to organize physical = violence against an ethnic minority. All of these cases are real, they = already happened and continue to happen. In all these cases, blocking = that user is against that user's interests, but not blocking that user = is against the interests of other users, sometimes vital ones. So you = need to balance contrasting "end-user interests" to decide whether to = stop or not to stop the user, and in some cases, "censoring" that user = will actually be in the interest of the broad majority of = end-users. 

This is why we have ~2500 years of = political thought on how to collectively create and apply rules, = starting from the principle that your freedom ends where mine begins, = and so you need to limit someone's freedoms to protect other people's = rights. 

I also note that where to draw that = line is highly cultural, and this is also a driver for the "national = digital sovereignty" trend, as countries expect that they can apply = their own balance of values and interests to Internet usage in their = country, and not that of some other part of the world; so the end-user = interest balance might actually differ by country. This is also a = dimension that the draft fails to address or even to note. 

Indeed.  And what do we do in the = real world when someone is racist?   Nothing.   Why do we want = to do something different online?   Because it=E2=80=99s easier and = cheaper.

Imagine= if we had the ability to monitor every word ever spoken.  To know = every time you have even the most trivial contact with another person, = like when you run into a barista in Starbucks, or wave to a janitor on = the way to your office.   With sufficient monitoring capability, we = could punish every utterance of a racist epithet, every act of bias. =   We could enforce stringent rules about kindness and generosity. =   We could make machine learning models that would reveal who knows = whom, and while they might result in you being arrested along with the = barista when the barista turns out to be involved in a subversive = organization, it=E2=80=99s all for the greater good, so it=E2=80=99s = okay.   With this capability, we could force people to be good = people.   Wouldn=E2=80=99t that be a nice world to live in, where = everybody is forced to be nice, and where you are guilty by = association?

This is what you are advocating.

I agree that racism online is a = problem, and that there are many other similar problems.  And if we = follow the principle of allowing the user their privacy, things that we = would rather not see flourish will nevertheless flourish.   As = another example, I happen to be concerned about global warming.   = There are very powerful people in the world who consider my concern to = be an existential threat to their welfare.   If they could, they = would definitely want to punish me for acting against their interests by = trying to raise awareness about global warming.   If we make the = Internet into a panopticon, they will be able to do that.

The point of this is = simply to call your attention to a very important fact: trying to figure = out whose interests to support is a useless game.   If you want to = support the interests of people who stop racism, you are also supporting the interests of people who want to stop = climate activism.

And so = whatever the solution to the problem of online racism and online = disinformation, it is not turning Internet into a panopticon.   It = turns out that =E2=80=9Cletting the user generally do what they = want unless there=E2=80=99s a good, specific reason to stop them=E2=80=9D = supports this conclusion.

If we want to deal with the problem of online harassment, = online anti-social collaboration, and so on, turning the Internet into a = panopticon isn=E2=80=99t the way to do it.   I say this not as an = editorial opinion, but as a statement of fact.   Unless you really = are willing to live in a panopticon, where every conversation you have, = every connection you make, every credit card number you possess, and so = on, is made visible to the world, then =E2=80=9Cwhat the user wants=E2=80=9D= is the only useful guide for serving the user=E2=80=99s interests. =   And that=E2=80=99s why the document says that specifically. =   There is no work to do to figure out what the user=E2=80=99s = interests are.   The work is in figuring out when to act against = the user=E2=80=99s interests for the protection of society.   Not = an exception list, but a block list.

= --Apple-Mail=_5D66D00C-5018-4D7D-B863-0CEFA5376A38-- From nobody Wed Dec 11 10:50:11 2019 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 55A11120825 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:50:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.997 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 crkTSOKeZwYX for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:50:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qk1-x72e.google.com (mail-qk1-x72e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72e]) (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 B5B02120820 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:50:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qk1-x72e.google.com with SMTP id r14so12414039qke.13 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:50:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=vo+pngic98WOI9yfk6dK1NbJQfIwNIgBRx+lxV+8PZs=; b=Ll925wp1BFuQ0utBDb6N7cV1AQI+ciwG7/prm9d/VHCcZ/hpZmRNQJa/e69B0j+Vi/ 6vr8SYbdv1YrZ4EXIRNNMRSD6tUR95w8w6fYVzjXguzGuFulo1dmcP2LAPM9DT+Sijv1 llnM8tO4C4+tU5j7lhFIAR1Ok1BXE3idGlADmQV6NcE/sZ8X694Li5V9ZXPzFZcfokrE ryfNfKgu7+b7hefRZl45riTUxzdFaRQYnCLPT4UHZ+B7X/TK9lLah4pQf+qWiqQ3KZyf qDnfxvlx8Hn6WjUQ7lCTyQukfiNotSPzzNreW1bHf9iRjEqaeD+sMJcfXRF3wklUVfFZ 6lqQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=vo+pngic98WOI9yfk6dK1NbJQfIwNIgBRx+lxV+8PZs=; b=U1TMqYq/LsNH8UCKxS3wVUUs+L8jMMikCSplQXH5ESARqE1OBhmwe/moWekYyqkbQY xp/z4vDuJEUf8o0cjlBZvegkTPEZiWoxvPtu1AlQ+nCDXzdeq+AhYQ8ZVH8pOYbp788I bNKKW5JHCKqoHi7y7Z2uVqShe4WX821pBtOj6ipTl7KQGTy9QJN5M8P8FTNNBB9ieHqQ zJLt9WSUE8cZ/s/2nzc3Wwamzakq3QS2KTKOuPX3CsJlofeq3QaqmjI4jqHvdGKiNxDU OSOMxW1Pbm3kUuoysYkUks603IiFLXNASvN5fofUbu6mag4cvpGpUN81sCsxDEiLpZq+ zHnQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUO4nQfHboTITctbQQX6T244lfKaT3xMl3D4+wmio2rOrGp/AFZ 69ralkO4EXKw02GY74Twh9oSI+4IeZ9kpXbaxhA7ourb X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzFXV+ErxHf23fPZSMv17pd/f9vJwtSoxtWSw9lkEmt4Aq4U3QTt9/djBBnjHjyJsP9bdp8WXvSTL+7ivdP2o8= X-Received: by 2002:a37:7b83:: with SMTP id w125mr4072090qkc.343.1576090206634; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:50:06 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <157403781873.6404.6154827441040413193.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <01246A3C-31EC-4B7B-841D-F799EEFADCB8@mnot.net> <227662299.12784.1575991106819@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <429195684.13066.1575996064551@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <0C729385-1361-460C-9C16-E1BE1680A3E6@fugue.com> <1100636076.15285.1576072588087@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <4A034991-E5C8-4797-B6BF-9484BB2FA614@fugue.com> <1932581161.17251.1576087713696@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> In-Reply-To: <1932581161.17251.1576087713696@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> From: farzaneh badii Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 13:49:40 -0500 Message-ID: To: Vittorio Bertola Cc: Ted Lemon , "hrpc@irtf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e68a0e059972182b" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] New Version Notification for draft-iab-for-the-users-01.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 18:50:10 -0000 --000000000000e68a0e059972182b Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 1:08 PM Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > I also note that where to draw that line is highly cultural, and this is > also a driver for the "national digital sovereignty" trend, as countries > expect that they can apply their own balance of values and interests to > Internet usage in their country, and not that of some other part of the > world; so the end-user interest balance might actually differ by country. > This is also a dimension that the draft fails to address or even to note. > I don't agree. There are universal values out there that have nothing to do with your nationality, identity nor culture. We are after all human beings. culture and sovereignty have become a tool for oppression. And yes even in democratic countries. You can't put 60 million people in one basket called "country" X ... not going to blabber about how disputable and terrible those borders are in some regions. Did someone mention ICANN has an end-user stakeholder? That is true. But while we can see what they have done in that sphere I caution against getting inspired too much by them or copying their governance structure. --000000000000e68a0e059972182b Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 1:08 PM Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola=3D= 40open-xchange.com@dma= rc.ietf.org> wrote:
=20 =20 =20

I also note that where to draw that line is highly cultural, and this is= also a driver for the "national digital sovereignty" trend, as c= ountries expect that they can apply their own balance of values and interes= ts to Internet usage in their country, and not that of some other part of t= he world; so the end-user interest balance might actually differ by country= . This is also a dimension that the draft fails to address or even to note.= =C2=A0

I don't agree. There are unive= rsal values out there that have nothing to do with your nationality, identi= ty nor culture. We are after all human beings. culture and sovereignty have= become a tool for oppression. And yes even in democratic countries. You ca= n't put 60 million people in one basket called "country" X ..= . not going to blabber about how disputable and terrible those borders are = in some regions.=C2=A0

Did someone mention ICANN has an end-user stake= holder? That is true. But while we can see what they have done in that sphe= re I caution against getting inspired too much by them or copying their gov= ernance structure.=C2=A0







