From nobody Sun Apr 4 05:22:18 2021 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 93B523A105C for ; Sun, 4 Apr 2021 05:22:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.096 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=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 Uc4-Hasqvki0 for ; Sun, 4 Apr 2021 05:22:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qt1-x835.google.com (mail-qt1-x835.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::835]) (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 95B023A1058 for ; Sun, 4 Apr 2021 05:22:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qt1-x835.google.com with SMTP id j7so6728691qtx.5 for ; Sun, 04 Apr 2021 05:22:09 -0700 (PDT) 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=5JG1wDjR0N65rZpTp/qi7Dg9clCg7avTUmY3W+/WC5g=; b=gWwTP67Livd6zp0udRcb94nmgKy2O92oZhi/ipTrqTM9wKEx96Vrh9NdPZUcIncIfp D2cRNda9zwAfWpf8HR2hVI/7z9uxIxUZcInNq5lFSaKhT5EQytIDXcPnqImSXJsW23JZ OmZMUV/GadFAfrVtgnipkHePV2wRpGIgxC2/ySBb3QRGR+INq+4xGn3oQMtHDp5AUEqN 1EABlRrTEBxRj6/v7kOr3J36Zsurbvy0FHOXWnA+CpntV8L62dlotygmYfq2TLPxaG4i DyheXCV1NzSu602iveXY6Paty+2teak8ujwO5jlDNU/jcEWzLxWL6/hdSY3/SGoa3yHA AF8g== 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=5JG1wDjR0N65rZpTp/qi7Dg9clCg7avTUmY3W+/WC5g=; b=CX/6hsAsVfovPWxCS6sNZCfXbW8Hr9dDQcM3FOx47mUGoW/QVj/ONmu5lPqzbOo/Nc edQ/A+40U+eJlkCWPo+eBKP+SJUfqOzhL9oOjFYyHUYG3u3R8nT8I9d8KcVBgCRrUxhT 4K9zC0TKf6IZ9uNSMYg0mqXV7q2mKVK4BXCDaRT/UKlqOtpHUEEmS/+jCEPlK1uRfN1k UNbRHZ1IfZIIK9xABNbNQDf01Ia+IKwloI74NP3SDDfnUhJnkXEYijNXV19uu5UY1TSX 0MO80T1iqxxSN283A9zFyL0Z8YbHdhnXVOomASwThJEnSLgR7MYYpoj374eIGcntJUeF 1P8w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531YDes4Jcdmx5By5oiAivg2xg8PQz4x9S218qBM7QVGot2N++Lo 4yIsUC032fea1IgrJQebHQ3eHE3mrdHWQZR0VNBRwePSNGiDmfGT X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwNibraBBM5InrCOT/7I3hx46VMtmgsNkm41IIru9bHAomyMmMApBNZJbC2sFgUBH0l0Cy+3Wydin6n8Jr2q1s= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:1246:: with SMTP id g6mr18135118qtj.183.1617538927085; Sun, 04 Apr 2021 05:22:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210220070343.GA23902@nic.fr> In-Reply-To: <20210220070343.GA23902@nic.fr> From: Corinne Cath Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2021 15:21:30 +0300 Message-ID: To: Stephane Bortzmeyer Cc: Hrpc Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000028cae305bf24a1f4" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] [rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org: RFC 8980 on Report from the IAB Workshop on Design Expectations vs. Deployment Reality in Protocol Development] X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: hrpc discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2021 12:22:16 -0000 --00000000000028cae305bf24a1f4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi all, Finally had some time to sit down and read this RFC that summarizes the outcomes of the 2019 IAB workshop on "RFC 8980: Report from the IAB Workshop on Design Expectations vs. Deployment Reality in Protocol Development". In addition to Stephane's comment that it is hard to predict RFC outcome, I read the report as clearly identifying a number of causes for the difference between expectation and deployment reality, namely: "economies of scale, Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attack resilience, market consolidation". The report indicated both that "the protocol designers cannot affect market forces but must work within them" and that the IETF should "Pick pieces that it is responsible for". This struck me as confusing, perhaps Stephane or someone else present could clarify what the IETF considers to be the pieces it is responsible for (and how those can as some people at the workshop suggested be used to counter consolidation forces?). Kind regards, Corinne On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 10:04 AM Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > This RFC talks about how actual deployments can be surprising, making > difficult to assess if a new protocol is good or bad. > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org > To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org > Cc: drafts-update-ref@iana.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org > Bcc: > Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 17:28:17 -0800 (PST) > Subject: RFC 8980 on Report from the IAB Workshop on Design Expectations > vs. Deployment Reality in Protocol Development > A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. > > > RFC 8980 > > Title: Report from the IAB Workshop on > Design Expectations vs. Deployment Reality > in Protocol Development > Authors: J. Arkko, > T. Hardie > Status: Informational > Stream: IAB > Date: February 2021 > Mailbox: jari.arkko@piuha.net, > ted.ietf@gmail.com > Pages: 16 > Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None > > I-D Tag: draft-iab-dedr-report-01.txt > > URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8980 > > DOI: 10.17487/RFC8980 > > The Design Expectations vs. Deployment Reality in Protocol > Development Workshop was convened by the Internet Architecture Board > (IAB) in June 2019. This report summarizes the workshop's significant > points of discussion and identifies topics that may warrant further > consideration. > > Note that this document is a report on the proceedings of the > workshop. The views and positions documented in this report are > those of the workshop participants and do not necessarily reflect IAB > views and positions. > > This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board. > > > INFORMATIONAL: This memo provides information for the Internet community. > It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of > this memo is unlimited. > > This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. > To subscribe or unsubscribe, see > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce > https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist > > For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search > For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk > > Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the > author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless > specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for > unlimited distribution. > > > The RFC Editor Team > Association Management Solutions, LLC > > _______________________________________________ > IETF-Announce mailing list > IETF-Announce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce > _______________________________________________ > 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 --00000000000028cae305bf24a1f4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<= font face=3D"tahoma, sans-serif">Hi all,=C2=A0

=
F= inally had some time to sit down and read this RFC that summarizes the outc= omes of the 2019 IAB workshop on "RFC 8980: Report from the IAB Worksh= op on Design Expectations vs. Deployment Reality in Protocol Development&qu= ot;.=C2=A0

In addition to Stephane's comme= nt that it is hard to predict RFC outcome, I read the report as clearly ide= ntifying a number of causes for the difference between expectation and depl= oyment reality, namely: "economies of scale, Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attack resilience, market conso= lidation".=C2=A0
<= font face=3D"tahoma, sans-serif">
The report indicated both = that "the protocol designers cannot affect market forces but must work within them" and that the IETF should= "Pick pieces that it is respons= ible for".=C2=A0

=
This struck me as confusi= ng, perhaps Stephane or someone else present could clarify what the IETF co= nsiders to be the pieces it is responsible for (and how those can as some p= eople at the workshop suggested be used to counter consolidation forces?).= =C2=A0

<= /div>
Kind regards,

Corinne=C2=A0
=

=C2=A0



On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 10:04 AM Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> wrote:
This RFC talks about how actual deployments can be surprising, ma= king
difficult to assess if a new protocol is good or bad.




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:=C2=A0rfc-editor@rfc-edit= or.org
To:=C2=A0ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org
Cc:=C2=A0drafts-update-ref@iana.o= rg, rfc-= editor@rfc-editor.org
Bcc:=C2=A0
Date:=C2=A0Fri, 19 Feb 2021 17:2= 8:17 -0800 (PST)
Subject:=C2=A0RFC 8980 on Report from the IAB Workshop = on Design Expectations vs. Deployment Reality in Protocol Development
A = new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.


=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 RFC 8980

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Title:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Report from the IAB = Workshop on
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Desig= n Expectations vs. Deployment Reality
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 in Pr= otocol Development
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Authors:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 J. Arkko,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 T. Ha= rdie
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Status:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Informational
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Stream:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0IAB
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Date:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0February 2021 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Mailbox:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 jari.arkko@piuha.net,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ted.ietf@gmail.com =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Pages:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 16
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso:=C2=A0 =C2=A0None

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 I-D Tag:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 draft-iab-dedr-report-01.= txt

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 URL:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 h= ttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8980

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 DOI:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 10.17487/RFC898= 0

The Design Expectations vs. Deployment Reality in Protocol
Development Workshop was convened by the Internet Architecture Board
(IAB) in June 2019. This report summarizes the workshop's significant points of discussion and identifies topics that may warrant further
consideration.

Note that this document is a report on the proceedings of the
workshop.=C2=A0 The views and positions documented in this report are
those of the workshop participants and do not necessarily reflect IAB
views and positions.

This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board.


INFORMATIONAL: This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of
this memo is unlimited.

This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, see
=C2=A0 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iet= f-announce
=C2=A0 https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailma= n/listinfo/rfc-dist

For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search=
For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retriev= e/bulk

Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org.=C2=A0 Unless
specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
unlimited distribution.