--000000000000e68a0e059972182b-- From nobody Wed Dec 11 13:03:12 2019 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 E8B2F120122 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 13:03:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.649 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 UPFnqoV6UQ2T for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 13:03:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from ayla.bortzmeyer.org (ayla.bortzmeyer.org [IPv6:2001:4b98:dc0:41:216:3eff:fe27:3d3f]) (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 E50B012004C for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 13:03:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by ayla.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id 8E0A2A029D; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 22:03:06 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail.sources.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9FE30C93DD; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 21:58:06 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 21:58:06 +0100 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: Mark Nottingham Cc: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <20191211205806.GA8364@sources.org> References: <157403781873.6404.6154827441040413193.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <01246A3C-31EC-4B7B-841D-F799EEFADCB8@mnot.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <01246A3C-31EC-4B7B-841D-F799EEFADCB8@mnot.net> X-Transport: UUCP rules X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 10.1 X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-iab-for-the-users-01.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 21:03:12 -0000 On Sat, Dec 07, 2019 at 10:29:15AM +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote a message of 196 lines which said: > The IAB wanted to give this draft wider exposure to folks than just > those on architecture-discuss; comment / feedback welcome (here, or > on the draft issues list at > 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 3C08D120825 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 13:08:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.649 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 p7C07GUY0oZ0 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 13:08:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from ayla.bortzmeyer.org (ayla.bortzmeyer.org [92.243.4.211]) (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 1A310120232 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 13:08:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by ayla.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id D7B40A029D; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 22:08:06 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail.sources.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EC4C6C93DD; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 22:06:11 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 22:06:11 +0100 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: Vittorio Bertola Cc: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <20191211210611.GB8364@sources.org> References: <157403781873.6404.6154827441040413193.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <01246A3C-31EC-4B7B-841D-F799EEFADCB8@mnot.net> <227662299.12784.1575991106819@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <227662299.12784.1575991106819@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> X-Transport: UUCP rules X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 10.1 X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-iab-for-the-users-01.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 21:08:10 -0000 On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 04:18:26PM +0100, Vittorio Bertola wrote a message of 133 lines which said: > Similarly, I find the discussion on representativeness in section > 4.1 quite baffling. Basically, it says: ok, a government elected > by 60 million citizens shows up and says something, but we think > that what they say is not really representative of those people. Which is certainly true. There are many reasons for that, one of them being that Internet issues are never discussed during election campaigns. If the french governement says this or that at the GAC, or in the discussion about encryption, it certainly does not represent the french citizens, since we never know, before the vote, what the elected persons will do about the Internet (or, more generally, about digital matters). So, the argument "the voice of the people is the governement" is false, even for democratic countries. > On the other hand, we know this NGO of ten people and wow, they > are really representative! At least they know what they are talking about, and they have a constituency which is interested and actually discuss these matters. > Actually, representing the people and balancing all the contrasting > interests is exactly the existential purpose of Parliaments and > governments; That's the theory. But this theory is so disconnected from the facts that I cannot follow you here. > More generally, I think that the IETF should stop writing documents > about policies and values for future developments of the > Internet. Fundamental disagreement here. What we do *is* political, whether we like it or not, because it has real consequences on real users. So, we must care about politics. From nobody Wed Dec 11 13:13:09 2019 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 4DF5312004E for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 13:13:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.649 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 kC_DbUnYuLyr for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 13:13:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from ayla.bortzmeyer.org (ayla.bortzmeyer.org [92.243.4.211]) (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 9E54B12004C for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 13:13:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by ayla.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id 24BE2A029D; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 22:13:06 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail.sources.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C7AAEC942C; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 22:11:46 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 22:11:46 +0100 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: Bill Jouris Cc: Ted Lemon , "hrpc@irtf.org" , Vittorio Bertola Message-ID: <20191211211146.GC8364@sources.org> References: <157403781873.6404.6154827441040413193.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <01246A3C-31EC-4B7B-841D-F799EEFADCB8@mnot.net> <227662299.12784.1575991106819@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <429195684.13066.1575996064551@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <0C729385-1361-460C-9C16-E1BE1680A3E6@fugue.com> <1100636076.15285.1576072588087@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <1317632025.4031541.1576073360783@mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1317632025.4031541.1576073360783@mail.yahoo.com> X-Transport: UUCP rules X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 10.1 X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] New Version Notification for draft-iab-for-the-users-01.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 21:13:08 -0000 On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 02:09:20PM +0000, Bill Jouris wrote a message of 185 lines which said: > If the issue is how to determine end user interests, note that > ICANN has an entire group (At Large) devoted to advocating for > exactly that. ALAC does not seem to me a big success. And most of its activity is directed to ICANN-specific stuff (and often pureley bureaucratic issues, as if the IETF devoted 50 % of its time to IASA 2), whose mandate does not include most of the difficult political questions we face. That's why you would not find an ALAC opinion on things like encryption or DNS censorship. From nobody Wed Dec 11 13:18:12 2019 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 5FABF1208DE for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 13:18:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.649 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 hLCCX8CcuSxe for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 13:18:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from ayla.bortzmeyer.org (ayla.bortzmeyer.org [IPv6:2001:4b98:dc0:41:216:3eff:fe27:3d3f]) (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 B66251208B9 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 13:18:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by ayla.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id 696CDA029D; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 22:18:06 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail.sources.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9A596C942C; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 22:15:28 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 22:15:28 +0100 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: Vittorio Bertola Cc: Ted Lemon , "hrpc@irtf.org" Message-ID: <20191211211528.GD8364@sources.org> References: <157403781873.6404.6154827441040413193.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <01246A3C-31EC-4B7B-841D-F799EEFADCB8@mnot.net> <227662299.12784.1575991106819@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <429195684.13066.1575996064551@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <0C729385-1361-460C-9C16-E1BE1680A3E6@fugue.com> <1100636076.15285.1576072588087@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <4A034991-E5C8-4797-B6BF-9484BB2FA614@fugue.com> <1932581161.17251.1576087713696@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1932581161.17251.1576087713696@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> X-Transport: UUCP rules X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 10.1 X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] New Version Notification for draft-iab-for-the-users-01.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 21:18:12 -0000 On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 07:08:33PM +0100, Vittorio Bertola wrote a message of 90 lines which said: > I also note that where to draw that line is highly cultural, Partly. But most of the time, the so-called "cultural differences" are just one local dictator claiming that "democracy and human rights are good for this or that country, but my people don't want it, believe me". While I acknowledge that there are different cultures, the "cultural diversity" argument has been too often used against universal rights. > This is also a dimension that the draft fails to address or even > to note. And rightly so. From nobody Wed Dec 11 13:23:10 2019 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 B71D0120825 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 13:23:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.649 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 FxbYF4Hw-TyQ for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 13:23:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from ayla.bortzmeyer.org (ayla.bortzmeyer.org [92.243.4.211]) (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 DC99E12010F for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 13:23:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by ayla.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id 8FFF0A029D; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 22:23:06 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail.sources.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C46C2C942C; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 22:21:30 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 22:21:30 +0100 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: farzaneh badii Cc: Vittorio Bertola , Ted Lemon , "hrpc@irtf.org" Message-ID: <20191211212130.GE8364@sources.org> References: <157403781873.6404.6154827441040413193.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <01246A3C-31EC-4B7B-841D-F799EEFADCB8@mnot.net> <227662299.12784.1575991106819@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <429195684.13066.1575996064551@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <0C729385-1361-460C-9C16-E1BE1680A3E6@fugue.com> <1100636076.15285.1576072588087@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <4A034991-E5C8-4797-B6BF-9484BB2FA614@fugue.com> <1932581161.17251.1576087713696@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Transport: UUCP rules X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 10.1 X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] New Version Notification for draft-iab-for-the-users-01.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 21:23:09 -0000 On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 01:49:40PM -0500, farzaneh badii wrote a message of 91 lines which said: > I don't agree. There are universal values out there that have nothing to do > with your nationality, identity nor culture. And they are expressed in texts like the UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights) which are a good reference if we want to know what are the interests of end users. (Speaking of the UDHR, Wikipedia has a good article about it .) > culture and sovereignty have become a tool for oppression. Unfortunately very true. From nobody Thu Dec 12 04:27:18 2019 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 4F32F12003E for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 04:27:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.198 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=open-xchange.com 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 AEFF1je_M0ah for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 04:27:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx4.open-xchange.com (alcatraz.open-xchange.com [87.191.39.187]) (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 748FC12006E for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 04:27:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from open-xchange.com (imap.open-xchange.com [10.20.30.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx4.open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DFD66A275; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 13:27:10 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=open-xchange.com; s=201705; t=1576153630; bh=LgEIjLOKV7nJV/XjWZ1VVeXCdKzsgGCPxLiYQr6RwcA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From; b=mDH8m0R3Yg9qi5oeyYaZjFfKnZggOV/nzoAobfkPhEjOrfJ/JYDWjurIKVf0jgX/0 5t+cJie4KqOF0aI5ymGDXFu3iKKthKTKUG2S3GJB51vW8iopxJD3CMV+pM/IfT+ggl HpB7hy2LGCgoskI0eKuIuoZWPWXa/gDdaZdCkP5LVPPGSLf4++vAcrjAY3ohe1J3V9 YNENzaAsmiEPpilRN70p9lD5CpYSIrpMoMbtmdLE4y1X0ot002hJZEQ4WHHnI6KV8h /uUTIaWofJgH959KBlwz5sSA51kjGEbhy4mcbJf6r3ajiqEDPkU7AMYGnQwKOdQfnG p6zr+8c0LrrUw== Received: from appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com (appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com [10.20.28.82]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 817E23C0671; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 13:27:10 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 13:27:09 +0100 (CET) From: Vittorio Bertola To: Ted Lemon Cc: "hrpc@irtf.org" Message-ID: <1442150846.20149.1576153630433@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> In-Reply-To: <16124A89-9F12-47A2-982B-5E5147F54E0F@fugue.com> References: <157403781873.6404.6154827441040413193.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <01246A3C-31EC-4B7B-841D-F799EEFADCB8@mnot.net> <227662299.12784.1575991106819@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <429195684.13066.1575996064551@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <0C729385-1361-460C-9C16-E1BE1680A3E6@fugue.com> <1100636076.15285.1576072588087@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <4A034991-E5C8-4797-B6BF-9484BB2FA614@fugue.com> <1932581161.17251.1576087713696@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <16124A89-9F12-47A2-982B-5E5147F54E0F@fugue.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.3-Rev3 X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite Autocrypt: addr=vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQENBFhFR+UBCACfoywFKBRfzasiiR9/6dwY36eLePXcdScumDMR8qoXvRS55QYDjp5bs+yMq41qWV9 xp/cqryY9jnvHbeF3TsE5yEazpD1dleRbkpElUBpPwXqkrSP8uXO9KkS9KoX6gdml6M4L+F82WpqYC1 uTzOE6HPmhmQ4cGSgoia2jolxAhRpzoYN99/BwpvoZeTSLP5K6yPlMPYkMev/uZlAkMMhelli9IN6yA yxcC0AeHSnOAcNKUr13yXyMlTyi1cdMJ4sk88zIbefxwg3PAtYjkz3wgvP96cNVwAgSt4+j/ZuVaENP pgVuM512m051j9SlspWDHtzrci5pBKKFsibnTelrABEBAAG0NUJlcnRvbGEsIFZpdHRvcmlvIDx2aXR 0b3Jpby5iZXJ0b2xhQG9wZW4teGNoYW5nZS5jb20+iQFABBMBAgAqBAsJCAcGFQoJCAsCBRYCAwEAAp 4BAhsDBYkSzAMABQMAAAAABYJYRUflAAoJEIU2cHmzj8qNaG0H/ROY+suCP86hoN+9RIV66Ej8b3sb8 UgwFJOJMupZfeb9yTIJwE4VQT5lTt146CcJJ5jvxD6FZn1Htw9y4/45pPAF7xLE066jg3OqRvzeWRZ3 IDUfJJIiM5YGk1xWxDqppSwhnKcMOuI72iioWxX0nGQrWxpnWJsjt08IEEwuYucDkul1PHsrLJbTd58 fiMKLVwag+IE1SPHOwkPF6arZQZIfB5ThtOZV+36Jn8Hok9XfeXWBVyPkiWCQYVX39QsIbr0JNR9kQy 4g2ZFexOcTe8Jo12jPRL7V8OqStdDes3cje9lWFLnX05nrfLuE0l0JKWEg8akN+McFXc+oV68h7nu5A Q0EWEVH5QEIAIDKanNBe1uRfk8AjLirflZO291VNkOAeUu+dIhecGnZeQW6htlDinlYOnXhtsY1mK9W PUu+xshDq7lXn2G0LxldYwyJYZaJtDgIKqVqwxfA34Lj27oqPuXwcvGhdCgt0SW/YcalRdAi0/AzUCu 5GSaj2kaGUSnBYYUP4szGJXjaK2psP5toQSCtx2pfSXQ6MaqPK9Zzy+D5xc6VWQRp/iRImodAcPf8fg JJvRyJ8Jla3lKWyvBBzJDg6MOf6Fts78bJSt23X0uPp93g7GgbYkuRMnFI4RGoTVkxjD/HBEJ0CNg22 hoHJondhmKnZVrHEluFuSnW0wBEIYomcPSPB+cAEQEAAYkBMQQYAQIAGwUCWEVH5QIbDAQLCQgHBhUK CQgLAgUJEswDAAAKCRCFNnB5s4/KjdO8B/wNpvWtOpLdotR/Xh4fu08Fd63nnNfbIGIETWsVi0Sbr8i E5duuGaaWIcMmUvgKe/BM0Fpj9X01Zjm90uoPrlVVuQWrf+vFlbalUYVZr51gl5UyUFHk+iAZCAA0WB rsmACKvuV1P7GuiX3UV9b59T9taYJxN3dNFuftrEuvsqHimFtlekUjUwoCekTJdncFusBhwz2OrKhHr WWrEsXkfh0+pURWYAlKlTxvXuI7gAfHEQM+6OnrWvXYtlhd0M1sBPnCjbyG63Qws7Rek9bEWKtH6dA6 dmT2FQT+g1S9Mdf0WkPTQNX0x24dm8IoHuD3KYwX7Svx43Xa17aZnXqUjtj1 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] New Version Notification for draft-iab-for-the-users-01.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 12:27:17 -0000 =20 =20

Il 11/12/2019 19:33 Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> ha scritto:

Imagine if we had the ability to monitor every word ever spoken. &= nbsp;To know every time you have even the most trivial contact with another= person, like when you run into a barista in Starbucks, or wave to a janito= r on the way to your office.   With sufficient monitoring capability, = we could punish every utterance of a racist epithet, every act of bias. &nb= sp; We could enforce stringent rules about kindness and generosity.   = We could make machine learning models that would reveal who knows whom, and= while they might result in you being arrested along with the barista when = the barista turns out to be involved in a subversive organization, it=E2=80= =99s all for the greater good, so it=E2=80=99s okay.   With this capab= ility, we could force people to be good people.   Wouldn=E2=80=99t tha= t be a nice world to live in, where everybody is forced to be nice, and whe= re you are guilty by association?
This is indeed an interesting discussion, possibly in topic for the grou= p, but not very related to the draft, so I don't know whether to go on with= it or not.

In a way, however, it is not a practical discussion for the IETF, since = several fully democratic countries already have laws or court orders that r= equire blocking certain content, and that the technical community in those = countries is required to implement. The Internet community is welcome to ar= gue against that in front of the involved Parliaments (indeed, in several c= ases I would support that, depending on how exactly the law is formulated) = but it is a political matter, not a technical standardization one.

This said, this is (IMHO) the only part of your comment that directly re= lates to this draft:
The point of this is simply to call your attention to a very important = fact: trying to figure out whose interests to support is a useless game. &n= bsp; If you want to support the interests of people who stop racism, you ar= e=20 also  supporting the int= erests of people who want to stop climate activism.
So, why does the IAB wants to enact a policy of supporting "end-user int= erests" (which, as we see, are contrasting and very hard to define objectiv= ely)? The more we discuss this, the more I think the draft is naive and tot= ally impractical.