The RFC Editor Team
Association Management Solutions, LLC

_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce@i= etf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announ= ce
_______________________________________________
hrpc mailing list
hrpc@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc


--
Corinne Cath = - Speth
Ph.D. Candidate, Oxford Internet Institute & Alan Turing Ins= titute

Web: www.oii.o= x.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath
Email: ccath@turing.ac.uk & corinnecath@gmai= l.com
Twitter: @C_CS
=
--00000000000028cae305bf24a1f4-- From nobody Mon Apr 5 00:39:21 2021 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 E43E43A2DE3 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 00:39:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.921 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.921 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 kcKZZtef2ZlE for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 00:39:14 -0700 (PDT) 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 9590C3A2DDF for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 00:39:13 -0700 (PDT) To: hrpc@irtf.org References: <20210220070343.GA23902@nic.fr> From: Niels ten Oever Message-ID: Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 09:39:02 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Authenticated-As-Hash: f1842a279235a42f6aa2a2a81130733515c5a4ec X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.greenhost.nl X-Scan-Signature: a37d78a1f62179d0f8bbb55570e85dc4 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] [rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org: RFC 8980 on Report from the IAB Workshop on Design Expectations vs. Deployment Reality in Protocol Development] X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: hrpc discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2021 07:39:20 -0000 On 04-04-2021 14:21, Corinne Cath wrote: << snip >> > The report indicated both that "the protocol designers cannot affect market forces" This is quite interesting, especially taking into account that the IETF is mostly made up of people working for transnational corporations that concretely _are_ these market forces. Market forces are also somehow described as forces of nature that no one can predict or act against, which is also somewhat curious. Or perhaps it is a statement of believe, that the IETF is there to serve and facilitate the market? Which I think is not the case either because standards per definition exist to intervene in markets (by lowering costs and barrier of entry etc). Best, Niels > > >   > > > > On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 10:04 AM Stephane Bortzmeyer > wrote: > > This RFC talks about how actual deployments can be surprising, making > difficult to assess if a new protocol is good or bad. > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org > To: ietf-announce@ietf.org , rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org > Cc: drafts-update-ref@iana.org , rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org > Bcc:  > Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 17:28:17 -0800 (PST) > Subject: RFC 8980 on Report from the IAB Workshop on Design Expectations vs. Deployment Reality in Protocol Development > A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. > > >         RFC 8980 > >         Title:      Report from the IAB Workshop on >                     Design Expectations vs. Deployment Reality >                     in Protocol Development >         Authors:    J. Arkko, >                     T. Hardie >         Status:     Informational >         Stream:     IAB >         Date:       February 2021 >         Mailbox:    jari.arkko@piuha.net , >                     ted.ietf@gmail.com >         Pages:      16 >         Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso:   None > >         I-D Tag:    draft-iab-dedr-report-01.txt > >         URL:        https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8980 > >         DOI:        10.17487/RFC8980 > > The Design Expectations vs. Deployment Reality in Protocol > Development Workshop was convened by the Internet Architecture Board > (IAB) in June 2019. This report summarizes the workshop's significant > points of discussion and identifies topics that may warrant further > consideration. > > Note that this document is a report on the proceedings of the > workshop.  The views and positions documented in this report are > those of the workshop participants and do not necessarily reflect IAB > views and positions. > > This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board. > > > INFORMATIONAL: This memo provides information for the Internet community. > It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of > this memo is unlimited. > > This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. > To subscribe or unsubscribe, see >   https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce >   https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist > > For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search > For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk > > Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the > author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org .  Unless > specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for > unlimited distribution. > > > The RFC Editor Team > Association Management Solutions, LLC > > _______________________________________________ > IETF-Announce mailing list > IETF-Announce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > -- Niels ten Oever, PhD Postdoctoral Researcher - Media Studies Department - University of Amsterdam Research Fellow - Centre for Internet and Human Rights - European University Viadrina Associated Scholar - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - Fundação Getúlio Vargas https://nielstenoever.net - mail@nielstenoever.net - @nielstenoever - +31629051853 PGP: 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 Read my latest article on Internet infrastructure governance in New Media & Society here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1461444820929320 From nobody Mon Apr 5 01:31:41 2021 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 B91D33A2F65 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 01:31:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-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 JzMs0NVAkVt0 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 01:31:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx3.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 D3C153A300B for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 01:31:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imap.open-xchange.com (imap.open-xchange.com [10.20.28.82]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx3.open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A60356A268; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 10:31:15 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=open-xchange.com; s=201705; t=1617611475; bh=k0f63ksPLHmGL6cUUHQ6kF/61g4Tes8hx+llhg5RyS8=; h=Date:From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From; b=y/QDw/hDy8NOXGF+XH54LsuUtVufnaXcV759CNk3dUGaQBr/Qae+RqRlWw3kWhhJG yjaBR8UFQCKeTeRWF4zgbmisej6pyFOJMSCI8urkrb9jOMbcj0Ms5hb9ftNSoTD0eV XtJYQJgtdxwadRmRVB5FWjkU6lPwfaTSBreS7jD7hx7mciC9UBhEpnttokDNm7wJ3J vqvHnBp3LF44W1t1RC9gr8vOK8Axqjre3VoawGcmFRMKwa1ZD92/bYXLc47mY3raJB Bwd+y8yzqSo0sEo0uk+1E/lUQgLWgPOuGKl65aCBylSnIifd9jt+31fhVUsRuhxQNE sivmrBxNFVNcg== Received: from appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com ([10.20.28.82]) by imap.open-xchange.com with ESMTPSA id oD56KNPKamCCMgAA3c6Kzw (envelope-from ); Mon, 05 Apr 2021 10:31:15 +0200 Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 10:31:15 +0200 (CEST) From: Vittorio Bertola To: Niels ten Oever , hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <1477960853.26940.1617611475617@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20210220070343.GA23902@nic.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.5-Rev8 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] [rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org: RFC 8980 on Report from the IAB Workshop on Design Expectations vs. Deployment Reality in Protocol Development] X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: hrpc discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2021 08:31:40 -0000 > Il 05/04/2021 09:39 Niels ten Oever ha scritto: > > On 04-04-2021 14:21, Corinne Cath wrote: > << snip >> > > The report indicated both that "the protocol designers cannot affect market forces" > > This is quite interesting, especially taking into account that the IETF is mostly made up of people working for transnational corporations that concretely _are_ these market forces. After all this time, I do not remember exactly what was in my contribution to this workshop. However, part of my frustration at the IETF in the DoH discussion came exactly from the feeling above. Some people would participate in the creation of the standard with the hat of "individual participant", and would claim that the effects of the new standard on the market and on public policies were not the IETF's problem and not a direct consequence of the standardization work, but rather of how the new standard was used by implementers. Then, in their day job, they would switch their hat to "employee of company X" and they, or their colleagues, would implement the new standard in ways that purposedly created those effects. I found this a bit hypocritical. > Market forces are also somehow described as forces of nature that no one can predict or act against, which is also somewhat curious. > > Or perhaps it is a statement of believe, that the IETF is there to serve and facilitate the market? Which I think is not the case either because standards per definition exist to intervene in markets (by lowering costs and barrier of entry etc). Standards can be used to constrain the market through regulation, but they are more often meant to create a new market (especially in other SDOs, where standards precede implementation) or to foster a free, competitive market by removing technical barriers to competition after a market is started. I do not know if the IETF ever took any official stance on this, but if you also consider the known antipathy of the IETF for governments, I would expect the IETF to aim to "serve and facilitate the market" at least implicitly. -- Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy From nobody Mon Apr 5 05:18:20 2021 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 B4B523A1654 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 05:18:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.686 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.686 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS=3.335, 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 ImVIlmNcMxVL for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 05:18:14 -0700 (PDT) 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 F382C3A1652 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 05:18:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ayla.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id 3A6C3A0254; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 14:18:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail.sources.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 70F0E190B87; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 14:17:25 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 14:17:25 +0200 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: Corinne Cath Cc: Stephane Bortzmeyer , Hrpc Message-ID: <20210405121725.GA25418@sources.org> References: <20210220070343.GA23902@nic.fr> 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 10.8 X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] [rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org: RFC 8980 on Report from the IAB Workshop on Design Expectations vs. Deployment Reality in Protocol Development] X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: hrpc discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2021 12:18:19 -0000 On Sun, Apr 04, 2021 at 03:21:30PM +0300, Corinne Cath wrote a message of 312 lines which said: > This struck me as confusing, perhaps Stephane or someone else > present could clarify what the IETF considers to be the pieces it is > responsible for Easy, since this was my contribution to the workshop :-) . In summary: IETF's main responsability is in writing good standards. "Good" has many different definitions (it is not limited to "technical efficiency" since a protocol can be technically OK but still harmful) but my point is that IETF can act mostly through the standards it produces so it should focus on this task. Claiming that we must solve bigger problems is a recipe for trouble since we do not have direct leverage on them. BTW, let's be picky: this RFC was done by IAB, not IETF. > how those can as some people at the workshop suggested be used to > counter consolidation forces?). Indeed, the debate on that tend to be quite confused, for instance when people (and the RFC) mention DoH in the context of centralisation, while never being able to say *which part* of the DoH standard was wrong or what should have been done. From nobody Mon Apr 5 05:28:16 2021 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 373EF3A16D2 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 05:28:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.685 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.685 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS=3.335, 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 TFUQB9b534DI for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 05:28:10 -0700 (PDT) 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 A2DDB3A16C8 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 05:28:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ayla.