-- 

Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open=
-Xchange
vittorio.b=
ertola@open-xchange.com 
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Ital=
y
=20 From nobody Thu Dec 12 05:27:15 2019 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 AA68D1201DC for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 05:27:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca 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 dC4y6xgZ8tu1 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 05:27:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (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 ECBD7120154 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 05:27:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47YZMv6Z5wz369; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 14:27:07 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1576157227; bh=y7qwwrekBULc3pYLlTbd1DHqTHDBi8rejS6UdWEr8qs=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=MJuwxnvo00UI2Ahs3cvKiMe7KEa5yYRK1x6H8yEGx/ly6cc5xOhx1bmGaV8oYrgTt JumculKDK4ZMy83QPSOqQor/K11Gd2Phfno+qJ4FoFhIisW/DIb6UnI4RcU6jmAicV UBMqdTo4G/007VybaVJOUE3zsXZYLFFP90wEBsyc= X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vsVbHMiKCbOL; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 14:27:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 14:27:06 +0100 (CET) Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 64A43602980C; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 08:27:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60E0E9B02; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 08:27:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 08:27:05 -0500 (EST) From: Paul Wouters To: Vittorio Bertola cc: Ted Lemon , "hrpc@irtf.org" In-Reply-To: <1442150846.20149.1576153630433@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> Message-ID: References: <157403781873.6404.6154827441040413193.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <01246A3C-31EC-4B7B-841D-F799EEFADCB8@mnot.net> <227662299.12784.1575991106819@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <429195684.13066.1575996064551@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <0C729385-1361-460C-9C16-E1BE1680A3E6@fugue.com> <1100636076.15285.1576072588087@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <4A034991-E5C8-4797-B6BF-9484BB2FA614@fugue.com> <1932581161.17251.1576087713696@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <16124A89-9F12-47A2-982B-5E5147F54E0F@fugue.com> <1442150846.20149.1576153630433@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] New Version Notification for draft-iab-for-the-users-01.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 13:27:13 -0000 On Thu, 12 Dec 2019, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > So, why does the IAB wants to enact a policy of supporting "end-user interests" (which, as we see, are > contrasting and very hard to define objectively)? The more we discuss this, the more I think the draft is > naive and totally impractical. I think the draft does a good job of saying, if there is a technology choice to be made that could negative affects a group of users, the interest of individual endusers should weight more heavilly than those of the (smaller) group. Or rephrased in an example, enterprise users are important and served by their administrators, but choices to support the enterprise should not cause negative effects for non-enterprises users worldwide. Of course these are general statements and everyone can come up with exceptions. But I think it is good to state this goal as a general rule. It would be useful to reference in future discussions. Paul From nobody Thu Dec 12 07:57:01 2019 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 38E321200A1 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 07:57:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 kMAp06UlD6r0 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 07:56:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.88]) (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 E3BA012008D for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 07:56:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.110.112]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ifQpi-0000rM-5V for hrpc@irtf.org; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 16:56:54 +0100 To: hrpc@irtf.org References: <157403781873.6404.6154827441040413193.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <01246A3C-31EC-4B7B-841D-F799EEFADCB8@mnot.net> <227662299.12784.1575991106819@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <429195684.13066.1575996064551@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <0C729385-1361-460C-9C16-E1BE1680A3E6@fugue.com> <1100636076.15285.1576072588087@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <4A034991-E5C8-4797-B6BF-9484BB2FA614@fugue.com> <1932581161.17251.1576087713696@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <16124A89-9F12-47A2-982B-5E5147F54E0F@fugue.com> <1442150846.20149.1576153630433@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> From: Niels ten Oever Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Autocrypt: addr=mail@nielstenoever.net; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQINBFgpcR0BEACnfvNwTMlN+pyZT0AFYhWqxG3N4AoPIeNfbxLQH7dk8ZL7Ls05xtORfnu9 ovoaRrZpDufkMviUFidNYePbQNdgf63vWVgwpQR7utluwWraetcmZOu6tayJuyBK2b6d2Z23 MJAQxfa2/GMlN3QkvobaoyKtgbc8rOCgNla7WwkgtiVJ89xbAUHXPFpKWZluVRjaFh4p5C5r 7E5OvUiEGLQ5Cn2ir2PGIyIVqjB+hLTyaI6dIGCz2jtL0RATjmsmYUX7UkU/pz8MPPC2BJ5P KU9pdXMRBhAStxcph8vCo2ze9xSi3+1/5A2ULVtvO4s0hZ+exbTfMxMg3H5CCRFEEJXlQEXa Cd0ZHvqcv5xq8n9w/Ccd0CqYWATIwyP8Jlzd+BY3QGTWnWlgoAbs3Guh/pFYhEFNuuAF5Jk1 k5OlNGsRE/LQJmbT5SE7AtLJLbWewcHlEyIH+K6J8uVa4ExLXmRy+eRkFaxjGy3fLlUpy1Ee 1kU7VsQ/TZ8g8ujsMzxqsdB6y0TD/kVlWaDqPL6F+b+pm3lAuCBGWM1YZROTG58R6pD7sNVm i0ift4dIttAsg+2KoShm9A8kQ3tACXZDgNPC0l7VOqnVayjnF0RmjGeiX7PjOcLQCZ9a5wAH 5mrXMaKvfszqAVkP9HSrk1QVZOipF6vEimL43Czy7Rp1aUaUwwARAQABtChOaWVscyB0ZW4g T2V2ZXIgPG1haWxAbmllbHN0ZW5vZXZlci5uZXQ+iQJZBBMBCABDAhsjBQkJZgGABwsJCAcD AgEGFQgCCQoLBBYCAwECHgECF4AWIQQkWAtwXEr9ipSIZDoO2D86RorIswUCWyJaFgIZAQAK CRAO2D86RorIs8I2D/wNc4kT+dRC3Y9lSygeVWuxNj21z/QlbNvfXx9NicgBx4uCjsCm0ZhS 6qnp0uHYZYr8rdIzrL3GazyEuG9uvNzZBvIHm92UY1x0NH0TOVbGwJCWKULStvg9S+DjmNgp x8XM9amCtuXZyCiESeoOVRUanzD1JIidJtKgDfxvC63kqYoXl3azP0ra2nZbpktMm2fW5YdN D6kp6otjBH/jtpLay1CpVDS2Ehl3rLXJVUu96hlBnQB8q+64qyhTZ23HnbU+ib5Zb3OFgYoB KHjukJ4tV4x9rQprCQeirKX627vcNniDPnMp/nr9Qww6iVidX2vsG/22cx8MqLfs4B9tOVCJ Ft9D7MOwxOWgKnaYvrPZBOEmnuGq7btQe1tQZukL1Z83jKkV/e43k1gJaRt4Nl3/6YYCAlnn aQwRmySxznojsEl+X41UaJ6QFcoCphucOHoO9MeVzuNzgOgodXXEvlA8OJAqxRbE5AqB0leJ z1PfyrF1lsy8ETPRGKUKPBVed1vpZCQBfd/5RksOYBGhyfQ8p0w0hGs8SG6Xl6UtorJ+baLZ ZtnYbakfroxQBsF4bD/0P4fZ8wvTUDNLT8WN/9KFoTXrKn2pTLD+V9iw6nQAH4LSPw0G8XsL ce3Ihkf/2bvorGCUO7YXG4u6FPzEHsa/ZNfWHA5kbpGfwe2OVYNeI7kCDQRYKXEdARAAxYOE 3/AFmEfQ0SVVFujYFhZKX+BGXolYytC2a1soZogVYTIIlypxkRtN+ljteFAY3xX/El7cx5Fx j+uXvLKAm9xQRI/DCug7/NGULMk9bDK5bzSGw817cyiL5Kb+0RkWj2Y5ArOAK6XPGBZWZTHw yIawsSCN9AhDXZQWVRqkR1QXcq3IYKl+OHWMO7+1VfixCSakNf7T/Kiq46rQEPW8Eghk6CVO BR8xUCBbyk5aRW4VSGO6pUD3H21ur+5fTLsVyan1NHhxNNiXfnEJKr+JI5dXSkj7WqA5n8IT aNdFSAttkdT56wAQpxE2h8zaOmBaFUWQ4D8SdXDVymP5QMtLG+ItMMiNV6kXgsRFugAKM5yZ tPP9gIX+ic8QO5iuct37bRXJU/rmrH54Ab0kyAeeRE7oSsfTZPKvgtUh7VLAUEw/wy6TORJH E8JMaX0yYT6h4PGRS3mNM4bka8hjdfcrexI0zSqFOl2I22zQlG3YqSzIvVh98W67hxfAIaCV aTfJLFPEru3drxNwi6ogdkRmcLGKqqTgeYItrvITyFvzqbrcO2exp0KKEK3cDIZypqHHUf4+ uPlDtuExehLsNOMpjP8qhZpFtyLeDS07qunbvstcyvR30wOJ3DyAbHGzq739UyDcO9Jt5jwO DyVwk3MK5Em4pJ0+IAJx+F6gta0Bk2MAEQEAAYkCJQQYAQgADwUCWClxHQIbDAUJCWYBgAAK CRAO2D86RorIs0ykD/4t151SZG9MbeKRVKbs9Ecjady9bO0L3oBos4rhqY12ha8smFlsUzvb gB4CtkBuXQlq+plOBWv+rFEThOzy3bezgEDjlxycoO1W2wJD6E7Fo9fkHT6UOm9fQBkuKRqK 83OGnfM02qP1Ky8d7EoZz+nTSMf/DJgWw1YRKrXkMHBwKD83lCENsmePWE5AjMqk8cojPv9O y1wWy6fHjwx3r+wQSokBNfxgQyAFonmgBbhlic/pZUYRSIcldyUlaomrjFfr4egzmNE7aWDv LwOUYKevBIeJJcqTyfAn3TtJbPCEHOC2+lP6EcmPFyhQdiia+RqOClumqbWOPeQ2VM8j7NWv KKmBNBB5OJ/rmHogbNU+wWPJ723qMBoOp1jIwFNkQhx01W6v55VMwLr+IuBKY1ggJ2BhwQiG pWv4tMc5oB/qVh3my1VO65ErcJ3S9blpwJdDj5/YDOU7BKEmpRUP+xkaryNzH2x7FzrOOHzJ BX6jeYZabGvnTicQlBAzfGpblFqV3YN6EhCF2AHmGLTZ/DrjGYToIsW8cXlEMqN4u8ODEUY0 OhbnytnopKJKk99bwMoCqDkfQvT3LKDWtZj9NzFndfuoKXsVpwAitrG0mau0/16DKDyVWdtJ 9DYmtE40zO6g70VVxUj+dKt2hbJTy/KQTb7Ijhw7wZrGp/P7nhbVyA== Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 16:56:52 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated-As-Hash: f1842a279235a42f6aa2a2a81130733515c5a4ec X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Scan-Signature: 8b3222cd26cce149ddb9ffa05c4da76e Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] New Version Notification for draft-iab-for-the-users-01.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 15:57:00 -0000 On 12/12/19 2:27 PM, Paul Wouters wrote: > On Thu, 12 Dec 2019, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > >> So, why does the IAB wants to enact a policy of supporting "end-user interests" (which, as we see, are >> contrasting and very hard to define objectively)? The more we discuss this, the more I think the draft is >> naive and totally impractical. > > I think the draft does a good job of saying, if there is a technology > choice to be made that could negative affects a group of users, the > interest of individual endusers should weight more heavilly than those > of the (smaller) group. > > Or rephrased in an example, enterprise users are important and served > by their administrators, but choices to support the enterprise should > not cause negative effects for non-enterprises users worldwide. > > Of course these are general statements and everyone can come up with > exceptions. But I think it is good to state this goal as a general > rule. It would be useful to reference in future discussions. +1 > > Paul > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc -- Niels ten Oever Researcher and PhD Candidate DATACTIVE Research Group University of Amsterdam PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 From nobody Thu Dec 12 08:24:00 2019 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 B270E1209B9 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 08:23:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com 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 Z6qtzLtYmEYF for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 08:23:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-il1-x131.google.com (mail-il1-x131.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::131]) (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 1C4951209A0 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 08:23:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-il1-x131.google.com with SMTP id n1so2525235ilm.6 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 08:23:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=RsAnjc2gco/WJ7rNPStvSU1nR4VFeIt7iU2hpfEJCuE=; b=wnDG7sEkO2UHiexsnxoCVoNzTZMFIKepjK6MbvgxHrGYGroZ3MJEzzXDMDK+TOT35e 5PjphXKPvqso1lMypespZ+LX5bFdY8A/T1DAWR3AXQ1M8xU4VINGPTpH7JwoCOsIVzrM xF6GY1K6PyMOBNAazlnxEZ1vUmja+7Ah4RwDw+TAyyBWsNP9kjR8TZCh3F61PBJyWB7m XmySPxH2D+DW3ahW25HFDCRFowFX9iuK+yr83dHoLzua7UBxEgsORwbylLOODUEyid40 VSfvAlDtnZTLV7/jqMLT7NNeoeArRxhdGbcMe78mbr7ZXKG80G1lPtctkggp0g2FnuXE 1l8g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=RsAnjc2gco/WJ7rNPStvSU1nR4VFeIt7iU2hpfEJCuE=; b=WIh8QvZDaUd0Gh+8uTPkHdVfgEHUnoS0wpmVoQ9cTJVmF6jEeb874amlyuyE6+cs05 zJEFhtnOprdi1GF7Sn5C+hy1YEK9a4JmbuPdugqaVwAjaBGITwGNZn85NC77rxfi+wcV V/bM7h/dsmbcPOY8Ogma5kOc4yaSTM9SIUtGw73vl3Rrq5jAnqh/gBrwRLGJwm1Q9THL ESub7xQ10fU2IHQDqDaCeJ8WB9+xsgfmqyJq7bdJi3cfBuQ83On351H7o6WZwADwLgpZ XMdBt9eY9UNL0BXF5qoits1aFRBNX+CgHD3F30X6lvE8XCEBZVHxMclocQPJjPTFfmUE KWNA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXN1L89nFZh4usKCczGQ3/s97pDJu6BMhEMzAYVVfR0nw8GEzbt UguBlVOr6gBYLWnAqL4jl/dKUdwS97A= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyFuiZiasXJAYkvNuUtERE2WMrbTismi6iZjtMk4yT8juUeahGY2+gmXIr/ORtzD3wxr1VfNA== X-Received: by 2002:a92:5cc9:: with SMTP id d70mr8701453ilg.210.1576167836123; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 08:23:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.19.0.149] ([75.104.90.76]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v17sm1856367ilh.12.2019.12.12.08.23.54 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 12 Dec 2019 08:23:55 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Ted Lemon Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 08:23:50 -0800 Message-Id: References: <1442150846.20149.1576153630433@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> Cc: "hrpc@irtf.org" In-Reply-To: <1442150846.20149.1576153630433@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> To: Vittorio Bertola X-Mailer: iPad Mail (17E177) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] New Version Notification for draft-iab-for-the-users-01.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 16:23:59 -0000 On Dec 12, 2019, at 4:27 AM, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >=20 > So, why does the IAB wants to enact a policy of supporting "end-user inter= ests" (which, as we see, are contrasting and very hard to define objectively= )? The more we discuss this, the more I think the draft is naive and totally= impractical. They are hard to enumerate, and so enumerating them isn=E2=80=99t the right a= pproach. The guiding principles aren=E2=80=99t hard to enumerate, though=E2= =80=94just the specific applications. If one of our guiding principles were =E2=80=9Cmake it easy to censor the In= ternet,=E2=80=9D then that would be easy to articulate, and it would be clea= r who would benefit from this: organized crime, repressive governments, and s= o on. Similarly, if one of our guiding principles is =E2=80=9Cmake it hard to cens= or the Internet,=E2=80=9D then again it=E2=80=99s clear who this benefits. = If one of our principles is =E2=80=9Cmake it hard to monitor end-users,=E2=80= =9D again it=E2=80=99s clear who that benefits. If one of our principles i= s =E2=80=9Cuse protocols that are secure and do not have known vulnerabiliti= es, and fix vulnerabilities when they are discovered,=E2=80=9D again it=E2=80= =99s pretty clear who this benefits. The reason this is complicated is that it=E2=80=99s actually quite difficult= to articulate a case for censorship such that can be shown to benefit end-u= sers. Similarly for a panopticon Internet, or an Internet without secure p= rotocols. In order to construct such a case, you need to create a great de= al of complexity. This is an indication that you are mistaken, not an indi= cation that it=E2=80=99s difficult to articulate what =E2=80=9Cbenefits the e= nd user=E2=80=9D means. From nobody Fri Dec 13 00:39:19 2019 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 B3BB11200F7 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 00:39:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com 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 CT-xUR-5uXZc for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 00:39:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB21B1200EF for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 00:39:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=18023; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1576226355; x=1577435955; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=6ekeviGWh8c3lWkhJhtdsCt8Cvc3UknESI36m360GOY=; b=Mnpcxsiw7dReGfAN3W9SAgPvMvZipYUmb5ZycsWVbqbpnMBM2MV2dZ/1 T5Bo4hvyFYHLwFqJvxjPMXHKXrX6qgog9reUzEw6ijyslsNbK18EXAH5B crlBTqGP6Qwu5qbvU+qtFwAptLy+O8PcFkzC+mojxk5Hlfv4zTPqTwOHv 0=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0D+AADpTfNd/xbLJq1lGwEBAQEBAQEFAQEBEQEBAwMBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QGBfoF0gW0gEiqEA4kDiA0lgQGSI4YkgWcCBwEBAQkDAQEvAQGEQAKCLjgTA?= =?us-ascii?q?gMBAQEDAgMBAQEBBAEBAQIBBQRthUOFXgEBAQECASNUAgULCw4EBhUVAgJJD?= =?us-ascii?q?gYTFAuDAwGCVyCsKXWBMoVPhHAQgTaBU4pfggCBEScMFIIXNT6EBAkgW4JRM?= =?us-ascii?q?oIsBI0WiW2XbII6gjyBGYJGhjyJIgIZgkKHdoQahy+EQKVlgyMCBAYFAhWBa?= =?us-ascii?q?SI+gRozGggbFWUBgVloPhIRFFaMSBeBBAEHjRhAAzCPO2ABAQ?= X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.69,195,1571702400"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="20290412" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 13 Dec 2019 08:39:13 +0000 Received: from [10.61.204.232] ([10.61.204.232]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id xBD8dBhU011125 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 13 Dec 2019 08:39:11 GMT From: Eliot Lear Message-Id: <31473650-0872-4EFE-A99C-E3DD4CDBC700@cisco.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_470350DF-176D-4187-AFA5-D3C21E30A0AB"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.40.2.2.4\)) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 09:39:10 +0100 In-Reply-To: <4A034991-E5C8-4797-B6BF-9484BB2FA614@fugue.com> Cc: Vittorio Bertola , "hrpc@irtf.org" , architecture-discuss@ietf.org To: Ted Lemon References: <157403781873.6404.6154827441040413193.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <01246A3C-31EC-4B7B-841D-F799EEFADCB8@mnot.net> <227662299.12784.1575991106819@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <429195684.13066.1575996064551@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <0C729385-1361-460C-9C16-E1BE1680A3E6@fugue.com> <1100636076.15285.1576072588087@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <4A034991-E5C8-4797-B6BF-9484BB2FA614@fugue.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.40.2.2.4) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.204.232, [10.61.204.232] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] New Version Notification for draft-iab-for-the-users-01.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 08:39:19 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_470350DF-176D-4187-AFA5-D3C21E30A0AB Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9D69F786-F085-4521-9C18-ABEF6765AEF3" --Apple-Mail=_9D69F786-F085-4521-9C18-ABEF6765AEF3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi Ted, Vittorio, and others, I am attempting to consolidate this thread with any discussion that = might take place on architecture-discuss (thus the CC), in large part = because this isn=E2=80=99t simply related to human rights, as we = generally think of them. I apologize for the length of this note. &TLDR; the draft needs to go a little slower on recommendations, and = should focus more on raising the issues for discussion within our = community, which are complex, as I will get into below. Mark and the IAB have taken on a very difficult task, which is to = establish some sort of priority for end users. The dialog in the draft = has shifted over time, and it is often difficult to understand precisely = what the practical implications of the recommendations are intended to = be. In the latest revision, Section 4 is expanded to really delve into = the nature of harm, and how we should consider harm. But there are few = examples, leading to a point where it is difficult to understand the = implications of what is being said. I do like the economic incentive = discussion, but I=E2=80=99m not sure whether it is broadly applicable. = That should get developed a bit more. It concerns me that Paul Wouters can take from this document that = somehow enterprises do not address end user interests. The example I = always give is that of a business who has a regulatory requirement to = avoid leaking PII. There are all sorts of toolsets that MITM = communications in order to protect the privacy of account holders. I = think it would be useful for the draft to address this example as a bit = of a case study. One can reasonably argue that an explicit proxy = mechanism on at least one side of a communication provides for this, but = it begins to encroach on the so-called =E2=80=9Cend-to-end=E2=80=9D = views (I put that in quotes because the end-to-end model is often = misused in these sorts of discussions). I really like the comparison between the web and IoT. I would go = further: some of the very same technology that is used to protect users = on the web may in fact be harmful to users when employed by IoT. I=E2=80=99= ll expand on this below. The most difficult part of the draft remains who gets to decide what is = in the interest of end users. IMHO whether it=E2=80=99s governments, = NGOs, or whoever, there is no way anyone can claim that mantel. The = best we have is rough consensus and running code, guided by whatever = input participants bring to the table. I would suggest that the IAB go a bit slower with recommendations, and = focus more on discussion, which is quite valuable. It=E2=80=99s okay = not to have all the answers, but it may be just a bit too early to make = strong recommendation to the IETF because we do not yet see the whole = board. I could definitely see this document being revised in an almost = bi-annual basis, given how fast the state of the art is moving. Please see below for more: > On 11 Dec 2019, at 18:03, Ted Lemon wrote: >=20 >=20 > So e.g. if we were to abandon the end-to-end principle, or advocate = blocking protocols by default, that would be against the user=E2=80=99s = interests. If we were to advocate censorship, that would be against = the users=E2=80=99 interests. This is clear, because an act of = censorship necessarily implies that something the user wanted to do, the = user can=E2=80=99t do. That=E2=80=99s acting against the user=E2=80=99s = interests. As we apply these principles, one person=E2=80=99s censorship is another = person=E2=80=99s privacy control, as I discussed above and will again = below, depending on how specific mechanisms are deployed. > Another example of the user=E2=80=99s interest is the user=E2=80=99s = interest in privacy. You will not find a user out there who doesn=E2=80=99= t care about their own privacy. Professor Serge Egelman at ICSI has delved deeply into this, and what he = has found is that people are easily willing to trade off privacy for = convenience, and we know this to be the case with the Amazon Echo. But = they are quite a bit more reticent when they learn that most processing = goes on in the cloud, or that other people are listening, or when it is = their children or guests that are being recorded. . This has = ramifications for the IETF in as much as our mechanisms are used to = enable end-to-end communication between Amazon and the home. OTOH, = exactly how much information a service keeps once they have it is not = something this organization can impact. Complicating matters, privacy cannot be the only concern. Let=E2=80=99s = say that a law was passed that required some local processing to address = privacy concerns. No matter how you slice it, that harms the = environment, requiring more power usage, more memory, and more CPU, that = eventually generates more e-Waste. If you missed that, it=E2=80=99s an = argument in favor of end-to-end encryption, but against privacy = protections in our protocol suite. Looking at an industrial IOT example, the user may not be typing on the = interface that controls electrical power or manages a dam, but this may = have far more impact to individuals than their information being = captured by hackers. How does auditing occur when we cannot reasonably = trust that an end device is secure? The draft seems to recognize this = challenge, but I=E2=80=99m not sure that=E2=80=99s reflected in = recommendations. And to just add fuel to the dumpster fire, there is = plenty of PII mixed in at certain points in some industrial = environments. Given the above examples, one could reasonably argue that we should be = developing 3rd party authorization models for encryption to protect both = safety and privacy. But if we do so, would that cause more harm than = good when dealing with bad actor governments? I can=E2=80=99t answer = that, and anyone who can is demonstrating hubris. The draft can be = misinterpreted, I think, to say, =E2=80=9Cif one person benefits and = another person is harmed, then do nothing=E2=80=9D. Lives are put at = risk either way, and while looking at the whole board is hard, we have a = responsibility to do so to produce least harm, assuming we are well = suited to even make a call. > You may find users who would like to violate other user=E2=80=99s = [sic] privacy, I hope you will be pleased to learn that at least some research (not = just Egelman=E2=80=99s) shows that people generally don=E2=80=99t like = doing this, and in fact they won=E2=80=99t sell off other people=E2=80=99s= information. On the other hand, you and I have a mutual friend who got = royally miffed when I drop shipped to him a gift off of the web. That = showed my ignorance at the time that there was even a privacy concern to = be had. And so it is not a matter of liking or not liking but = understanding when that violation is occurring. Your point about = transparency is very apt, although the use of =E2=80=9Conline service = provider=E2=80=9D can be ambiguously interpreted: when we got into this, = people in this organization viewed telcos as a big threat. The world = has really changed since then, no? Eliot --Apple-Mail=_9D69F786-F085-4521-9C18-ABEF6765AEF3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Hi = Ted, Vittorio, and others,

I am attempting to consolidate this thread with any = discussion that might take place on architecture-discuss (thus the CC), = in large part because this isn=E2=80=99t simply related to human rights, = as we generally think of them.  I apologize for the length of this = note.

&TLDR; the draft needs to go a little slower on = recommendations, and should focus more on raising the issues for = discussion within our community, which are complex, as I will get into = below.

Mark and the = IAB have taken on a very difficult task, which is to establish some sort = of priority for end users.  The dialog in the draft has shifted = over time, and it is often difficult to understand precisely what the = practical implications of the recommendations are intended to be. =  In the latest revision, Section 4 is expanded to really delve into = the nature of harm, and how we should consider harm.  But there are = few examples, leading to a point where it is difficult to understand the = implications of what is being said.  I do like the economic = incentive discussion, but I=E2=80=99m not sure whether it is broadly = applicable.  That should get developed a bit more.

It concerns me that Paul Wouters can take from = this document that somehow enterprises do not address end user = interests.  The example I always give is that of a business who has = a regulatory requirement to avoid leaking PII.  There are all sorts = of toolsets that MITM communications in order to protect the privacy of account holders.  I = think it would be useful for the draft to address this example as a bit = of a case study.  One can reasonably argue that an explicit proxy = mechanism on at least one side of a communication provides for this, but = it begins to encroach on the so-called =E2=80=9Cend-to-end=E2=80=9D = views (I put that in quotes because the end-to-end model is often = misused in these sorts of discussions).

I really like the comparison between the web and = IoT.  I would go further: some of the very same technology that is = used to protect users on the web may in fact be harmful to users when = employed by IoT.  I=E2=80=99ll expand on this below.

The most difficult part of the draft remains who = gets to decide what is in the interest of end users.  IMHO whether = it=E2=80=99s governments, NGOs, or whoever, there is no way anyone can = claim that mantel.  The best we have is rough consensus and running = code, guided by whatever input participants bring to the = table.

I would suggest that the IAB = go a bit slower with recommendations, and focus more on discussion, = which is quite valuable.  It=E2=80=99s okay not to have all the = answers, but it may be just a bit too early to make strong = recommendation to the IETF because we do not yet see the whole board. =  I could definitely see this document being revised in an almost = bi-annual basis, given how fast the state of the art is = moving.

Please see below for = more:


On 11 Dec 2019, at 18:03, Ted = Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:


So e.g. if we were to abandon the = end-to-end principle, or advocate blocking protocols by default, that = would be against the user=E2=80=99s interests.   If we were to = advocate censorship, that would be against the users=E2=80=99 interests. =   This is clear, because an act of censorship necessarily implies = that something the user wanted to do, the user can=E2=80=99t do.   = That=E2=80=99s acting against the user=E2=80=99s = interests.

As we = apply these principles, one person=E2=80=99s censorship is another = person=E2=80=99s privacy control, as I discussed above and will again = below, depending on how specific mechanisms are deployed.

Another example of the user=E2=80=99s = interest is the user=E2=80=99s interest in privacy.  You will not = find a user out there who doesn=E2=80=99t care about their own privacy. =  

Professor = Serge Egelman at ICSI has delved deeply into this, and what he has found = is that people are easily willing to trade off privacy for convenience, = and we know this to be the case with the Amazon Echo.  But they are = quite a bit more reticent when they learn that most processing goes on = in the cloud, or that other people are listening, or when it is their = children or guests that are being recorded. .  This has = ramifications for the IETF in as much as our mechanisms are used to = enable end-to-end communication between Amazon and the home.  OTOH, = exactly how much information a service keeps once they have it is not = something this organization can impact.

Complicating matters, privacy cannot be the only = concern.  Let=E2=80=99s say that a law was passed that required = some local processing to address privacy concerns.  No matter how = you slice it, that harms the environment, requiring more power usage, = more memory, and more CPU, that eventually generates more e-Waste. =  If you missed that, it=E2=80=99s an argument in favor of = end-to-end encryption, but against privacy protections in our protocol = suite.

Looking at an industrial = IOT example, the user may not be typing on the interface that controls = electrical power or manages a dam, but this may have far more impact to = individuals than their information being captured by hackers.  How = does auditing occur when we cannot reasonably trust that an end device = is secure?  The draft seems = to recognize this challenge, but I=E2=80=99m not sure that=E2=80=99s = reflected in recommendations.  And to just add fuel to the dumpster = fire, there is plenty of PII mixed in at certain points in some = industrial environments.

Given the above examples, one could reasonably argue = that we should be developing 3rd party authorization models for = encryption to protect both safety and privacy.  But if we do so, = would that cause more harm than good when dealing with bad actor = governments?  I can=E2=80=99t answer that, and anyone who can is = demonstrating hubris.  The draft can be misinterpreted, I think, to = say, =E2=80=9Cif one person benefits and another person is harmed, then = do nothing=E2=80=9D.  Lives are put at risk either way, and while = looking at the whole board is hard, we have a responsibility to do so to = produce least harm, assuming we are well suited to even make a = call.

You may find users who would like to violate = other user=E2=80=99s [sic] = privacy,

I = hope you will be pleased to learn that at least some research (not just = Egelman=E2=80=99s) shows that people generally don=E2=80=99t like doing = this, and in fact they won=E2=80=99t sell off other people=E2=80=99s = information.  On the other hand, you and I have a mutual friend who = got royally miffed when I drop shipped to him a gift off of the web. =  That showed my ignorance at the time that there was even a privacy = concern to be had.  And so it is not a matter of liking or not = liking but understanding when that violation is occurring.  Your = point about transparency is very apt, although the use of =E2=80=9Conline = service provider=E2=80=9D can be ambiguously interpreted: when we got = into this, people in this organization viewed telcos as a big threat. =  The world has really changed since then, = no?