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id A8096A0254; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 14:28:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail.sources.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 888B6190B87; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 14:23:21 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 14:23:21 +0200 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: Niels ten Oever Cc: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <20210405122321.GB25418@sources.org> References: <20210220070343.GA23902@nic.fr> 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 10.8 X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] [rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org: RFC 8980 on Report from the IAB Workshop on Design Expectations vs. Deployment Reality in Protocol Development] X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: hrpc discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2021 12:28:15 -0000 On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 09:39:02AM +0200, Niels ten Oever wrote a message of 106 lines which said: > Market forces are also somehow described as forces of nature that no > one can predict or act against, which is also somewhat curious. The IETF is an US organisation and tend to stricly follow the US politics, the US view of the world, US current issues, for instance on terminology, etc. The RFC could have used a more "neutral" term such as "decisions by other actors", a term that would not have been tied to a specific political and economic system (capitalism, in its US variant). With such a term, I believe that we may agree with the point badly expressed in the RFC: IETF publishes standards, their actual implementation and deployment depends on many non-IETF things. May be a comparison with biology? DNA determines a lot of things in a living being but not everything since its expression goes through many complicated processes. Are RFC the DNA of the Internet, no less, no more? From nobody Mon Apr 5 05:33:15 2021 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 617C43A1701 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 05:33:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.685 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.685 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS=3.335, 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 jrtwl-mWu79r for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 05:33:08 -0700 (PDT) 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 4BD753A16FD for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 05:33:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ayla.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id D4068A0254; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 14:33:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail.sources.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DEDC0190B87; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 14:29:38 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 14:29:38 +0200 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: Vittorio Bertola Cc: Niels ten Oever , hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <20210405122938.GC25418@sources.org> References: <20210220070343.GA23902@nic.fr> <1477960853.26940.1617611475617@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1477960853.26940.1617611475617@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> X-Transport: UUCP rules X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 10.8 X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] [rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org: RFC 8980 on Report from the IAB Workshop on Design Expectations vs. Deployment Reality in Protocol Development] X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: hrpc discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2021 12:33:13 -0000 On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 10:31:15AM +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote a message of 25 lines which said: > After all this time, I do not remember exactly what was in my > contribution to this workshop. https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2019/05/p10-bertola-HowTheInternetWasWon-IABWorkshop2019onDeploymentReality.pdf > However, part of my frustration at the IETF in the DoH discussion > came exactly from the feeling above. Some people would participate > in the creation of the standard with the hat of "individual > participant", and would claim that the effects of the new standard > on the market and on public policies were not the IETF's problem and > not a direct consequence of the standardization work Please tell me what in RFC 8484 defines such or such characteristic of the current DoH deployment and usage. Then, same exercice with RFC 5321. Where do you find in RFC 5321 that Gmail and a few others have the majority of email? Also, the IETF is split on these issues: RFC 8404 is clearly anti-encryption (or "we want encryption but" and everyone knows that in this sort of sentences, it is what's after the but that matters) and reflects the viewpoint of network operators. RFC 8980 and 8890 contain very unfair attacks against DoH. From nobody Mon Apr 5 13:15:53 2021 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 B3B2F3A261B for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 13:15:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.397 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.397 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_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URI_NOVOWEL=0.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tamu-edu.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 al9P5Lb-XZDQ for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 13:15:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-il1-x12f.google.com (mail-il1-x12f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12f]) (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 199813A2618 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 13:15:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-il1-x12f.google.com with SMTP id t14so11121768ilu.3 for ; Mon, 05 Apr 2021 13:15:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tamu-edu.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=tBPa+rW5ep7c8h4hcntMdq7/LUm7bnBU87aTIgmZBww=; b=hvPSMp95aT8X1qgdbieshuuJmsajm3I48k318A0/H8irUJluZUQkJxdTOMVrYSGCX1 KUhDdP+6sAuq3+RBSwTBnMfLl7VTqRmAnOoGmJZmNN+hqWts7psMNvV8dnbOrdx84YBw /1ZeNZaaURMtDmu+tDiF3i9V7GpYpbi7xSmSxB4OTOJbl4+JMrZR064azXB4QLJqkfgf Fqh12etbQMXzl68NuDI/t6ExemRd23iAVX4uL2EvBc6/dXVxqJhbbfS8ONZEz/rpPar0 NkxytkxdwxIG730Ck8nU2Gd88dSKN/LwpHH/t0vF1c0IzWo7r4WlAsyj+NZtJpH9brdw sj6Q== 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; bh=tBPa+rW5ep7c8h4hcntMdq7/LUm7bnBU87aTIgmZBww=; b=R3pyOvLQ1ySTGSdj+qAdmnnVJIofffJAbnt4qWq8NB3DVl0vDFIJtvlLQVioMD3b0N ATNa/0b3wMEe6WiE8uxrIwyMfox5TJoamoxtIC4x0+M/gWQcsXV9irWBEEtLERoQCw4J FMfNDU6YZQcmJqMWY4C2C9yYNDx1X+nlBHUKjsFHyagJUMD2Ci2ZDdBNIl2jVv3H9W9A D4FqD/AcSeAfqJ0FGIF16XklcaJfSDWfbxXoanzI7BRQQ60zjNauMw8TnQSegFGOJgdJ CzVuFSQcMnimRJocCTR/hr6+OkMQtG3jPCWwZVorFfqon2PQmNpXfXQnUaqcT5O3wrFj ap0g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532+bbo2sVA3tenkBRNyBnbv9VzMy6TltJdam68D5NDCD05SON/P g7UGmvtH9GtmX3AqyjRWOBrp1nqyX2GW4zmqgVgvcWgpC0s= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzg8YEnza1h2Xuz31oCc4nxipM98xBfr/Jn73cG5+SBkzgsHb1mCIQNMeskUDeiYSiIADRf/DVXEZZIXAwwikc= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:1b01:: with SMTP id i1mr21078269ilv.253.1617653744309; Mon, 05 Apr 2021 13:15:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Sandra Braman Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 15:19:38 -0500 Message-ID: To: hrpc@irtf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cca5eb05bf3f5ce6" Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] re market forces & the Internet design process X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: hrpc discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2021 20:15:52 -0000 --000000000000cca5eb05bf3f5ce6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Given this thread, this might be a good time for people interested in the question to review David D. Clark's argument in *Designing an Internet* (MI= T Press, 2018) re relationships between the Internet design process and market-related issues. Sandra Braman On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 2:00 PM wrote: > Send hrpc mailing list submissions to > hrpc@irtf.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;= !!KwNVnqRv!R6mD6HycEjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6A2xmfVrw6CSbLfQ= 0VU$ > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > hrpc-request@irtf.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > hrpc-owner@irtf.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of hrpc digest..." > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: [rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org: RFC 8980 on Report from the > IAB Workshop on Design Expectations vs. Deployment Reality in > Protocol Development] (Niels ten Oever) > 2. Re: [rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org: RFC 8980 on Report from the > IAB Workshop on Design Expectations vs. Deployment Reality in > Protocol Development] (Vittorio Bertola) > 3. Re: [rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org: RFC 8980 on Report from the > IAB Workshop on Design Expectations vs. Deployment Reality in > Protocol Development] (Stephane Bortzmeyer) > 4. Re: [rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org: RFC 8980 on Report from the > IAB Workshop on Design Expectations vs. Deployment Reality in > Protocol Development] (Stephane Bortzmeyer) > 5. Re: [rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org: RFC 8980 on Report from the > IAB Workshop on Design Expectations vs. Deployment Reality in > Protocol Development] (Stephane Bortzmeyer) > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Niels ten Oever > To: hrpc@irtf.org > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 09:39:02 +0200 > Subject: Re: [hrpc] [rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org: RFC 8980 on Report from > the IAB Workshop on Design Expectations vs. Deployment Reality in Protoco= l > Development] > > > On 04-04-2021 14:21, Corinne Cath wrote: > << snip >> > > The report indicated both that "the protocol designers cannot affect > market forces" > > This is quite interesting, especially taking into account that the IETF i= s > mostly made up of people working for transnational corporations that > concretely _are_ these market forces. > > Market forces are also somehow described as forces of nature that no one > can predict or act against, which is also somewhat curious. > > Or perhaps it is a statement of believe, that the IETF is there to serve > and facilitate the market? Which I think is not the case either because > standards per definition exist to intervene in markets (by lowering costs > and barrier of entry etc). > > Best, > > Niels > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 10:04 AM Stephane Bortzmeyer > wrote: > > > > This RFC talks about how actual deployments can be surprising, maki= ng > > difficult to assess if a new protocol is good or bad. > > > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org > > To: ietf-announce@ietf.org , > rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org > > Cc: drafts-update-ref@iana.org , > rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org > > Bcc: > > Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 17:28:17 -0800 (PST) > > Subject: RFC 8980 on Report from the IAB Workshop on Design > Expectations vs. Deployment Reality in Protocol Development > > A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries= . > > > > > > RFC 8980 > > > > Title: Report from the IAB Workshop on > > Design Expectations vs. Deployment Reality > > in Protocol Development > > Authors: J. Arkko, > > T. Hardie > > Status: Informational > > Stream: IAB > > Date: February 2021 > > Mailbox: jari.arkko@piuha.net jari.arkko@piuha.net>, > > ted.ietf@gmail.com > > Pages: 16 > > Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None > > > > I-D Tag: draft-iab-dedr-report-01.txt > > > > URL: > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8980__;!!K= wNVnqRv!R6mD6HycEjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6A2xmfVrw6CSUKYZ5Ik= $ > < > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8980__;!!K= wNVnqRv!R6mD6HycEjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6A2xmfVrw6CSUKYZ5Ik= $ > > > > > > DOI: 10.17487/RFC8980 > > > > The Design Expectations vs. Deployment Reality in Protocol > > Development Workshop was convened by the Internet Architecture Boar= d > > (IAB) in June 2019. This report summarizes the workshop's significa= nt > > points of discussion and identifies topics that may warrant further > > consideration. > > > > Note that this document is a report on the proceedings of the > > workshop. The views and positions documented in this report are > > those of the workshop participants and do not necessarily reflect I= AB > > views and positions. > > > > This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board. > > > > > > INFORMATIONAL: This memo provides information for the Internet > community. > > It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution = of > > this memo is unlimited. > > > > This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. > > To subscribe or unsubscribe, see > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-an= nounce__;!!KwNVnqRv!R6mD6HycEjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6A2xmfV= rw6CSB8Qw1b0$ > < > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-an= nounce__;!!KwNVnqRv!R6mD6HycEjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6A2xmfV= rw6CSB8Qw1b0$ > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listin= fo/rfc-dist__;!!KwNVnqRv!R6mD6HycEjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6A= 2xmfVrw6CS5_sxVBU$ > < > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listin= fo/rfc-dist__;!!KwNVnqRv!R6mD6HycEjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6A= 2xmfVrw6CS5_sxVBU$ > > > > > > For searching the RFC series, see > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/search__;!!KwNVnqR= v!R6mD6HycEjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6A2xmfVrw6CSmGRXXPo$ > < > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/search__;!!KwNVnqR= v!R6mD6HycEjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6A2xmfVrw6CSmGRXXPo$ > > > > For downloading RFCs, see > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk__;!!= KwNVnqRv!R6mD6HycEjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6A2xmfVrw6CSOG3yMq= 8$ > < > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk__;!!= KwNVnqRv!R6mD6HycEjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6A2xmfVrw6CSOG3yMq= 8$ > > > > > > Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the > > author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org > . Unless > > specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for > > unlimited distribution. > > > > > > The RFC Editor Team > > Association Management Solutions, LLC > > > > _______________________________________________ > > IETF-Announce mailing list > > IETF-Announce@ietf.org > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-an= nounce__;!!KwNVnqRv!R6mD6HycEjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6A2xmfV= rw6CSB8Qw1b0$ > < > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-an= nounce__;!!KwNVnqRv!R6mD6HycEjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6A2xmfV= rw6CSB8Qw1b0$ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > hrpc mailing list > > hrpc@irtf.org > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;= !!KwNVnqRv!R6mD6HycEjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6A2xmfVrw6CSbLfQ= 0VU$ > < > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;= !!KwNVnqRv!R6mD6HycEjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6A2xmfVrw6CSbLfQ= 0VU$ > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Corinne Cath - Speth > > Ph.D. Candidate, Oxford Internet Institute & Alan Turing Institute > > > > Web: > https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath__= ;!!KwNVnqRv!R6mD6HycEjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6A2xmfVrw6CS0V5= 6tWI$ > < > https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath__= ;!!KwNVnqRv!R6mD6HycEjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6A2xmfVrw6CS0V5= 6tWI$ > > > > Email: ccath@turing.ac.uk & > corinnecath@gmail.com > > Twitter: @C_CS > > > > _______________________________________________ > > hrpc mailing list > > hrpc@irtf.org > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;= !!KwNVnqRv!R6mD6HycEjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6A2xmfVrw6CSbLfQ= 0VU$ > > > > -- > Niels ten Oever, PhD > Postdoctoral Researcher - Media Studies Department - University of > Amsterdam > Research Fellow - Centre for Internet and Human Rights - European > University Viadrina > Associated Scholar - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - Funda=C3=A7=C3=A3= o Get=C3=BAlio > Vargas > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nielstenoever.net__;!!KwNVnqRv!R6mD6H= ycEjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6A2xmfVrw6CStXQ5Prw$ > - mail@nielstenoever.net - @nielstenoever - +31629051853 > PGP: 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 > > Read my latest article on Internet infrastructure governance in New Media > & Society here: > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177= /1461444820929320__;!!KwNVnqRv!R6mD6HycEjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKDr= Myiz6A2xmfVrw6CSvn0_lIQ$ > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Vittorio Bertola > To: Niels ten Oever , hrpc@irtf.org > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 10:31:15 +0200 (CEST) > Subject: Re: [hrpc] [rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org: RFC 8980 on Report from > the IAB Workshop on Design Expectations vs. Deployment Reality in Protoco= l > Development] > > Il 05/04/2021 09:39 Niels ten Oever ha scritto= : > > > > On 04-04-2021 14:21, Corinne Cath wrote: > > << snip >> > > > The report indicated both that "the protocol designers cannot affect > market forces" > > > > This is quite interesting, especially taking into account that the IETF > is mostly made up of people working for transnational corporations that > concretely _are_ these market forces. > > After all this time, I do not remember exactly what was in my contributio= n > to this workshop. However, part of my frustration at the IETF in the DoH > discussion came exactly from the feeling above. Some people would > participate in the creation of the standard with the hat of "individual > participant", and would claim that the effects of the new standard on the > market and on public policies were not the IETF's problem and not a direc= t > consequence of the standardization work, but rather of how the new standa= rd > was used by implementers. Then, in their day job, they would switch their > hat to "employee of company X" and they, or their colleagues, would > implement the new standard in ways that purposedly created those effects.= I > found this a bit hypocritical. > > > Market forces are also somehow described as forces of nature that no on= e > can predict or act against, which is also somewhat curious. > > > > Or perhaps it is a statement of believe, that the IETF is there to serv= e > and facilitate the market? Which I think is not the case either because > standards per definition exist to intervene in markets (by lowering costs > and barrier of entry etc). > > Standards can be used to constrain the market through regulation, but the= y > are more often meant to create a new market (especially in other SDOs, > where standards precede implementation) or to foster a free, competitive > market by removing technical barriers to competition after a market is > started. I do not know if the IETF ever took any official stance on this, > but if you also consider the known antipathy of the IETF for governments,= I > would expect the IETF to aim to "serve and facilitate the market" at leas= t > implicitly. > > -- > Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange > vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com > Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Stephane Bortzmeyer > To: Corinne Cath > Cc: Stephane Bortzmeyer , Hrpc > Bcc: > Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 14:17:25 +0200 > Subject: Re: [hrpc] [rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org: RFC 8980 on Report from > the IAB Workshop on Design Expectations vs. Deployment Reality in Protoco= l > Development] > On Sun, Apr 04, 2021 at 03:21:30PM +0300, > Corinne Cath wrote > a message of 312 lines which said: > > > This struck me as confusing, perhaps Stephane or someone else > > present could clarify what the IETF considers to be the pieces it is > > responsible for > > Easy, since this was my contribution to the workshop :-) > < > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/20= 19/05/p4-bortzmeyer-dedr-workshop-encouraging.pdf__;!!KwNVnqRv!R6mD6HycEjYL= hC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6A2xmfVrw6CSX_uU0Z4$ > >. > > In summary: IETF's main responsability is in writing good > standards. "Good" has many different definitions (it is not limited to > "technical efficiency" since a protocol can be technically OK but > still harmful) but my point is that IETF can act mostly through the > standards it produces so it should focus on this task. Claiming that > we must solve bigger problems is a recipe for trouble since we do not > have direct leverage on them. > > BTW, let's be picky: this RFC was done by IAB, not IETF. > > > how those can as some people at the workshop suggested be used to > > counter consolidation forces?). > > Indeed, the debate on that tend to be quite confused, for instance > when people (and the RFC) mention DoH in the context of > centralisation, while never being able to say *which part* of the DoH > standard was wrong or what should have been done. > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Stephane Bortzmeyer > To: Niels ten Oever > Cc: hrpc@irtf.org > Bcc: > Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 14:23:21 +0200 > Subject: Re: [hrpc] [rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org: RFC 8980 on Report from > the IAB Workshop on Design Expectations vs. Deployment Reality in Protoco= l > Development] > On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 09:39:02AM +0200, > Niels ten Oever wrote > a message of 106 lines which said: > > > Market forces are also somehow described as forces of nature that no > > one can predict or act against, which is also somewhat curious. > > The IETF is an US organisation and tend to stricly follow the US > politics, the US view of the world, US current issues, for instance on > terminology, etc. > > The RFC could have used a more "neutral" term such as "decisions by > other actors", a term that would not have been tied to a specific > political and economic system (capitalism, in its US variant). With > such a term, I believe that we may agree with the point badly > expressed in the RFC: IETF publishes standards, their actual > implementation and deployment depends on many non-IETF things. May be a > comparison with biology? DNA determines a lot of things in a living > being but not everything since its expression goes through many > complicated processes. Are RFC the DNA of the Internet, no less, no > more? > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Stephane Bortzmeyer > To: Vittorio Bertola > Cc: Niels ten Oever , hrpc@irtf.org > Bcc: > Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 14:29:38 +0200 > Subject: Re: [hrpc] [rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org: RFC 8980 on Report from > the IAB Workshop on Design Expectations vs. Deployment Reality in Protoco= l > Development] > On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 10:31:15AM +0200, > Vittorio Bertola > wrote > a message of 25 lines which said: > > > After all this time, I do not remember exactly what was in my > > contribution to this workshop. > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/20= 19/05/p10-bertola-HowTheInternetWasWon-IABWorkshop2019onDeploymentReality.p= df__;!!KwNVnqRv!R6mD6HycEjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6A2xmfVrw6C= SbKoRHpM$ > > > However, part of my frustration at the IETF in the DoH discussion > > came exactly from the feeling above. Some people would participate > > in the creation of the standard with the hat of "individual > > participant", and would claim that the effects of the new standard > > on the market and on public policies were not the IETF's problem and > > not a direct consequence of the standardization work > > Please tell me what in RFC 8484 defines such or such characteristic of > the current DoH deployment and usage. Then, same exercice with RFC > 5321. Where do you find in RFC 5321 that Gmail and a few others have > the majority of email? > > Also, the IETF is split on these issues: RFC 8404 is clearly > anti-encryption (or "we want encryption but" and everyone knows that > in this sort of sentences, it is what's after the but that matters) > and reflects the viewpoint of network operators. RFC 8980 and 8890 > contain very unfair attacks against DoH. > > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;= !!KwNVnqRv!R6mD6HycEjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6A2xmfVrw6CSbLfQ= 0VU$ > --000000000000cca5eb05bf3f5ce6 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Given this thread, this might be a good t= ime for people interested in the question to review David D. Clark's ar= gument in Designing an Internet=C2=A0(MIT Press, 2018)=C2=A0re relat= ionships between the Internet design process and market-related issues.
Sandra Braman