Eliot
= --Apple-Mail=_9D69F786-F085-4521-9C18-ABEF6765AEF3-- --Apple-Mail=_470350DF-176D-4187-AFA5-D3C21E30A0AB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAl3zTi4ACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejOKmAf/VrHSC1OQyLXpM2+aOzqhIOJYiMEzDt1APtLCM4QFsEZbhrf50Yr1QF75 Zpd2M06QknKU/NCVN40mGRss8TXkGm4abLbeynOtGNHIycCtFRznTOm7wcaozAry cP8ItjAj7wJaEzfdIAw8/Yur1XHKl7URoUmsUG6XgGgj7wf9iHnrf7ZBLZ5V3XHA fZ9/eyRylIxHI4LntL0+nPevBX336rGyoHzTsLsUhUEhwl5/mwnDVXnf6oQxaUj9 F0th8u1Dd0H7yu99YLoFEli441LaARxoyNWth/MDyGVQMcoFpyWSN49F/lb4GqDz AzEU814L8jaya68IXFxFHY2b1Sx/xA== =7WJ6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_470350DF-176D-4187-AFA5-D3C21E30A0AB-- From nobody Fri Dec 13 05:19:55 2019 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 5ACBE120835 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 05:19:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.997 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 iN3itUuqKN9V for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 05:19:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ot1-x32c.google.com (mail-ot1-x32c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32c]) (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 85FD11200A3 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 05:19:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ot1-x32c.google.com with SMTP id g18so6403123otj.13 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 05:19:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=EMV62/TPS8bpjFueBYzFrNdLwBFdmbUkRLOfLVuqHRA=; b=huQvpNU0aeNiWNLZs8KHUGke0vegnQBCA6Pry6rtVkgQGFvCGqMDOZ9Ww+NLiBqpLI rZk5tKEzf3NrlB65+hEnQYoWJVVIzgnlneZU9ZcaBrB0r/6OuAj57AsPq/BVYcIVnk7J iaR2H/JydLr/t0HIQ7lUGhgXCNm5haD9TUkYSOeKwQUSSSd5prCU5zS+Si4QCLiJ6ENM ON/aBgDFQ6Py3EJ8spxGfJaWUhluoTZl0R9psfbelVA+HA5qTKwGyVSCGVmVsF8Hc2JW qpQn7TUYBtbC235ujoNiJMhzRbex6AvO8siOa4SiLd1k/vHkrGK1eYnmgdaklB2X5ky7 Cj6Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=EMV62/TPS8bpjFueBYzFrNdLwBFdmbUkRLOfLVuqHRA=; b=gyYFbmOvfoBPyqtmHhfq8BKU36Ifyseo2Ij3czBJ1hRFnKOPlnMQZ9jd4kHDPsE0+E YYjj8OS/EeU/e7TZW114RGrj+2T0eJ5nj2iMzZYXC9nrsb2V/JhbaOGAm7jp9QjPWje6 uZheEMaV8ZXwRgKWTbG+7weoo/q/oblYNdL/lVeIDwC29p8LNPq6wNw/fGjTNJlLZWMP eL2p3QEri3mQcadSXPuIwSQAMRsFwMQMBRcECXZgkwiNaP4qpYi3rpUwhPUI5tVSxqsA HzNU6sfMXi7NrllD+5QNAhvANnHZbAlGd6f96OuJh+JJ+wSLkMlHk6UrrNYuS0Sia8b1 M3Sg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVbDHuaWrK3OO7UuFvUVfCNy14lSCgdt7OyHT5TbXe7L2FGzZSq nuVQgI/WDkchjGMz45xVGuvk0ja0O1JZm1OkJPQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwFM7v56uSuWqX945a6DOPnmRMIL2fD4uVDxB8lK0MH6YoE+x3UUCec+eYKu14umIj5+ZcQW5Js9bTfDOjstxE= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:6654:: with SMTP id q20mr14344811otm.284.1576243189858; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 05:19:49 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a05:6830:1155:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 05:19:49 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <31473650-0872-4EFE-A99C-E3DD4CDBC700@cisco.com> References: <157403781873.6404.6154827441040413193.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <01246A3C-31EC-4B7B-841D-F799EEFADCB8@mnot.net> <227662299.12784.1575991106819@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <429195684.13066.1575996064551@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <0C729385-1361-460C-9C16-E1BE1680A3E6@fugue.com> <1100636076.15285.1576072588087@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <4A034991-E5C8-4797-B6BF-9484BB2FA614@fugue.com> <31473650-0872-4EFE-A99C-E3DD4CDBC700@cisco.com> From: Guntur Wiseno Putra Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 20:19:49 +0700 Message-ID: To: Eliot Lear Cc: Ted Lemon , "hrpc@irtf.org" , "architecture-discuss@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000694485059995b779" Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] [arch-d] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-iab-for-the-users-01.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 13:19:53 -0000 --000000000000694485059995b779 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Eliot, architecture-discuss & others (hrpc@irtf.org & Ted), Would it be about "User-Focused System" (sec. 4.2) or "Positive User Outcomes" (sec. 4.3)...? It comes to mind that Internet is about human experiences with such communication platform enabled by networks of computers: men learn and learn on what they do: experiences are about things interesting, about creativities --and thus evolutions, innovations of technologies supporting. There are networks of interests/intentions of users' & architects' being impulses of evolutions... It was examplified by IETF's concerns on evolution ( among others mentioned in Mark' reference for the draft: RFC 3724 on "evolution"); another is how the Web's inventor T. Berners-Lee contemplated its "evolvability" ( https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Evolution.html). Citing a paragraph I sent to public-xformsusers@w3.org with an emphasis on networks of interests of users' and architects': "For the Internet and the Web, thus networks of computer-based communications and informations --at least considering the Web goals of interoperbility and evolvability/evolution if they are still so while if it has not been changed evolution is a main concern of Internet engineers--, there would supposedly be networks of applications supported by languages: and there would also be those of intentions/interests of users' and architects'... Is'nt it so..."? Few other paragraphs of the post could be seen at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xformsusers/2019Dec/0018.html Regard, Guntur Wiseno Putra Pada Jumat, 13 Desember 2019, Eliot Lear menulis: > Hi Ted, Vittorio, and others, > > I am attempting to consolidate this thread with any discussion that might > take place on architecture-discuss (thus the CC), in large part because > this isn=E2=80=99t simply related to human rights, as we generally think = of them. > I apologize for the length of this note. > > &TLDR; the draft needs to go a little slower on recommendations, and > should focus more on raising the issues for discussion within our > community, which are complex, as I will get into below. > > Mark and the IAB have taken on a very difficult task, which is to > establish some sort of priority for end users. The dialog in the draft h= as > shifted over time, and it is often difficult to understand precisely what > the practical implications of the recommendations are intended to be. In > the latest revision, Section 4 is expanded to really delve into the natur= e > of harm, and how we should consider harm. But there are few examples, > leading to a point where it is difficult to understand the implications o= f > what is being said. I do like the economic incentive discussion, but I= =E2=80=99m > not sure whether it is broadly applicable. That should get developed a b= it > more. > > It concerns me that Paul Wouters can take from this document that somehow > enterprises do not address end user interests. The example I always give > is that of a business who has a regulatory requirement to avoid leaking > PII. There are all sorts of toolsets that MITM communications in order t= o > *protect* the privacy of account holders. I think it would be useful for > the draft to address this example as a bit of a case study. One can > reasonably argue that an explicit proxy mechanism on at least one side of= a > communication provides for this, but it begins to encroach on the so-call= ed > =E2=80=9Cend-to-end=E2=80=9D views (I put that in quotes because the end-= to-end model is > often misused in these sorts of discussions). > > I really like the comparison between the web and IoT. I would go further= : > some of the very same technology that is used to protect users on the web > may in fact be harmful to users when employed by IoT. I=E2=80=99ll expan= d on this > below. > > The most difficult part of the draft remains who gets to decide what is i= n > the interest of end users. IMHO whether it=E2=80=99s governments, NGOs, = or > whoever, there is no way anyone can claim that mantel. The best we have = is > rough consensus and running code, guided by whatever input participants > bring to the table. > > I would suggest that the IAB go a bit slower with recommendations, and > focus more on discussion, which is quite valuable. It=E2=80=99s okay not= to have > all the answers, but it may be just a bit too early to make strong > recommendation to the IETF because we do not yet see the whole board. I > could definitely see this document being revised in an almost bi-annual > basis, given how fast the state of the art is moving. > > Please see below for more: > > > On 11 Dec 2019, at 18:03, Ted Lemon wrote: > > > So e.g. if we were to abandon the end-to-end principle, or advocate > blocking protocols by default, that would be against the user=E2=80=99s i= nterests. > If we were to advocate censorship, that would be against the users=E2= =80=99 > interests. This is clear, because an act of censorship necessarily > implies that something the user wanted to do, the user can=E2=80=99t do. = That=E2=80=99s > acting against the user=E2=80=99s interests. > > > As we apply these principles, one person=E2=80=99s censorship is another = person=E2=80=99s > privacy control, as I discussed above and will again below, depending on > how specific mechanisms are deployed. > > Another example of the user=E2=80=99s interest is the user=E2=80=99s inte= rest in privacy. > You will not find a user out there who doesn=E2=80=99t care about their o= wn > privacy. > > > Professor Serge Egelman at ICSI has delved deeply into this, and what he > has found is that people are easily willing to trade off privacy for > convenience, and we know this to be the case with the Amazon Echo. But > they are quite a bit more reticent when they learn that most processing > goes on in the cloud, or that other people are listening, or when it is > their children or guests that are being recorded. . This has ramificatio= ns > for the IETF in as much as our mechanisms are used to enable end-to-end > communication between Amazon and the home. OTOH, exactly how much > information a service keeps once they have it is not something this > organization can impact. > > Complicating matters, privacy cannot be the only concern. Let=E2=80=99s = say that > a law was passed that required some local processing to address privacy > concerns. No matter how you slice it, that harms the environment, > requiring more power usage, more memory, and more CPU, that eventually > generates more e-Waste. If you missed that, it=E2=80=99s an argument in = favor of > end-to-end encryption, but against privacy protections in our protocol > suite. > > Looking at an industrial IOT example, the user may not be typing on the > interface that controls electrical power or manages a dam, but this may > have far more impact to individuals than their information being captured > by hackers. How does auditing occur when we cannot reasonably trust that > an end device is secure? The draft seems to recognize this challenge, > but I=E2=80=99m not sure that=E2=80=99s reflected in recommendations. An= d to just add fuel > to the dumpster fire, there is plenty of PII mixed in at certain points i= n > some industrial environments. > > Given the above examples, one could reasonably argue that we should be > developing 3rd party authorization models for encryption to protect both > safety and privacy. But if we do so, would that cause more harm than goo= d > when dealing with bad actor governments? I can=E2=80=99t answer that, an= d anyone > who can is demonstrating hubris. The draft can be misinterpreted, I thin= k, > to say, =E2=80=9Cif one person benefits and another person is harmed, the= n do > nothing=E2=80=9D. Lives are put at risk either way, and while looking at= the whole > board is hard, we have a responsibility to do so to produce least harm, > assuming we are well suited to even make a call. > > You may find users who would like to violate other user=E2=80=99s [sic] p= rivacy, > > > I hope you will be pleased to learn that at least some research (not just > Egelman=E2=80=99s) shows that people generally don=E2=80=99t like doing t= his, and in fact > they won=E2=80=99t sell off other people=E2=80=99s information. On the o= ther hand, you and > I have a mutual friend who got royally miffed when I drop shipped to him = a > gift off of the web. That showed my ignorance at the time that there was > even a privacy concern to be had. And so it is not a matter of liking or > not liking but understanding when that violation is occurring. Your poin= t > about transparency is very apt, although the use of =E2=80=9Conline servi= ce > provider=E2=80=9D can be ambiguously interpreted: when we got into this, = people in > this organization viewed telcos as a big threat. The world has *really* = changed > since then, no? > > Eliot > --000000000000694485059995b779 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Eliot,=C2=A0
architecture-discuss &=C2=A0
others (hrpc@irtf.org & Ted),



Would it be about "= ;User-Focused System" (sec. 4.2) or "Positive User Outcomes"= (sec. 4.3)...?



It c= omes to mind that Internet is about human experiences with such communicati= on platform enabled by networks of computers: men learn and learn on what t= hey do: experiences are about things interesting, about creativities --and = thus evolutions, innovations of technologies supporting. There are networks= of interests/intentions of users' & architects' being impulses= of evolutions...

It was examplified by IETF's= concerns on evolution ( among others mentioned in Mark' reference for = the draft: RFC 3724 on "evolution"); another is how the Web's= inventor T. Berners-Lee contemplated =C2=A0its "evolvability" (<= a href=3D"https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Evolution.html">https://www.w3.or= g/DesignIssues/Evolution.html).

Citing a parag= raph I sent to public-xformsusers@w3.org=C2=A0with an emphasis on networks of inter= ests of users' and architects':


=
"For the Internet and the Web, thus networks of computer-b= ased communications and informations --at least considering the Web goals o= f interoperbility and evolvability/evolution if they are still so while if = it has not been changed evolution is a main concern of Internet engineers--= , there would supposedly be networks=C2=A0of applications supported by lang= uages: and there would also be those of intentions/interests of users' = and architects'... Is'nt it so..."?

<= /div>

Few other paragraphs of the post could be seen at<= /div>https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xformsusers/201= 9Dec/0018.html

Regard,
Guntur Wiseno Putra

Pad= a Jumat, 13 Desember 2019, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> menulis:
= Hi Ted, Vittorio, and others,

I am attempting to consoli= date this thread with any discussion that might take place on architecture-= discuss (thus the CC), in large part because this isn=E2=80=99t simply rela= ted to human rights, as we generally think of them.=C2=A0 I apologize for t= he length of this note.

&TLDR; the draft needs t= o go a little slower on recommendations, and should focus more on raising t= he issues for discussion within our community, which are complex, as I will= get into below.

Mark and the IAB have taken = on a very difficult task, which is to establish some sort of priority for e= nd users.=C2=A0 The dialog in the draft has shifted over time, and it is of= ten difficult to understand precisely what the practical implications of th= e recommendations are intended to be.=C2=A0 In the latest revision, Section= 4 is expanded to really delve into the nature of harm, and how we should c= onsider harm.=C2=A0 But there are few examples, leading to a point where it= is difficult to understand the implications of what is being said.=C2=A0 I= do like the economic incentive discussion, but I=E2=80=99m not sure whethe= r it is broadly applicable.=C2=A0 That should get developed a bit more.

It concerns me that Paul Wouters can take from this d= ocument that somehow enterprises do not address end user interests.=C2=A0 T= he example I always give is that of a business who has a regulatory require= ment to avoid leaking PII.=C2=A0 There are all sorts of toolsets that MITM = communications in order to protect=C2=A0the privacy of account holde= rs.=C2=A0 I think it would be useful for the draft to address this example = as a bit of a case study.=C2=A0 One can reasonably argue that an explicit p= roxy mechanism on at least one side of a communication provides for this, b= ut it begins to encroach on the so-called =E2=80=9Cend-to-end=E2=80=9D view= s (I put that in quotes because the end-to-end model is often misused in th= ese sorts of discussions).

I really like the compa= rison between the web and IoT.=C2=A0 I would go further: some of the very s= ame technology that is used to protect users on the web may in fact be harm= ful to users when employed by IoT.=C2=A0 I=E2=80=99ll expand on this below.=

The most difficult part of the draft remains who = gets to decide what is in the interest of end users.=C2=A0 IMHO whether it= =E2=80=99s governments, NGOs, or whoever, there is no way anyone can claim = that mantel.=C2=A0 The best we have is rough consensus and running code, gu= ided by whatever input participants bring to the table.

I would suggest that the IAB go a bit slower with recommendations, an= d focus more on discussion, which is quite valuable.=C2=A0 It=E2=80=99s oka= y not to have all the answers, but it may be just a bit too early to make s= trong recommendation to the IETF because we do not yet see the whole board.= =C2=A0 I could definitely see this document being revised in an almost bi-a= nnual basis, given how fast the state of the art is moving.

<= /div>
Please see below for more:


On 11 Dec 2019, at 18:03, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:

So e.g. if we were to abandon the end-to-end principl= e, or advocate blocking protocols by default, that would be against the use= r=E2=80=99s interests. =C2=A0 If we were to advocate censorship, that would= be against the users=E2=80=99 interests. =C2=A0 This is clear, because an = act of censorship necessarily implies that something the user wanted to do,= the user can=E2=80=99t do. =C2=A0 That=E2=80=99s acting against the user= =E2=80=99s interests.

As we ap= ply these principles, one person=E2=80=99s censorship is another person=E2= =80=99s privacy control, as I discussed above and will again below, dependi= ng on how specific mechanisms are deployed.