On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 2:00 PM <hrpc-request@irtf.org> wrote:
Send hrpc mailing = list submissions to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 hrpc@irtf.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc= __;!!KwNVnqRv!R6mD6HycEjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6A2xmfVrw6CSb= LfQ0VU$
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 hrpc-request@irtf.org

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

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

=C2=A0 =C2=A01. Re: [rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org: RFC 8980 on Report from the
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 IAB Workshop on Design Expectations vs. Deployment Rea= lity in
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Protocol Development] (Niels ten Oever)
=C2=A0 =C2=A02. Re: [rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org: RFC 8980 on Report from the
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 IAB Workshop on Design Expectations vs. Deployment Rea= lity in
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Protocol Development] (Vittorio Bertola)
=C2=A0 =C2=A03. Re: [rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org: RFC 8980 on Report from the
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 IAB Workshop on Design Expectations vs. Deployment Rea= lity in
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Protocol Development] (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
=C2=A0 =C2=A04. Re: [rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org: RFC 8980 on Report from the
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 IAB Workshop on Design Expectations vs. Deployment Rea= lity in
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Protocol Development] (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
=C2=A0 =C2=A05. Re: [rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org: RFC 8980 on Report from the
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 IAB Workshop on Design Expectations vs. Deployment Rea= lity in
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Protocol Development] (Stephane Bortzmeyer)



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:=C2=A0Niels ten= Oever <mail= @nielstenoever.net>
To:=C2=A0hrpc@irtf.org
Cc:=C2=A0
Bcc:=C2=A0
Date:=C2=A0M= on, 5 Apr 2021 09:39:02 +0200
Subject:=C2=A0Re: [hrpc] [rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org: RFC 8980 on Report from the IAB Workshop on Design Expectations vs. Depl= oyment Reality in Protocol Development]


On 04-04-2021 14:21, Corinne Cath wrote:
<< snip >>
> The report indicated both that "the protocol designers cannot aff= ect market forces"

This is quite interesting, especially taking into account that the IETF is = mostly made up of people working for transnational corporations that concre= tely _are_ these market forces.

Market forces are also somehow described as forces of nature that no one ca= n predict or act against, which is also somewhat curious.

Or perhaps it is a statement of believe, that the IETF is there to serve an= d facilitate the market? Which I think is not the case either because stand= ards per definition exist to intervene in markets (by lowering costs and ba= rrier of entry etc).

Best,

Niels

>
>
> =C2=A0
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 10:04 AM Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr <mailto:= bortzmeyer@nic.fr>> wrote:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0This RFC talks about how actual deployments can be = surprising, making
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0difficult to assess if a new protocol is good or ba= d.
>
>
>
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0---------- Forwarded message ----------
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0From:=C2=A0rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.o= rg>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0To:=C2=A0ietf-announce@ietf.org <mailto:ietf-announce@ietf.org>, rfc-dist@rfc-edi= tor.org <mailto:rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Cc:=C2=A0drafts-update-ref@iana.org <mailto:drafts-update-ref@iana= .org>, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Bcc:=C2=A0
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Date:=C2=A0Fri, 19 Feb 2021 17:28:17 -0800 (PST) >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Subject:=C2=A0RFC 8980 on Report from the IAB Works= hop on Design Expectations vs. Deployment Reality in Protocol Development >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0A new Request for Comments is now available in onli= ne RFC libraries.
>
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 RFC 8980
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Title:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 Report from the IAB Workshop on
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Design Expectations vs. Deployment Reality
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 in Protocol Development
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Authors:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 J= . Arkko,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 T. Hardie
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Status:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0Informational
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Stream:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0IAB
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Date:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0February 2021
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Mailbox:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 <= a href=3D"mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net" target=3D"_blank">jari.arkko@piuha.n= et <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net>,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ted.ietf@gmail.com <mailto:ted.ietf@gmail.com>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Pages:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 16
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAl= so:=C2=A0 =C2=A0None
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 I-D Tag:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 d= raft-iab-dedr-report-01.txt
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 URL:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 https://urldefe= nse.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8980__;!!KwNVnqRv!R6mD6HycE= jYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6A2xmfVrw6CSUKYZ5Ik$=C2=A0 <<= a href=3D"https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc89= 80__;!!KwNVnqRv!R6mD6HycEjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6A2xmfVrw6C= SUKYZ5Ik$" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://urldefense.com/v3/_= _https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8980__;!!KwNVnqRv!R6mD6HycEjYLhC4OnNyS0= oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6A2xmfVrw6CSUKYZ5Ik$ >
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 DOI:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 10.17487/RFC8980
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0The Design Expectations vs. Deployment Reality in P= rotocol
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Development Workshop was convened by the Internet A= rchitecture Board
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0(IAB) in June 2019. This report summarizes the work= shop's significant
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0points of discussion and identifies topics that may= warrant further
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0consideration.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Note that this document is a report on the proceedi= ngs of the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0workshop.=C2=A0 The views and positions documented = in this report are
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0those of the workshop participants and do not neces= sarily reflect IAB
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0views and positions.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0This document is a product of the Internet Architec= ture Board.
>
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0INFORMATIONAL: This memo provides information for t= he Internet community.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0It does not specify an Internet standard of any kin= d. Distribution of
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0this memo is unlimited.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and = rfc-dist lists.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0To subscribe or unsubscribe, see
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0 https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/l= istinfo/ietf-announce__;!!KwNVnqRv!R6mD6HycEjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUu= cKDrMyiz6A2xmfVrw6CSB8Qw1b0$=C2=A0 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.o= rg/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce__;!!KwNVnqRv!R6mD6HycEjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffL= s5u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6A2xmfVrw6CSB8Qw1b0$ >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0 https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailman.rfc-edito= r.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist__;!!KwNVnqRv!R6mD6HycEjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5= u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6A2xmfVrw6CS5_sxVBU$=C2=A0 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__htt= ps://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist__;!!KwNVnqRv!R6mD6Hyc= EjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6A2xmfVrw6CS5_sxVBU$ >
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0For searching the RFC series, see https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-edito= r.org/search__;!!KwNVnqRv!R6mD6HycEjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6= A2xmfVrw6CSmGRXXPo$=C2=A0 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/search__;!!KwNVnqR= v!R6mD6HycEjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6A2xmfVrw6CSmGRXXPo$ = >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0For downloading RFCs, see https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor= .org/retrieve/bulk__;!!KwNVnqRv!R6mD6HycEjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKD= rMyiz6A2xmfVrw6CSOG3yMq8$=C2=A0 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/retri= eve/bulk__;!!KwNVnqRv!R6mD6HycEjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6A2xm= fVrw6CSOG3yMq8$ >
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Requests for special distribution should be address= ed to either the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org<= /a> <mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>.=C2=A0 Unless
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all= RFCs are for
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0unlimited distribution.
>
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0The RFC Editor Team
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Association Management Solutions, LLC
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0_______________________________________________
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0IETF-Announce mailing list
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0IETF-Announce@ietf.org <mailto:IETF-Announce@ietf.org>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listin= fo/ietf-announce__;!!KwNVnqRv!R6mD6HycEjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKDrM= yiz6A2xmfVrw6CSB8Qw1b0$=C2=A0 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/ma= ilman/listinfo/ietf-announce__;!!KwNVnqRv!R6mD6HycEjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30= wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6A2xmfVrw6CSB8Qw1b0$ >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0_______________________________________________
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0hrpc mailing list
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0= hrpc@irtf.org <mailto:hrpc@irtf.org>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!= !KwNVnqRv!R6mD6HycEjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6A2xmfVrw6CSbLfQ0= VU$=C2=A0 <https= ://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!!KwNVn= qRv!R6mD6HycEjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6A2xmfVrw6CSbLfQ0VU$ >
>
>
>
> --
> Corinne Cath - Speth
> Ph.D. Candidate, Oxford Internet Institute & Alan Turing Institute=
>
> Web: https://urld= efense.com/v3/__http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath__;!!KwNVnqRv!R6= mD6HycEjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6A2xmfVrw6CS0V56tWI$=C2= =A0 <https://urldef= ense.com/v3/__http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath__;!!KwNVnqRv!R6mD= 6HycEjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6A2xmfVrw6CS0V56tWI$ > > Email: ccath@t= uring.ac.uk <mailto:ccath@turing.ac.uk> & corinnecath@gmail.com <mailto:corinnecath@gmail.com>=
> Twitter: @C_CS
>
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> hrpc@irtf.org > https://urldefense= .com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!!KwNVnqRv!R6mD6HycE= jYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6A2xmfVrw6CSbLfQ0VU$
>

--
Niels ten Oever, PhD
Postdoctoral Researcher - Media Studies Department - University of Amsterda= m
Research Fellow - Centre for Internet and Human Rights - European Universit= y Viadrina
Associated Scholar - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - Funda=C3=A7=C3=A3o = Get=C3=BAlio Vargas

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://niel= stenoever.net__;!!KwNVnqRv!R6mD6HycEjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz= 6A2xmfVrw6CStXQ5Prw$=C2=A0 - mail@nielstenoever.net - @nielstenoever - +3162905185= 3
PGP: 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3

Read my latest article on Internet infrastructure governance in New Media &= amp; Society here: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://journals.sagepub.com/do= i/full/10.1177/1461444820929320__;!!KwNVnqRv!R6mD6HycEjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5= u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6A2xmfVrw6CSvn0_lIQ$





---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:=C2=A0Vittorio = Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com>
To:=C2=A0Niels ten Oev= er <mail@nie= lstenoever.net>, = hrpc@irtf.org
Cc:=C2=A0
Bcc:=C2=A0
Date:=C2=A0Mon, 5 Apr 2021 = 10:31:15 +0200 (CEST)
Subject:=C2=A0Re: [hrpc] [rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org: RFC 8= 980 on Report from the IAB Workshop on Design Expectations vs. Deployment R= eality in Protocol Development]
> Il 05/04/2021 09:39 Niels ten Oever= <mail@niels= tenoever.net> ha scritto:
>
> On 04-04-2021 14:21, Corinne Cath wrote:
> << snip >>
> > The report indicated both that "the protocol designers canno= t affect market forces"
>
> This is quite interesting, especially taking into account that the IET= F is mostly made up of people working for transnational corporations that c= oncretely _are_ these market forces.