=
Another example of the user=E2=80=99s interest is the user=E2=80=99s i= nterest in privacy.=C2=A0 You will not find a user out there who doesn=E2= =80=99t care about their own privacy. =C2=A0
<= br>
Professor Serge Egelman at ICSI has delved deeply into this, = and what he has found is that people are easily willing to trade off privac= y for convenience, and we know this to be the case with the Amazon Echo.=C2= =A0 But they are quite a bit more reticent when they learn that most proces= sing goes on in the cloud, or that other people are listening, or when it i= s their children or guests that are being recorded. .=C2=A0 This has ramifi= cations for the IETF in as much as our mechanisms are used to enable end-to= -end communication between Amazon and the home.=C2=A0 OTOH, exactly how muc= h information a service keeps once they have it is not something this organ= ization can impact.

Complicating matters, privacy = cannot be the only concern.=C2=A0 Let=E2=80=99s say that a law was passed t= hat required some local processing to address privacy concerns.=C2=A0 No ma= tter how you slice it, that harms the environment, requiring more power usa= ge, more memory, and more CPU, that eventually generates more e-Waste.=C2= =A0 If you missed that, it=E2=80=99s an argument in favor of end-to-end enc= ryption, but against privacy protections in our protocol suite.
<= br>
Looking at an industrial IOT example, the user may not b= e typing on the interface that controls electrical power or manages a dam, = but this may have far more impact to individuals than their information bei= ng captured by hackers.=C2=A0 How does auditing occur when we cannot reason= ably trust that an end device is secure?=C2=A0 The draft=C2=A0seems = to=C2=A0recognize this challenge, but I=E2=80=99m not sure that=E2=80=99s r= eflected in recommendations.=C2=A0 And to just add fuel to the dumpster fir= e, there is plenty of PII mixed in at certain points in some industrial env= ironments.

Given the above examples, one coul= d reasonably argue that we should be developing 3rd party authorization mod= els for encryption to protect both safety and privacy.=C2=A0 But if we do s= o, would that cause more harm than good when dealing with bad actor governm= ents?=C2=A0 I can=E2=80=99t answer that, and anyone who can is demonstratin= g hubris.=C2=A0 The draft can be misinterpreted, I think, to say, =E2=80=9C= if one person benefits and another person is harmed, then do nothing=E2=80= =9D.=C2=A0 Lives are put at risk either way, and while looking at the whole= board is hard, we have a responsibility to do so to produce least harm, as= suming we are well suited to even make a call.

You may find users who would like to violate = other user=E2=80=99s [sic] privacy,

=
I hope you will be pleased to learn that at least some research = (not just Egelman=E2=80=99s) shows that people generally don=E2=80=99t like= doing this, and in fact they won=E2=80=99t sell off other people=E2=80=99s= information.=C2=A0 On the other hand, you and I have a mutual friend who g= ot royally miffed when I drop shipped to him a gift off of the web.=C2=A0 T= hat showed my ignorance at the time that there was even a privacy concern t= o be had.=C2=A0 And so it is not a matter of liking or not liking but under= standing when that violation is occurring.=C2=A0 Your point about transpare= ncy is very apt, although the use of =E2=80=9Conline service provider=E2=80= =9D can be ambiguously interpreted: when we got into this, people in this o= rganization viewed telcos as a big threat.=C2=A0 The world has really=C2=A0changed since then, no?

Eliot
--000000000000694485059995b779-- From nobody Fri Dec 13 06:21:54 2019 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 F3883120154 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 06:21:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca 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 nhByPo52h1-L for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 06:21:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (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 A8C67120131 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 06:21:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47ZCXT5GydzDRm; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 15:21:45 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1576246905; bh=O7gtYbXXTUQ9bIez7gt0pTF8GMCLKU5/Sr8dYslGtfQ=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=dXsSSNLxsiGObCbm5Lk1dOm/EMkazvPoSIWId5UoHKPUAnn0gmxKkmZ769rdqJ6oy ExrdNF5KcxGYBruO/I422gbq1X3b9JMbYqivd293ub79f8CeDiwwPR2NnAdN1mtKn5 SusVnsH82xRKum5KN7L22O7BaPqcD2AJYUtPIqmg= X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HsZRD5YHdOl2; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 15:21:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 15:21:44 +0100 (CET) Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6CA266007ADD; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 09:21:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 688CE66AA8; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 09:21:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 09:21:43 -0500 (EST) From: Paul Wouters To: Eliot Lear cc: Ted Lemon , Vittorio Bertola , "hrpc@irtf.org" , architecture-discuss@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <31473650-0872-4EFE-A99C-E3DD4CDBC700@cisco.com> Message-ID: References: <157403781873.6404.6154827441040413193.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <01246A3C-31EC-4B7B-841D-F799EEFADCB8@mnot.net> <227662299.12784.1575991106819@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <429195684.13066.1575996064551@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <0C729385-1361-460C-9C16-E1BE1680A3E6@fugue.com> <1100636076.15285.1576072588087@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <4A034991-E5C8-4797-B6BF-9484BB2FA614@fugue.com> <31473650-0872-4EFE-A99C-E3DD4CDBC700@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] New Version Notification for draft-iab-for-the-users-01.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 14:21:50 -0000 On Fri, 13 Dec 2019, Eliot Lear wrote: > It concerns me that Paul Wouters can take from this document that somehow enterprises do not address end user interests. Your take on what I wrote seems misinterpreted. IETF protocols deliver protections within their protocols for end users (or: end to end communication). Whereas the enterprise tries to take some of that away to provide its own set of protections for their subset of users (called customers or employees). My point was that while both the end-to-end and customer/employees targets are valid, the latter should not come at the expense of the former. The latter (presumbly) voluntarilly opt-in for the replacement of protection mechanisms. Therefor, the end-to-end principle of all users should never be compromised for the betterment of a subset of users. > The example I always give is that of a business who has a regulatory requirement to > avoid leaking PII.  There are all sorts of toolsets that MITM communications in order to protect the privacy of account holders.  I think it would be useful for the draft to address this example as a bit of > a case study.  One can reasonably argue that an explicit proxy mechanism on at least one side of a communication provides for this, but it begins to encroach on the so-called “end-to-end” views (I put that > in quotes because the end-to-end model is often misused in these sorts of discussions). The problem I see here, is that this business has the tools to do what it wants to its subset of worldwilde users of a protocol to do what it deems is best. But it should still not be at the expense of global endusers as a group. Do not weaken the protocol for this use case. That is the core of the argument I see returning at IETF, from TLS 1.3 to DoH and in the past with weake or backdoored crypto desires. I think this document does a good job ob describing what I tried to summarize from my viewpoint above and in my previous email. Paul From nobody Fri Dec 13 07:51:21 2019 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 E9B8B120863 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 07:51:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com 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 djAd9I5cOKg1 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 07:51:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59E37120866 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 07:51:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=12083; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1576252261; x=1577461861; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=5cLGdSh1w7nNmjw+w0D4G52RZ8dzW9L5m5+cQqtPfFQ=; b=BjwNRjhl9WGk7D8YROB02GBwbILXISWob56gq8YRk1MTRRzNvsCtLhyl lOvJwNdBnmo+AzjbRbnIG3uRVMCpA7MBaijm7CGgaGC982Jvi4yejqcuD ZeRxN9RxigHeKzENblbrzRWn4Bfddw+zZm/T7u3ECBADGIbBHhmpgBQym E=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0D7AADgsvNd/xbLJq1lGwEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?FAQEBEQEBAwMBAQGBfoNhIBIqhAOJA4gxgQGSI4YkgWcCBwEBAQkDAQEvAQG?= =?us-ascii?q?EQAKCMzgTAgMNAQEEAQEBAgEFBG2FQ4VeAQEBAQIBI1QCBQsLGBUVAgJXBhM?= =?us-ascii?q?fgwMBglcgrDZ1gTKFT4RqEIE2gVOIcoFtggCBEScggU5JBTA+hAMBCXuCUTK?= =?us-ascii?q?CLASNFiGJTJdsgjqCPIEZiQKJIhuOUotvpWWDIwIEBgUCFYFpIj6BGjMaCBs?= =?us-ascii?q?VZQGBWWg+EhEUm1lAAzCNaYFSYAEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.69,309,1571702400"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="20317235" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 13 Dec 2019 15:50:59 +0000 Received: from [10.61.204.232] ([10.61.204.232]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id xBDFowEF015661 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 13 Dec 2019 15:50:58 GMT From: Eliot Lear Message-Id: <326C92A0-5F29-411D-99DE-7C785CF73EE7@cisco.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_06D0BF67-BA8F-4BA3-87C2-24D20F70A9FA"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.40.2.2.4\)) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 16:50:57 +0100 In-Reply-To: Cc: Ted Lemon , Vittorio Bertola , "hrpc@irtf.org" , architecture-discuss@ietf.org To: Paul Wouters References: <157403781873.6404.6154827441040413193.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <01246A3C-31EC-4B7B-841D-F799EEFADCB8@mnot.net> <227662299.12784.1575991106819@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <429195684.13066.1575996064551@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <0C729385-1361-460C-9C16-E1BE1680A3E6@fugue.com> <1100636076.15285.1576072588087@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <4A034991-E5C8-4797-B6BF-9484BB2FA614@fugue.com> <31473650-0872-4EFE-A99C-E3DD4CDBC700@cisco.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.40.2.2.4) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.204.232, [10.61.204.232] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-4.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] New Version Notification for draft-iab-for-the-users-01.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 15:51:14 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_06D0BF67-BA8F-4BA3-87C2-24D20F70A9FA Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C5009F92-BF5C-4F58-A25B-219C428F3B64" --Apple-Mail=_C5009F92-BF5C-4F58-A25B-219C428F3B64 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi Paul, > On 13 Dec 2019, at 15:21, Paul Wouters wrote: >=20 > On Fri, 13 Dec 2019, Eliot Lear wrote: >=20 >> It concerns me that Paul Wouters can take from this document that = somehow enterprises do not address end user interests. >=20 > Your take on what I wrote seems misinterpreted. >=20 > IETF protocols deliver protections within their protocols for end = users > (or: end to end communication). Whereas the enterprise tries to take > some of that away to provide its own set of protections for their > subset of users (called customers or employees). You can also call them citizens, patients, students, scientists, = soldiers, residents, motorists, passengers, first responders, etc. > My point was that > while both the end-to-end and customer/employees targets are valid, > the latter should not come at the expense of the former. The latter > (presumbly) voluntarilly opt-in for the replacement of protection > mechanisms. Therefor, the end-to-end principle of all users should > never be compromised for the betterment of a subset of users. You can say, =E2=80=9Clet=E2=80=99s target the individuals accessing the = web=E2=80=9D, but recognize that in itself is a subset of individuals. = Our works are used in ways we never considered by people we never heard = of for purposes we never imagined. I gave you but a small taste of = examples of how that is the case. To his credit, Mark has recognized = these uses when he writes toward the end of Section 2: a person entering a room with sensors that send data to the Internet has interests that may be involved in our deliberations about how those sensor readings are handled. While such less-direct interactions between people and the Internet may be harder to evaluate, this document's concept of end-user nonetheless includes such people. And here=E2=80=99s the kicker: we want those enterprises to use our = protocol suites. For one thing, they=E2=80=99re more likely to get it = wrong if they don=E2=80=99t. More code paths !=3D better code, and some = of that code sits in devices that can harm a great many individuals if = they malfunction. Conversely, a more shared understanding helps to = advance the state of the art. Much of what we do is highly esoteric. = How many people on this earth do you think fully understand CBOR or = ASN.1? >=20 >> The example I always give is that of a business who has a regulatory = requirement to >> avoid leaking PII. There are all sorts of toolsets that MITM = communications in order to protect the privacy of account holders. I = think it would be useful for the draft to address this example as a bit = of >> a case study. One can reasonably argue that an explicit proxy = mechanism on at least one side of a communication provides for this, but = it begins to encroach on the so-called =E2=80=9Cend-to-end=E2=80=9D = views (I put that >> in quotes because the end-to-end model is often misused in these = sorts of discussions). >=20 > The problem I see here, is that this business has the tools to do what > it wants to its subset of worldwilde users of a protocol to do what it > deems is best. But it should still not be at the expense of global > endusers as a group. Do not weaken the protocol for this use case. In the aggregate of all of these use cases are global. I am not = suggesting that any of this is easy. I don=E2=80=99t think the draft = suggests that either. But that=E2=80=99s why they pay the IAB the big = bucks :-). I do think it means that we have to have a broader = understanding of how all of this stuff fits together, and not just go on = the war path when someone says they have a use case that you don=E2=80=99t= have. But that also means some understanding on their part as well, = such that alternatives can be explored without a conflagration taking = place. I don=E2=80=99t know if Mark thought about it when he reprioritized = architectural purity, but that statement can be taken to mean, = =E2=80=9Cdon=E2=80=99t just stick to something for because it looks nice = that way=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Cjust because you didn=E2=80=99t arrange = the building blocks in some particular way doesn=E2=80=99t mean others = won=E2=80=99t.=E2=80=9D The web is one arrangement of those building = blocks; a field area network connecting traffic lights is another. If = it fails, we end up in a scene from The Italian Job, only it=E2=80=99s = ambulances and fire trucks not getting to move in that traffic jam. Eliot --Apple-Mail=_C5009F92-BF5C-4F58-A25B-219C428F3B64 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Hi = Paul,

On 13 Dec 2019, at 15:21, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> = wrote:

On Fri, 13 Dec 2019, Eliot Lear wrote:

It concerns me that Paul = Wouters can take from this document that somehow enterprises do not = address end user interests.

Your= take on what I wrote seems misinterpreted.

IETF protocols deliver protections within their protocols for = end users
(or: end to end communication). Whereas the = enterprise tries to take
some of that away to provide its = own set of protections for their
subset of users (called = customers or employees).

You can also call them citizens, patients, students, = scientists, soldiers, residents, motorists, passengers, first = responders, etc.

My point was that
while both the end-to-end and customer/employees targets are = valid,
the latter should not come at the expense of the = former. The latter
(presumbly) voluntarilly opt-in for the = replacement of protection
mechanisms. Therefor, the = end-to-end principle of all users should
never be = compromised for the betterment of a subset of users.


You can say, =E2=80=9Clet=E2=80=99s target the = individuals accessing the web=E2=80=9D, but recognize that in itself is = a subset of individuals.  Our works are used in ways we never = considered by people we never heard of for purposes we never imagined. =  I gave you but a small taste of examples of how that is the case. =  To his credit, Mark has recognized these uses when he writes = toward the end of Section 2:
   a person
   entering a room with sensors that send data to the Internet has
   interests that may be involved in our deliberations about how those
   sensor readings are handled.
   =
While such less-direct interactions between people and the Internet
   may be harder to evaluate, this document's concept of end-user
   nonetheless includes such people.
And here=E2=80=99= s the kicker: we want those enterprises to use = our protocol suites.  For one thing, they=E2=80=99re more likely to = get it wrong if they don=E2=80=99t.  More code paths !=3D better = code, and some of that code sits in devices that can harm a great many = individuals if they malfunction.  Conversely, a more shared = understanding helps to advance the state of the art.  Much of what = we do is highly esoteric.  How many people on this earth do you = think fully understand CBOR or ASN.1?