After all this time, I do not remember exactly what was in my contribution = to this workshop. However, part of my frustration at the IETF in the DoH di= scussion came exactly from the feeling above. Some people would participate= in the creation of the standard with the hat of "individual participa= nt", and would claim that the effects of the new standard on the marke= t and on public policies were not the IETF's problem and not a direct c= onsequence of the standardization work, but rather of how the new standard = was used by implementers. Then, in their day job, they would switch their h= at to "employee of company X" and they, or their colleagues, woul= d implement the new standard in ways that purposedly created those effects.= I found this a bit hypocritical.

> Market forces are also somehow described as forces of nature that no o= ne can predict or act against, which is also somewhat curious.
>
> Or perhaps it is a statement of believe, that the IETF is there to ser= ve and facilitate the market? Which I think is not the case either because = standards per definition exist to intervene in markets (by lowering costs a= nd barrier of entry etc).

Standards can be used to constrain the market through regulation, but they = are more often meant to create a new market (especially in other SDOs, wher= e standards precede implementation) or to foster a free, competitive market= by removing technical barriers to competition after a market is started. I= do not know if the IETF ever took any official stance on this, but if you = also consider the known antipathy of the IETF for governments, I would expe= ct the IETF to aim to "serve and facilitate the market" at least = implicitly.

--
Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
vitt= orio.bertola@open-xchange.com
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy





---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:=C2=A0Stephane = Bortzmeyer <bortz= meyer@nic.fr>
To:=C2=A0Corinne Cath <corinnecath@gmail.com>
Cc:=C2= =A0Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>, Hrpc <hrpc@irtf.org>
Bcc:=C2=A0
Date:=C2=A0Mon, 5= Apr 2021 14:17:25 +0200
Subject:=C2=A0Re: [hrpc] [rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org: RF= C 8980 on Report from the IAB Workshop on Design Expectations vs. Deploymen= t Reality in Protocol Development]
On Sun, Apr 04, 2021 at 03:21:30PM +0= 300,
=C2=A0Corinne Cath <corinnecath@gmail.com> wrote
=C2=A0a message of 312 lines which said:

> This struck me as confusing, perhaps Stephane or someone else
> present could clarify what the IETF considers to be the pieces it is > responsible for

Easy, since this was my contribution to the workshop :-)
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.i= ab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2019/05/p4-bortzmeyer-dedr-workshop-encouragi= ng.pdf__;!!KwNVnqRv!R6mD6HycEjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6A2xmfV= rw6CSX_uU0Z4$ >.

In summary: IETF's main responsability is in writing good
standards. "Good" has many different definitions (it is not limit= ed to
"technical efficiency" since a protocol can be technically OK but=
still harmful) but my point is that IETF can act mostly through the
standards it produces so it should focus on this task. Claiming that
we must solve bigger problems is a recipe for trouble since we do not
have direct leverage on them.

BTW, let's be picky: this RFC was done by IAB, not IETF.

> how those can as some people at the workshop suggested be used to
> counter consolidation forces?).

Indeed, the debate on that tend to be quite confused, for instance
when people (and the RFC) mention DoH in the context of
centralisation, while never being able to say *which part* of the DoH
standard was wrong or what should have been done.





---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:=C2=A0Stephane = Bortzmeyer <bortz= meyer@nic.fr>
To:=C2=A0Niels ten Oever <mail@nielstenoever.net>
Cc:= =C2=A0hrpc@irtf.org<= br>Bcc:=C2=A0
Date:=C2=A0Mon, 5 Apr 2021 14:23:21 +0200
Subject:=C2= =A0Re: [hrpc] [rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org: RFC 8980 on Report from the IAB Workshop = on Design Expectations vs. Deployment Reality in Protocol Development]
O= n Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 09:39:02AM +0200,
=C2=A0Niels ten Oever <mail@nielstenoever.net> wrote
=C2=A0a message of 106 lines which said:

> Market forces are also somehow described as forces of nature that no > one can predict or act against, which is also somewhat curious.

The IETF is an US organisation and tend to stricly follow the US
politics, the US view of the world, US current issues, for instance on
terminology, etc.

The RFC could have used a more "neutral" term such as "decis= ions by
other actors", a term that would not have been tied to a specific
political and economic system (capitalism, in its US variant). With
such a term, I believe that we may agree with the point badly
expressed in the RFC: IETF publishes standards, their actual
implementation and deployment depends on many non-IETF things. May be a
comparison with biology? DNA determines a lot of things in a living
being but not everything since its expression goes through many
complicated processes. Are RFC the DNA of the Internet, no less, no
more?






---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:=C2=A0Stephane = Bortzmeyer <bortz= meyer@nic.fr>
To:=C2=A0Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola=3D40open= -xchange.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc:=C2=A0Niels ten Oever <mail@nielstenoever.net= >, hrpc@irtf.org<= /a>
Bcc:=C2=A0
Date:=C2=A0Mon, 5 Apr 2021 14:29:38 +0200
Subject:= =C2=A0Re: [hrpc] [rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org: RFC 8980 on Report from the IAB Worksh= op on Design Expectations vs. Deployment Reality in Protocol Development]On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 10:31:15AM +0200,
=C2=A0Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola=3D40open-xchange.com@dmarc.ietf.org= > wrote
=C2=A0a message of 25 lines which said:

> After all this time, I do not remember exactly what was in my
> contribution to this workshop.

https://urldefense= .com/v3/__https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2019/05/p10-bertola-Ho= wTheInternetWasWon-IABWorkshop2019onDeploymentReality.pdf__;!!KwNVnqRv!R6mD= 6HycEjYLhC4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6A2xmfVrw6CSbKoRHpM$

> However, part of my frustration at the IETF in the DoH discussion
> came exactly from the feeling above. Some people would participate
> in the creation of the standard with the hat of "individual
> participant", and would claim that the effects of the new standar= d
> on the market and on public policies were not the IETF's problem a= nd
> not a direct consequence of the standardization work

Please tell me what in RFC 8484 defines such or such characteristic of
the current DoH deployment and usage. Then, same exercice with RFC
5321. Where do you find in RFC 5321 that Gmail and a few others have
the majority of email?

Also, the IETF is split on these issues: RFC 8404 is clearly
anti-encryption (or "we want encryption but" and everyone knows t= hat
in this sort of sentences, it is what's after the but that matters)
and reflects the viewpoint of network operators. RFC 8980 and 8890
contain very unfair attacks against DoH.