 The example I = always give is that of a business who has a regulatory requirement to
avoid leaking PII.  There are all sorts of toolsets that = MITM communications in order to protect the privacy of account = holders.  I think it would be useful for the draft to address this = example as a bit of
a case study.  One can reasonably = argue that an explicit proxy mechanism on at least one side of a = communication provides for this, but it begins to encroach on the = so-called =E2=80=9Cend-to-end=E2=80=9D views (I put that
in = quotes because the end-to-end model is often misused in these sorts of = discussions).

The problem I = see here, is that this business has the tools to do what
it = wants to its subset of worldwilde users of a protocol to do what it
deems is best. But it should still not be at the expense of = global
endusers as a group. Do not weaken the protocol for = this use case.

In the aggregate of all of these use cases are global. =  I am not suggesting that any of this is easy.  I don=E2=80=99t = think the draft suggests that either.  But that=E2=80=99s why they = pay the IAB the big bucks :-). I do think it means that we have to have = a broader understanding of how all of this stuff fits together, and not = just go on the war path when someone says they have a use case that you = don=E2=80=99t have.  But that also means some understanding on = their part as well, such that alternatives can be explored without a = conflagration taking place.

I = don=E2=80=99t know if Mark thought about it when he reprioritized = architectural purity, but that statement can be taken to mean, = =E2=80=9Cdon=E2=80=99t just stick to something for because it looks nice = that way=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Cjust because you didn=E2=80=99t arrange = the building blocks in some particular way doesn=E2=80=99t mean others = won=E2=80=99t.=E2=80=9D  The web is one arrangement of those = building blocks; a field area network connecting traffic lights is = another.  If it fails, we end up in a scene from The Italian Job, = only it=E2=80=99s ambulances and fire trucks not getting to move in that = traffic jam.

Eliot

= --Apple-Mail=_C5009F92-BF5C-4F58-A25B-219C428F3B64-- --Apple-Mail=_06D0BF67-BA8F-4BA3-87C2-24D20F70A9FA Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAl3zs2EACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejOeUgf/cIQ+3cGvnOBejjHtNm8E0F3J0NVLEm0BX90Er2DGJrRyhJUzPKuG92UU KdVrW1M93j+gQgaIqz4+CmOGCjwk+rWokZk8oMtqXJYHc0s/3LblTcgV2pHo6TMK Mc1CmCCroRWD+wQQBrmfNT628m/dCP6gJAZv5INgBQ/tXptMG7Lg1fjkNv9vHKKy twtAwk+HhWWXZrN9o1lQYKPUOf5yegQE6c4BPeJY9AMMB5PV/TxwMwa7t68W7NdK Yb8os5C99jWOz7l+cSx3BLeBoxiZUl4FkC8VDvMsvH8XO9ATn+J43orWHlAHFvky Cb+0zEY3vZvdn9a8q6jxakshwZfjcg== =Mx9D -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_06D0BF67-BA8F-4BA3-87C2-24D20F70A9FA-- From nobody Fri Dec 13 08:11:47 2019 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 463D4120041 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 08:11:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.997 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 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_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 urqR-TsJ4QeO for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 08:11:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qv1-xf32.google.com (mail-qv1-xf32.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f32]) (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 1703A120013 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 08:11:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qv1-xf32.google.com with SMTP id o18so1038211qvf.1 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 08:11:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=omUuKcydXpQfvvJlvXT6Z8s2NLrcpmXWBRgmuTq2NzA=; b=oYkwlUkzIBMkwu176h40QQ2QxV6nk+G5bS2ow+shC7Jq5aVuq9BJ6Iqf8AG2EUWg9i 182Aj1XwXcUqVwsq4e9zKf+cjwBYSRO4uY+oCR6Z1zW6QiqZQ/YhdsRgug1XzzoqJu8f i96bKi7HHmrLLz2j2RcRYdPt62lejIscOGQhG1ZTOBoPBYnRUnj5dOYqWpBXBE7zNx0w VqlF2mTD+K5Iln7KJJUZ7mi5YNi/E3B7cDQ3V2dBShVc9LowclQxoZEP92/Ho9417pRw cf9kL4h/5P3loxa2eX7Cp/rykqBEt95dngA1UKIyetYasEeHRMg301uE8oF12Wj1EF83 10Aw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=omUuKcydXpQfvvJlvXT6Z8s2NLrcpmXWBRgmuTq2NzA=; b=ocjtWWuox3yCqbxwYwPgmB9nkV8kLEEUUcvJU4Kx19boDuJWLlSBeqMx3JRE2p3gxg s3O8O4MtwcLP9IN3mhoHuebLy4iVzQIAEjoks5sJ9oGjGkx1+CmELWCu40ulMOxEV1go Sg+e2rWgyBbsfuR8Y38DDEXeGtOOT8Mw42kZJT1DpODtCGE5Bm7IzUXzV/uiyaQYsOVf EfJEoayFG+9pm+Vpv5HoVL2CW0Pm2FWHQInwM59/gYdezHVtJn/crBK6BEbFgXJxD+qR VFMwrGF6sOTqHVAwwvQmaJUtTQyO4TuU26YADOoqGF3r6WPw0hz/S9BWm9yA+BDJyJPH jBrw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWos3t5fBrKFxYghn2xzqyYXcNlNVTWnm7inG1HG0fLieifzSU5 h0Un+VqS638tVEErnyTXbsK370RoSkUcirfhkgs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzcdiOXiMG+3+i4Lzm+IGJGhkgBFDyu4TFGpmlm5CIcJ/bheemwgZbjLEbZTLddaXhwcCu3IHnB3rx+ekdNG7E= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:146e:: with SMTP id c14mr14411876qvy.82.1576253502757; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 08:11:42 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20191211165435.GA22498@nic.fr> In-Reply-To: <20191211165435.GA22498@nic.fr> From: farzaneh badii Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 11:11:16 -0500 Message-ID: To: Stephane Bortzmeyer Cc: hrpc@irtf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001b9f330599981e0a" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 16:11:46 -0000 --0000000000001b9f330599981e0a Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" I think this is very important Stephane especially because Twitter is putting a team together to come up with a brand new standard! It's a good initiative, but I wish they could discuss this more collaboratively at standard-setting orgs instead of just putting a closed team together. That way they might not have ignored all the work that has already been done on this. Farzaneh On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 11:54 AM Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > A very interesting paper about the importance of protocols, and why to > build services over open protocols, not proprietary platforms. It > talks about censorship, privacy, etc. Very relevant for the IETF. > > > https://knightcolumbia.org/content/protocols-not-platforms-a-technological-approach-to-free-speech > > I regret that there is no examination of the *existing* protocols (not > Usenet!) that are in use today to build social networks. ActivityPub > and friends is actively used, so the author could have tested in the > real world if his ideas work or not. > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > --0000000000001b9f330599981e0a Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I think this is very important Stephane especially because Twit= ter is putting a team together to come up with a brand new standard! It'= ;s a good initiative, but I wish they could discuss this more collaborative= ly at standard-setting orgs instead of just putting a closed team together.= That way they might not have ignored all the work that has already been do= ne on this.=C2=A0


Farzaneh

=
On Wed= , Dec 11, 2019 at 11:54 AM Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> wrote:
A very interesting paper about the importance= of protocols, and why to
build services over open protocols, not proprietary platforms. It
talks about censorship, privacy, etc. Very relevant for the IETF.

ht= tps://knightcolumbia.org/content/protocols-not-platforms-a-technological-ap= proach-to-free-speech

I regret that there is no examination of the *existing* protocols (not
Usenet!) that are in use today to build social networks. ActivityPub
and friends is actively used, so the author could have tested in the
real world if his ideas work or not.

_______________________________________________
hrpc mailing list
hrpc@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
--0000000000001b9f330599981e0a-- From nobody Fri Dec 13 09:08:03 2019 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 455BE120112 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 09:08:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.233 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.233 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=outbound.mailhop.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 PxrTWGyY5I8k for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 09:08:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from outbound1b.ore.mailhop.org (outbound1b.ore.mailhop.org [54.200.247.200]) (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 57FFD12010C for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 09:08:01 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1576256880; cv=none; d=outbound.mailhop.org; s=arc-outbound20181012; b=CIkcM6Acln3Y1q9Omi/krcGScroxKkYL5rOTaLbdepyj9TSO/mY8Y+Cx5eT57VvY76h5O6xdNUWEj qrA0ZkqFnVFc79cTBHqgMF8MXKMj6TkKnUNgZBDfC2PZhwVLBnHVMhjGMBD8EBdfAcizDja4DTcM3d 2vmiK/VgO4uuJ0Q0OfkEz/GttM9ZKJj8au1mPyk4q58osdu9Fo9Ox8mahflHGOIcySaic+LcTkrCjQ 6OBwKFbYA78J8GIWw9HsUVfysuUOnWv+Ba55RmSBU5xAs7yZ6FpDpxuZOC6AcMKvpg24QPUTVQhJh1 svcIXn98KcNM/JAWgx5yYYUX3rfP3HQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=outbound.mailhop.org; s=arc-outbound20181012; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date:in-reply-to:from: subject:mime-version:content-type:dkim-signature:from; bh=rW190vGT1HLujzko9qeAsAfq88q8IF6k9Ym70lQbvas=; b=fVas7/nmuI6gLYTR36cNWFeQLALyU1r3gfqT+gpvKNAZ6x0ikmuAaVHCu4p/r2bQaNkT5pDIr/+vb asm3UIzEUKZn6OUnRmNSQvBIG/iNhGVZYQvYltD3MsPtnCMUajvJEeLrfHzLhcFHVzrQH/xlBC/6H/ 3sXF6GDk7FL9n2nZVsCO8xYHNe38NS8PcDSNiMC5fDjWgU2r5F4mMUHu/EPdUkDM9g8mk6Vb3PfzFh UFLR3hUEbhv0dZsK07LF0Ggm4lcSd3r4I3QTgtUVE0yGkI9x8+57vRUwUIU8hXx5HZxKu7oaejMp9T hBXZxqUTunPF3nB+oL1snl31ESkBIBg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; outbound3.ore.mailhop.org; spf=softfail smtp.mailfrom=istaff.org smtp.remote-ip=216.176.236.236; dmarc=none header.from=istaff.org; arc=none header.oldest-pass=0; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=outbound.mailhop.org; s=dkim-high; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date:in-reply-to:from: subject:mime-version:content-type:from; bh=rW190vGT1HLujzko9qeAsAfq88q8IF6k9Ym70lQbvas=; b=UEM5mhm5eoRS6WlmvEWleVyBb+BWeWyc+wJMZBNexOJe0fqKnjpyCQE9spjTu2a07VPa8sAA5fGtS pB4BKkM4LjsBwnzgs/eGT1Le4RnvpqW0IhfBfzY61hPfYsVuOK9VM4s6ClqnnAK1z5/9PhCAdBTVo0 JB20n3J0eoZoveJr6v762JuDsXr4wC4gppGNI3FjZsvfP9kwMd/CdaPtJFtmLW+NZWgM0BuEGNfHBb 8BC1cp3xXMb0TEv3c1fFBnBOOtc2LTAqKipVJk14bGzCfcVOre3U+hR8XB62zzji1Hw/snXpAgR4v8 Bd/GJ6MAggK6cQT8ZqALXPNB0G79sEw== X-MHO-RoutePath: amN1cnJhbg== X-MHO-User: 1b8d389f-1dcb-11ea-b80c-052b4a66b6b2 X-Report-Abuse-To: https://support.duocircle.com/support/solutions/articles/5000540958-duocircle-standard-smtp-abuse-information X-Originating-IP: 216.176.236.236 X-Mail-Handler: DuoCircle Outbound SMTP Received: from [172.20.100.148] (unknown [216.176.236.236]) by outbound3.ore.mailhop.org (Halon) with ESMTPSA id 1b8d389f-1dcb-11ea-b80c-052b4a66b6b2; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 17:07:58 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.40.2.2.4\)) From: John Curran In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 11:07:56 -0600 Cc: "hrpc@irtf.org" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <56066990-B445-4068-BBCD-084B5D5E00E0@istaff.org> References: <1442150846.20149.1576153630433@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> To: Ted Lemon X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.40.2.2.4) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] New Version Notification for draft-iab-for-the-users-01.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 17:08:02 -0000 On 12 Dec 2019, at 10:23 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > ... > If one of our guiding principles were =E2=80=9Cmake it easy to censor = the Internet,=E2=80=9D then that would be easy to articulate, and it = would be clear who would benefit from this: organized crime, repressive = governments, and so on. >=20 > Similarly, if one of our guiding principles is =E2=80=9Cmake it hard = to censor the Internet,=E2=80=9D then again it=E2=80=99s clear who this = benefits. If one of our principles is =E2=80=9Cmake it hard to monitor = end-users,=E2=80=9D again it=E2=80=99s clear who that benefits. If one = of our principles is =E2=80=9Cuse protocols that are secure and do not = have known vulnerabilities, and fix vulnerabilities when they are = discovered,=E2=80=9D again it=E2=80=99s pretty clear who this benefits. Ted -=20 I agree with your proposition above (that it is often relatively = easy to see who benefits from a particular guiding principal), but would = simply point out that it is only true in aggregate, i.e. the impacts of = a given guiding principle are unique to each network participant, and = while the vast majority of end-users may benefit from "making it hard to = monitor end-users=E2=80=9D or "=E2=80=9Cmaking it hard to censor the = Internet=E2=80=9D, there will be some end-users (relatively small in = number to the overall population) who due to their circumstances = adversely impact by such an assumption. (By way of example, the school = that wishes to monitor student Internet use and prevent certain access = can be impacted detrimentally by guiding principles of "making it hard = to monitor end-users=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cmake it hard to censor the = Internet.=E2=80=9D One may not agree with their goal or approach, but = that doesn=E2=80=99t make the impact any less real to them.)=20 > The reason this is complicated is that it=E2=80=99s actually quite = difficult to articulate a case for censorship such that can be shown to = benefit end-users. Similarly for a panopticon Internet, or an Internet = without secure protocols. In order to construct such a case, you need = to create a great deal of complexity. This is an indication that you = are mistaken, not an indication that it=E2=80=99s difficult to = articulate what =E2=80=9Cbenefits the end user=E2=80=9D means. Actually, I believe it to be fairly easy to demonstrate cases = where specific guiding principles have adverse impact to a segment of = network participants, but if our guiding principles are well-formed then = those cases should be in the overall minority in both number of = end-users effected and magnitude of the impact: i.e. I believe the IETF = should consciously document such conflicts when setting its guidelines, = including its consideration of tradeoffs involved, and its determination = of the appropriate principles to use going forward. In effect, this is = what is already being done with much of the guidance - e.g. RFC6973, = RFC7754, etc. =20 In reading through the draft, its main theme seems to be that = IETF=E2=80=99s priority should be on meeting the inherently heterogenous = needs of end-users while avoiding or mitigating adverse impacts when = there is conflicts between their diverse requirements. It suggests = outreach to make sure end-user requirements are understood, and that in = cases of conflict between the interests of end users and other = stakeholders, we should err on the side of protecting end users and = should not ignore potential user impacts when brought to our attention. = It ends noting that there likely will be situations which require = compromise, and when that=E2=80=99s the case, the choices and reasoning = should be thoroughly documented. =20 As a result, I don=E2=80=99t see a lot to object in this draft, = but would agree that there=E2=80=99s a real risk that the draft may be = read as a call to enumerate =E2=80=9Cend-user interests=E2=80=9D in = every protocol, wherein a more realistic goal would be make sure that = end-user interests are recognized and given priority in the various = guiding principles & guidelines that the IETF publishes, and to conduct = appropriate outreach/engagement to make sure those principles are = well-anchored beyond the technical community. If the document is = heading that direction (i.e. end-user interests should be recognized and = given priority in IETF guiding principles & guidelines documents), then = it=E2=80=99s probably a useful exercise. If draft is intended to be a = call for enumeration of end-user requirements in each protocol = specification, then its merit is more questionable, as the exercise is = unlikely to be carried out with necessary rigor and I concur with you = that the act of specific enumeration will make it less likely that = users=E2=80=99 diverse interests will be able to be realized. Thanks! /John p.s. Disclaimers: My views alone. Message is composed of 100% recycled = electrons.=20 From nobody Sun Dec 15 17:06:55 2019 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 7F6551200A1 for ; Sun, 15 Dec 2019 17:06:54 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 q4_I4uO7XdTO for ; Sun, 15 Dec 2019 17:06:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lj1-x234.google.com (mail-lj1-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCE1C12004A for ; Sun, 15 Dec 2019 17:06:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lj1-x234.google.com with SMTP id d20so4845417ljc.12 for ; Sun, 15 Dec 2019 17:06:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=4ocncIQw5p18hnE/XaCDi/gMO4ksGUFCh5zu+WoytJo=; b=MkE+oJKCg4rBImAe/FMQwTCrd8oBtNQ7TzbB817nZgvGdHddMRyWrV2jDBm/jq8RJL nR83tLTMt94toSdlhsLQRTCf6M6Viay8hL2UZQopcgpfLJIblIvuzdNYjReJiV60xbLD 4cuMafSYQHCL6/OqkKaqiqK7iNNrtnO4kolMW9yLZdmcssBHw0N9va3htgd3Zoz14+VY dFiGlOTX9JcZQce4cfjhOURgpOw4NulWdzwrKLYqofuZgVLr4TSrGoGgrfHabPbiU1yU bV/hxTw8elp2iy9O4F1fFqM5Q4GmUNgZnM/TEwZHpVQyZAMX4pmphp9Sts1pcENnWuXz P/vQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=4ocncIQw5p18hnE/XaCDi/gMO4ksGUFCh5zu+WoytJo=; b=ZjJGvMGIFkldf9VHOMoFn6Be3WbHjPOUGTzzWnsR//Be0aLrKlIKEXSdRaKC5JvKyp REX/DC/cLymUn4FopWhpcQyUQQyNUiXIjOu/lNqHEKUvMky9ZZCUk/rWj0kXZvT5knPQ UuNLFDK091jmZi2Bl+3yGkUe5GqCYdEflY1Em6xXkK8jnpn2xdGO7G5E8QDiwM81tEog NRppuhG7SSkot7SmwqHppl/ObgA9cG15naID5pqclE7m/pxjsFAspKyZ5lpYOSZiUuhV Rf1KZVY8ZhQcyDni3ThSMEh9ltumzNEVu9EnU77Lgntc8mXci3z3baB6o7wafcr+C+3q YYjQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUCZ5RoasHL6uWKEzKEXhacsO81qp6hebaN6OsNDnBb21ywDnXI WybVr+FojfkPZmCWXhfS+ntj943Ws2pOk/68zPptkw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyeGEgrseG83CJQf3hRo6/JutQ/xyaV34/LMA8MexmQmgo6DOl7CSXe029d9iWqKjwmBvuvdZ7yceVgfHDX7FY= X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:38f:: with SMTP id e15mr17591610ljp.60.1576458409873; Sun, 15 Dec 2019 17:06:49 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:ac2:5f09:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Sun, 15 Dec 2019 17:06:49 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Seth Johnson Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2019 20:06:49 -0500 Message-ID: To: Hrpc Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] World Telecom Policy Forum in Preparation -- Fwd: Comments on Sec Gen WTPF Draft Report X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 01:06:54 -0000 Hi all -- the Secretary General has a second draft of the framing document for the next World Telecom Policy Forum posted here: https://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-21/Pages/sg-report.aspx I've pasted comments I put together on the first draft below. They have an online consultation receiving comments til December 23: https://www.itu.int/en/consultations/Pages/wtpf-21/consultation-WTPF-21.aspx It might also be good if some good folks with some kind of specialization in sustainability could be found to see about joining the Informal Experts Group for its next meeting in February. Seth ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Seth Johnson Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 17:07:49 -0500 Subject: Comments on Sec Gen WTPF Draft Report To: "Oates, Daniel M" Cc: "Gordon, Marian R" Hi Dan and Marian: See below my quick comments on the Secretary General's draft: The Secretary-General's draft report/outline doesn't reference the Internet as such except in the term Internet of Things and by reference, as in as contained in the Strategic Plan and various surrounding documents. However, the policy discourse in the US is about to embark on a fargoing examination of issues that will end up talking about how the Internet supports fundamental rights as opposed to higher layer online platform environments that are receiving the brunt of policy debate. This will include the role of the physical layer. Addressing sustainability and new and emerging technologies should incorporate reference to these issues rather than technologies like 5G, IoT, OTT. Maybe big data is more of an issues category. AI is more about security and accountability and recourse in many areas than strictly about what can be automated with greater speed and precision. Also about accountability and recourse with respect to accuracy and truth and science. As a contributor to sustainability, we should consider AI under the topic of the WTPF, including AI's sustainability in itself as such, in terms of articulating how to understand the challenges and opportunities associated with it. The report should focus more on how to address opportunities, challenges and policies for sustainable development in relation to emerging technologies that support sustainability and enable the transition to the digital economy. That includes how open Internet architecture addresses these opportunities and challenges. How can the benefits of new and emerging digital technologies be made more accessible to all? ensuring interoperability of technological solutions based on these emerging technologies to facilitate, among other things, greater access for all? Given the inter-connections or -dependencies in the use and deployment of such technologies, what is the role that policymakers can play to foster an enabling environment that creates a holistic and agile ecosystem to enable sustainable use of new and emerging digital technologies? how does ITU membership envision the role of new and emerging digital technologies in accelerating sustainable development, keeping in mind the current and future needs of both developing and developed countries as well as all segments of the population? The report should reflect a framework that better admits contributions that stress these opportunities and challenges in relation to these and other emerging technology headings rather than suggest an emphasis on particular technologies given their putative support for sustainability. The emphasis should be more on the implications for "infrastructure needs, investment, regulatory environment, training and skills development, market environment, institutional cooperation, the role of development aid, etc." and how the Action Lines and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals are served in light of the enabling environment's effects on those goals. The report should reference freedoms of speech, press and association, privacy, data and consumer protection as challenges and opportunities that connect to mobilizing technologies for sustainable development. Other relevant concerns here include: sustainability of open infrastructure confidence and security both in terms of prevention of harm and in terms of fundamental liberties as limits on government action in the name of cybersecurity centralized or decentralized approaches to cybersecurity sustainability of specialized services and open Internet, including interoperability confidence and security in a platform that supports innovation and development empowerment of end users, digital inclusion, self-determination, autonomy, independence of communities There should also be a contributed opinion on how we measure sustainability, both its development and what's included in those measures. Thanks, hope this helps Seth On 8/1/19, Oates, Daniel M wrote: > Good evening colleagues: > > I will be coordinating on behalf of USG on preparations for the Sixth World > Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum 2021 (WTPF-21). From nobody Tue Dec 17 02:45:27 2019 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 3307A12012C for ; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 02:45:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 DhmSrGAe3J8q for ; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 02:45:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.88]) (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 5EAED120121 for ; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 02:45:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.110.112]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ihALr-00074w-A5 for hrpc@irtf.org; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 11:45:15 +0100 User-Agent: Android X-Is-Generated-Message-Id: true MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 From: Niels ten Oever Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 11:45:12 +0100 To: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: X-Authenticated-As-Hash: f1842a279235a42f6aa2a2a81130733515c5a4ec X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Scan-Signature: 523f42b60907f92a5b98f162865e3e4b Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] Human Rights and Tech Report X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 10:45:25 -0000 Even though the emphasis of this document, by the Australian Human Rights C= ommission, is on AI, I do think this document is very relevant for this gro= up=2E https://tech=2Ehumanrights=2Egov=2Eau/sites/default/files/2019-12/T= echRights2019_DiscussionPaper=2Epdf The document establishes relationships= between tech and specific human rights, something we have debated extensiv= ely here=2E And it also demonstrates the usefulness of the UN Guiding Prin= ciples and human rights impact assessments=2E It also goes to show that i= f stakeholders don't do this themselves, governments might do it for us=2E = Best, Niels From nobody Tue Dec 17 05:00:03 2019 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 92E7E12081E for ; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 04:59:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.997 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 wod5bmgefKyj for ; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 04:59:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qt1-x833.google.com (mail-qt1-x833.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::833]) (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 64212120822 for ; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 04:59:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qt1-x833.google.com with SMTP id q20so3954244qtp.3 for ; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 04:59:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=/gRdTJczINTuYimB279hrhijWUINKlw0L/jriCiHsVY=; b=Mk+EkThrFXNJQwEk3yfuG4tlwmH6shK9dYJUru+HMW2K93fizaHzoa2ztJKhOnwPfc C3wE6QBWKGTRKYgkCrLleic5V/g+aShje9rbM4orNmS8x+Iym7sMU2R3lLu7M11UAxXW EB6K4MzGcR3HoNik+07s7xUK6SndDhDNR/G5TbbIsAyh8LVllZcXAQq9XYi0GauajZR4 COejp0afr0fRA8vDz7WRjsqbB2fa6jAAr/LE+QpqKnxJUKLp7LL7poAVcDDx3Pz75lxC QxoMznZx74DONm3tZJBd4Ee3a1/zaEwJ1XhBypQIm0DRX+/ZdJ/G5wy51qba0tVEX9Mg w8Gg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/gRdTJczINTuYimB279hrhijWUINKlw0L/jriCiHsVY=; b=Cc/ZEap1VkxdyBTTNCuOTPLk61kJHpnOomdOq/z7CXlswEZaKCnMxNmurud3yr/jfv oABjmKqPip7bdAEKGl2AWvf6P75VWvSO+PE/GevueHqajE+Hf35OrgNbb6/CvacEfPtS HpgirWI3DqHWqWH82S/SKlBhkWMGrFiRV2QpIDRkFcoofeGAoNZvI3DAMW7gtc2Zx/4A NsR0zyPQSvrY/Ry8yS1tmR/ywY5TguVgEV3VtQlHKhTgNKvNLrUgwDqFrBlbtWVJsble XEH/A8hXoOqKHJw1AyjJ24CZgpSOG1qbRsyxR4HJSE3TmuVruorba+Tq/rVMaBPqNKEw dxqw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXIh2L4JpnY3NDijbnU8Z/oskQu567ElcFj9rmpKR2mwVIzZEzl 44C50ZuPKtFHG5SiLOkzlBur4EA3bJdLaDSFzLVdP8s3naI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzOiIcFNJZT8JQgC1xPJ9NwmiujbXkYuxwtFr6L71joF37xwPTjQy70NqjAQgXJnXqhuCqkagfEKHyA09QVHXk= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:3364:: with SMTP id u33mr4379552qta.267.1576587591454; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 04:59:51 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Corinne Cath Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 13:59:14 +0100 Message-ID: To: Niels ten Oever Cc: Hrpc Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005894270599e5e764" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Human Rights and Tech Report X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 12:59:58 -0000 --0000000000005894270599e5e764 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi Niels, Given the report is 232 pages long, would love to hear your thoughts on what insights stood out for you! kind regards, Corinne On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 11:45 AM Niels ten Oever wrote: > Even though the emphasis of this document, by the Australian Human Rights > Commission, is on AI, I do think this document is very relevant for this > group. > > > > https://tech.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-12/TechRights2019_DiscussionPaper.pdf > > The document establishes relationships between tech and specific human > rights, something we have debated extensively here. > > And it also demonstrates the usefulness of the UN Guiding Principles and > human rights impact assessments. > > It also goes to show that if stakeholders don't do this themselves, > governments might do it for us. > > Best, > > Niels > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > -- Corinne Cath - Speth Ph.D. Candidate, Oxford Internet Institute & Alan Turing Institute Web: www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath Email: ccath@turing.ac.uk & corinnecath@gmail.com Twitter: @C_CS --0000000000005894270599e5e764 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Niels,=C2=A0

Given the report is 232 pages long, wo= uld love to hear your=C2=A0thoughts on what insights stood out for you!
kind regards,

Corinne=C2=A0

On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 11:45 AM Ni= els ten Oever <mail@nielstenoe= ver.net> wrote:
Even though the emphasis of this document, by the Australian Human R= ights Commission, is on AI, I do think this document is very relevant for t= his group.


https:= //tech.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-12/TechRights2019_Discus= sionPaper.pdf

The document establishes relationships between tech and specific human righ= ts, something we have debated extensively here.

And it also demonstrates the usefulness of the UN Guiding Principles and hu= man rights impact assessments.

It also goes to show that if stakeholders don't do this themselves, gov= ernments might do it for us.

Best,

Niels

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


--
Corinne Cath - Speth
Ph.D. Candidate, Oxford Interne= t Institute & Alan Turing Institute

Web: www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath
Email: ccath@turing.ac.uk & = corinnecath@gmai= l.com
Twitter: @C_CS
=
--0000000000005894270599e5e764--