_______________________________________________
hrpc mailing list
hrpc@irtf.org
https://urldefense.com/= v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!!KwNVnqRv!R6mD6HycEjYLhC= 4OnNyS0oTAYffLs5u30wTv9QUucKDrMyiz6A2xmfVrw6CSbLfQ0VU$
--000000000000cca5eb05bf3f5ce6-- From nobody Fri Apr 16 02:59:01 2021 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 6C5383A1F0B for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 02:59:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CTE_8BIT_MISMATCH=1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cdt.org Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tAHMWdW3XUkk for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 02:58:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qk1-x729.google.com (mail-qk1-x729.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::729]) (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 62A0A3A1F09 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 02:58:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk1-x729.google.com with SMTP id f19so10514701qka.8 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 02:58:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cdt.org; s=google; h=message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:content-language:to:cc :references:from:subject:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=w3ALae6nKW7gtJMNCM9w09uMzg8rjBieAQHc0RxaKSM=; b=Ja5T0DYbZzxLqQg6C5kZY4Hie9npQRL3Fy6S1MgIP5md2Q9Ef/XMKk+buVb6mY+pM/ AIp/kfs8lwHQ14WbeoEGLmWej8YVvkcQtI+ySdElQvgcgWcUCVC75SOf9AJP8wFBzsBs Cs1fMNXHncf/CPd4ak2Zr9ow8Z0XPooQsk04Q= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent :content-language:to:cc:references:from:subject:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=w3ALae6nKW7gtJMNCM9w09uMzg8rjBieAQHc0RxaKSM=; b=sze1jyP4tEh4dw8aa8+k4rPCFswVV0fEkNuYCMPMvvV3lxgEnVXKQrPgU/p2nsp6uf BulP4X+kdPnhbGVtw2JoBHiKlLznQW2rgYZAZ2ihEjEioO3xeCjGPxE/VXBylAT1BKXA AUzT3BKEoVFWPdjszUIbvKHQlpUe0XR1RT0OABRllM3K2QZrqf+PG1qVWcem3dlvpC/K 5aEibZwGkpTDGdWJLVKNxd4pBrBxNjiSsJ89D0qY5gUdp3gRBoU3w8ozmZTea+is7XOE bRIz/UixBBKCY8M8Z4BOv5DC3raVbvvzG9SjAS5AMrAkSG6Q9aIjftSDmrx/q2C/7FCb BAlg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532NJpBReBDOq6KPiUFOVLJBma2DRrLi3QH20rg6QbQfJMHr2+WR lSca2RVz+HuZPWsBaYxVUOxfTg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx2v8yYAK9X8RssPjWjhczoN5dZSV5DJwk7lWcOWQvDw9CR0Q9qP2aTJ/f/7xwrdDC7caqvyg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:cf4:: with SMTP id c20mr7890400qkj.134.1618567131999; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 02:58:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (c-73-163-188-207.hsd1.dc.comcast.net. [73.163.188.207]) by smtp.gmail.com with UTF8SMTPSA id d14sm3886382qkg.33.2021.04.16.02.58.51 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 16 Apr 2021 02:58:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <497480db-ab7b-6494-e84c-5d4fc67a5bb5@cdt.org> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 05:58:50 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:88.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/88.0 Content-Language: en-US To: lvermeer@riseup.net, hrpc@irtf.org Cc: lvermeer@icnlalliance.org References: <95869edac2493a5fca678ad7ba7bb005@riseup.net> From: Mallory Knodel In-Reply-To: <95869edac2493a5fca678ad7ba7bb005@riseup.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] draft-association general update + response to: [Re: re international & national law, draft association] X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: hrpc discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 09:59:00 -0000 Hi everyone, Excuse the top post. I am following up on this conversation about draft-association generally, with a specific list of ways forward that relate to what's been discussed below. The notes on draft-association from 110 are transcribed verbatim due to the importance of the topic and you can find them in the datatracker. I then translated the clear action points into Github issues. The authors have worked (are working) through them and a new version should be coming along shortly. In the meeting we addressed the issue of scope and international versus national laws. So, as it relates here are the two relevant conclusions for draft-association that we came to: 1/ We take the point that the HR framework requires actioned laws by national implementors, and so we can't discount the impacts on the subject. In the meeting we decided to reinforce the basis of this by first treating only IHRL as principles, yet we will *point to future research, or a research gap, in the conclusion text*. Sandra, would you be able to provide a very short paragraph about this possible future work? 2/ Relatedly, we then need to better define the scope up front such that it's clear we are limiting ourselves to IHRL, and why, and avoiding a discussion-- for now-- of national laws, at least in this document. I hope that's helpful. Excited to share the next version of this document with you all-- it's looking really good, so thanks very much! -Mallory On 3/11/21 6:31 AM, lvermeer@riseup.net wrote: > Dear all, > > Apologies for responding to this interesting conversation only now. > Especially for those of you in the western hemisphere, this controbution > won't be timely for the meeting later today. I look forward to > discussing the draft on association this afternoon (CET) and continuing > it over email. > > I must admit I have difficulties keeping track of the discussion across > multiple email threads so I might be missing out on some argument. See > my responses to Sandra and Eliot in-line below! > > Best to all, Lisa > > > On 08-03-2021 19:06, Sandra Braman wrote: >> Thanks to you all for launching this discussion. Mallory and her >> co-authors have made progress, in areas going beyond her email to >> include significant changes in wording, and I am delighted that >> another legal expert's advice has been sought. However -- depending >> upon the goal of the exercise -- in my view there are issues that >> remain. Rather than bundle several different issues into single >> emails, as before, here will concentrate on the points brought up in >> this discussion. >> >> It appears that Mallory and her co-authors have misunderstood what the >> "scope of work" is when relying on international treaties, and >> therefore misunderstood why some of the comments I made regarding >> legal sources were made. Will first discuss how the kind of legal >> problem being addressed here, and the kind of argument these authors >> are making, are approached by legal scholars; go on to address the >> specific concepts of association and assembly; and conclude with a >> point about genre. >> >> Doing research on protocols and the rights of association and assembly >> as established by international human rights law >> >> Mallory reminds us of the scope of the HRPC and how draft association >> fits into it. The word "defined" is used in the HRPC charter to refer >> to what is said in the UDHR and ICCPR regarding what are to be >> considered human rights. Those documents, however, don't actually >> define the concepts involved -- they providing a list of the kinds of >> rights to be protected. Any work relying on those treaties necessarily >> involves probing the concepts mentioned for what they actually mean on >> the ground. There are three ways of doing this: analysis of >> precedent, analysis of different approaches taken in different >> jurisdictions, and novel theorization and/or argumentation. These >> three approaches are often combined for the strongest work products, >> with the relative proportions of each type of investigation varying >> with the problem at hand. Undertaking all three of these kinds of >> analysis are within the scope of the HRPC because they are by >> definition within the scope of what it means to rely upon the >> international human rights treaties. > I'm excited that we are working on this draft at the same time that the > Human Rights Committee published its General Comment 37 about peaceful > assembly, one of the rights under discussion. The GC does not provide > details about how this right is interpreted by various governments but I > know that the comment itself it based on a long process of research, > consultation and negotation. My suggestion for this research paper is to > take the GC37 as starting point for at least the issues related to > protocols and assembly. Currently, at ICNL and ECNL - and we're not the > only ones - we're stimulating ongoing discussions about the GC37 and in > particular what digitally mediated assemblies are an how they should be > protected, which could provide insight for this community. My suggestion > is to focus our discussion and attention to identifying how protocol > design relates to digitally mediated assemblies, association and > discuss and strengthen the exmaples in the paper, instead of long and > in-depth legal analysis. I agree that references to authoritative > interpretations should be added to the current list. >> A strong analog for what HRPC is trying to do with the Internet design >> process is the effort by the international legal community to figure >> out whether existing international law applies to cyber operations of >> national security concern. A particularly rich model of what that >> involves are the _Tallinn Manual_ and _Tallinn Manual 2.0_, which >> provide exhaustive analyses of each of the pertinent concepts in >> international laws of war, clearly specifying where consensus was >> reached within the group of international legal experts involved, and >> where it was not, with the diverse positions identified for the >> latter. > The Tallinn Manual is indeed an interesting example of how the > specialized cyber scholarly community tackles an ongoing issue (applying > int'l law in cyberspace) that at the same time is subject of > geopolitical debate in the UN. As a former diplomat I know how important > this manual to underpin governments' positions. My impression however, > but please forgive me my newby status in this community, is that a > process like the Tallinn Manual is much too specialized on international > law in its full depths compared to what we try to accomplish here i.e. > help improving protocols. I therefore don't think it's necessary to > discuss all treaties and all different national interpretations in this > research paper, but that the most important and up to date notions about > the FOAA should be there underpinned by authorative voices such as UNSRs > and the HRC. > >> A discussion of about a week ago of a panel of international legal >> scholars, including Michael Schmitt, who served as editor for both >> Tallinn manuals, gives a sense of the state of play regarding >> international law and war in cyberspace right now. Much of this >> conversation about international law and cyberespace involved >> discussing trends in national-level treatment of problems such as >> whether or not data is an object, identifying the range of positions >> out there, how many states aligned with each position, and where >> shifts were taking place, followed by each expert's argument for their >> preferred position. If you want to see what that kind of conversation >> looks like, you can see it here: >> https://www.dvidshub.net/video/785840/international-law-professors-discuss-2020-cyberspace-operations-developments-2021-uscybercom-legal-conference. >> My suggestions regarding looking at national law were for this reason >> -- as sources for insight into how to articulate the two distinct >> rights of association and assembly for purposes of this attempt to >> apply international human rights law to Internet standards by looking >> at how they have been put forth by national governments. >> >> (RFC 8280 includes false statements about US law that can be used to >> take down pages because it ignores Sec. 230, which protects third >> party intermediaries from liability for speech by those using its >> platforms. If a US-based platform decides to take down either a >> specific message or a user who egregiously incites illegal violence >> likely to harm society or misinformation of a kind that can damage the >> health of individuals and communities such as drinking bleach, that is >> NOT because of a law. It is because a private entity decided to take >> the action on the basis of principles it has established for itself >> and the communities that the platform hosts and facilitates. It can do >> that because users of the platform sign a contract to abide by its >> rules, the terms of service or acceptable use agreement. Contract law >> is actually the law that matters in this regard.) >> >> Development of the law to apply to new problems is heavily influenced >> by precedent, legal decision-making that has come before. The >> analytical job in new situations involves identifying what it is in >> the new situation that is like what came before, and what is different >> and therefore may justify adapting the law, reinterpreting it, and/or >> developing new law. The way to conduct this anaylysis is to study >> pertinent court opinions. My suggestions for looking at court cases >> involving international human rights law were for this reason -- as >> sources for insight into how to articulate the rights of association >> and assembly for purposes of this attempt to apply international human >> rights law to Internet protocols by looking at how those rights have >> been interpreted by courts in the past. Much of the thinking in these >> opinions will not deal specifically with the cyber environment; it is >> there that the role of original argument and theorization are required >> to extrapolate from precedent to how it is being recommended that it >> should apply to Internet protocols. >> >> Authors of this draft RFC need not conduct all of the necessary >> analysis themselves. There is an existing literature on international >> human rights law and the rights of association and assembly. A quick >> search identified several items that are far from exhaustive of what >> is available. These items would complement and expand on what is >> learned from the piece by Peter Swire, as the piece by a legal scholar >> that deals with international human rights law and association >> currently cited. >> >> Boyle, Kevin, and Sangeeta Shah. (2014). "Thought, expression, >> association, and assembly." In Daniel Moeckli, Sangeeta Shah, & >> Sandesh Sivakumaran (Eds.), _International human rights law_, pp. >> 257-279. Oxford: Oxford University Press. >> >> Haas, Ernst B. (1970). _Human rights and international action: The >> case of freedom of association_. Stanford: Stanford University Press. >> >> Hamilton, Michael. (2020). The meaning and scope of "assembly" in >> international human rights law, _International and Comparative Law >> Quarterly_, _69_(3), 521-556. >> >> Hamilton, Michael. (2020). To facilitate and protect: State >> obligations and the right of peaceful assembly in international human >> right law, _Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law_, >> _21_(1), 5-34. >> >> Kalin, Walter & Kunzli, Jorg. (2019). Protection of participation in >> political life. In _The law of international human rights protection_, >> 2nd ed., pp. 491-519. Oxford: Oxford University Press. >> >> Salat, Orsolya. (2014). Comparative freedom of assembly and the >> fragmentation of human rights law, _Nordic Journal of Human Rights_, >> _32_(2), 140-156. >> >> Tyulkina, Svetlana. (2014). Fragmentation in international human >> rights law: Political parties and freedom of association in the >> practice of the UN Human Rights Committee, European Court of Human >> Rights and Inter-American Court of Human Rights, _Nordic Journal of >> Human Rights_, _32_(2), 157-175. >> >> Defining the rights of association and assembly >> >> The legal scholarship on international human rights law finds the >> right of association to refer to formal organizations of individuals >> who join together to pursue a specific goal. Membership is explicit >> and recognized, there are rules, typically there are officers, there >> may be staff, etc. The concept of the right of association in >> international law has been most fully developed as it applies to labor >> unions, although it is also understood to apply to political parties >> and civil society groups of all kinds. The right of assembly, at >> minimum, requires only two individuals or more who intentionally >> assemble, though there are interpretations that require more than >> that. >> >> This draft on the rights of association and assembly goes back and >> forth between treating them as two separate rights and treating them >> together as a single right, with the text dominated by the latter. The >> document will be stronger if the authors choose one of these two >> positions and stick with it. Treating the rights as two separate >> rights is the approach that aligns with international law because of >> the difference in how the two concepts are defined and used in >> international law. > I agree that the rights should be treated as separate rights thourghout > the entire text. > > The fact that these two rights interact with other >> rights, such as privacy and freedom of expression, is important and >> worth including in the analysis, but does not make these rights >> synonymous with each other. >> >> This draft includes temporary groupings of people as an association, >> although in my understanding this is not upheld by international law. >> That could, of course, be my ignorance. I would appreciate reference >> to sources for this element of the definition of association that has >> been valuably added to this draft. > Well noted, will look for a good reference because it is indeed > understood that temporary groupings are also protected under the freedom > to associate. This does raise the question to what extent we should > adress the legal nitty-gritty (please forgive me, laywers in the room > :)) of these rights in this paper, or primarily aim to generate basis > understanding of the key aspects of these rights - with strong > references to the ongoing scholarly discussion added. With my comments > to the paper, I hoped to strike a balance between the legal experts on > the one hand and the tech experts in the IETF community because too much > detail on legal interpretations might scare readers without a legal > background. > >> This draft also includes being a member of an audience to which a mass >> message has been sent as a form of assembly, although in my >> understanding this is not upheld by international law. In the example >> given, spam, the pertinent right on the part of those who do not wish >> to receive the messages is the right not to receive, not anything >> involving association. This again could be my ignorance and I would >> appreciate reference to sources for making this claim. The item cited >> by Marcus discusses freedom of expression but does not mention freedom >> of association. >> >> I am not going to review each of the cases discussed in this draft >> under the rubric of association or work through each of the places >> where communication, association, and assembly become conflated in >> ways that are problematic from a legal perspective, but if the authors >> would like to pull together a group of legal scholars to fully develop >> understandings of the two separate rights of association and assembly >> for the cyber environment -- importantly, as they are different from >> expression, communication, and access to information as other rights >> distinguished under international human rights law -- I would be happy >> to join that group. >> >> Genre >> >> I have been understanding HRPC informational RFCs and drafts as >> contributions to knowledge production and intended to be of use both >> within the Internet design community and in the legal community. >> Concerns about bringing the technical and legal communities into a >> common conversation to mutual -- and societal -- advantage has been >> underway for 3 decades now at least (with Mallory's current employer, >> CDT, an important early and sustained leader in this effort). We are >> finally seeing new, important, developments in this regard with a >> quickly growing number of academic programs being launched to train >> people in both types of expertise and their interactions as well as a >> now significant literature in this area and maturing sophistication on >> the part of many policy-makers. >> >> Mallory's response to my comments educated me to the history of the >> decision not to put in place a checklist for use by those involved in >> designing protocols, and I appreciate the reasoning behind that. As is >> mentioned in this draft, the dual use nature of almost all, if not >> all, protocols and their characteristics, could mean that, actually, >> nothing can be done by engineers other than to acknowledge that uses >> can be made of their work products that may be in violation of >> international human rights law. >> >> That in itself is not a trivial accomplishment. Research has shown >> that the RFCs document that those involved in Internet design have >> been concerned about matters such as privacy, equity, and fairness >> from the very start, but that discussion has appeared in social >> science publications not likely to be encountered or referenced by >> those designing protocols. I may have been misunderstanding the point >> of the exercise. That would mean that the genre here is actually the >> metadata -- the fact that human rights has now been officially >> recognized as something that can be violated through the use of the >> Internet via documents appearing in the RFCs -- rather than the >> substance of the evidence and arguments brought to bear. To date, >> this is essentially the use made of RFC 8280 in the few items >> published to date both within and outside of the RFCs that reference >> it. >> >> If the genre and rhetorical goals go beyond metadata to also be of use >> to legal scholars, policy-makers, and social scientists as well, as I >> originally understood the point of the exercise, then in my view more >> work needs to be done and I would be willing to join the effort if >> welcomed. The team put together to accomplish that work should include >> experts in each of the areas involved; my judgments regarding >> technical problems in protocol design aren't worth anything at all. >> This work will be strongest if those with a depth in the law are >> involved in making legal arguments; the issue mentioned above >> regarding US law as discussed in RFC 8280 is also not trivial. >> >> On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 4:07 AM wrote: >> >>> Send hrpc mailing list submissions to >>> hrpc@irtf.org >>> >>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>> hrpc-request@irtf.org >>> >>> You can reach the person managing the list at >>> hrpc-owner@irtf.org >>> >>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>> than "Re: Contents of hrpc digest..." >>> Today's Topics: >>> >>> 1. Re: comments, draft association (Eliot Lear) >>> 2. Re: comments, draft association (Mark Perkins) >>> 3. Re: comments, draft association (Eliot Lear) >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Eliot Lear >>> To: Mallory Knodel >>> Cc: Hrpc , Sandra Braman >>> Bcc: >>> Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 10:08:27 +0100 >>> Subject: Re: [hrpc] comments, draft association >>> >>> Hi Mallory, >>> >>> Ok, so on with it in-line below (combining your two emails): >>> >>> On 2/6/21 3:35 AM, Sandra Braman wrote: >>> >>> The international treaties discussed in this draft are not a part of >>> the scholarly literature covered in literature reviews, but the >>> legal authorities on the basis of which claims made here are >>> justified. Although I agree with the authors that this is not the >>> place for a comprehensive discussion and synthesis of the scholarly >>> literature, coverage of the pertinent treaty provisions _should_ be >>> comprehensive. Treaty provisions only matter, though, where >>> treaties have been ratified. It would also be useful to the reader >>> to know the extent to which these provisions have been interpreted >>> in courts in cases that have come their way involving assembly and >>> association. >>> >>> This draft is trying to fulfill the explicit language from the HRPC >>> charter, the relevant portion of which is: >>> >>> "The Human Rights Protocol Considerations Research Group is >>> chartered to research whether standards and protocols can enable, >>> strengthen or threaten human rights, as defined in the Universal >>> Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) [1] and the International >>> Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) [2], specifically, >>> but not limited to the right to freedom of expression and the right >>> to freedom of assembly." >>> >>> Therefore to talk about the regulation of code is out of scope. >> There is one aspect that could be better drawn out: is the >> interpretation of these two documents consistent with the >> interpretation by most governments? If it is not, would proposed >> applications present difficulties in implementing the protocols >> approved by SDOs such as the IETF, and under what circumstances? > I think there is gap between interpretations of authorities such as the > HRC and interpretations by many governments. I agree that its important > to address this to enable readers to understand what it would mean to > implement protocols given this gap. I look forward to collaborating on > text suggestions here. > >> I am >> specifically thinking of the examples you have in the draft (spam, >> DDOS) as well as perhaps something around lawful intercept (not >> entirely tangential to freedom of assembly). I don’t see that >> outside the scope of the charter. >> >> Also, we just had a live example in the US of use of technology to >> organize what could alternatively be described as a peaceful assembly >> or an insurrection. Surely this draft would be remiss to not explore >> the technology implications, given the use of encryption by some of >> the parties. >> >> Eliot >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Mark Perkins >> To: hrpc@irtf.org >> Cc: >> Bcc: >> Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 20:52:40 +1100 >> Subject: Re: [hrpc] comments, draft association >> >> Eliot >> >> "is the interpretation of these two documents consistent with the >> interpretation by most governments?" >> >> Here I think we run into real world problems: >> >> What do the documents (UDHR & ICCPR) state? >> >> What is the interpretation of these two documents by the relevant UN >> body (usually found in General Comments of UN Human Rights Committee, >> but also occassionally International Tribunals, though these are >> usually Regional decisions rather than International in the Global >> sense) - eg General comment No. 37(2020) on theright of peaceful >> assembly (article 21), 17September 2020 >> >> https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/TBSearch.aspx?Lang=en&TreatyID=8&DocTypeID=11 >> >> What is the interpretation of 'most' governments? Clearly this >> question will have multiple responses, as often there is no agreement, >> in fact there is clear disagreement >> >> What is the difference between all of the above, esp UN interpretation >> & interpretation by 'most' governments OR the different governmental >> interpretations? >> >> Mark P. >> Le 08/03/2021 à 20:08, Eliot Lear a écrit : >> >>> Hi Mallory, >>> >>> Ok, so on with it in-line below (combining your two emails): >>> >>> On 2/6/21 3:35 AM, Sandra Braman wrote: >>> >>> The international treaties discussed in this draft are not a part of >>> the scholarly literature covered in literature reviews, but the >>> legal authorities on the basis of which claims made here are >>> justified. Although I agree with the authors that this is not the >>> place for a comprehensive discussion and synthesis of the scholarly >>> literature, coverage of the pertinent treaty provisions _should_ be >>> comprehensive. Treaty provisions only matter, though, where >>> treaties have been ratified. It would also be useful to the reader >>> to know the extent to which these provisions have been interpreted >>> in courts in cases that have come their way involving assembly and >>> association. >>> >>> This draft is trying to fulfill the explicit language from the HRPC >>> charter, the relevant portion of which is: >>> >>> "The Human Rights Protocol Considerations Research Group is >>> chartered to research whether standards and protocols can enable, >>> strengthen or threaten human rights, as defined in the Universal >>> Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) [1] and the International >>> Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) [2], specifically, >>> but not limited to the right to freedom of expression and the right >>> to freedom of assembly." >>> >>> Therefore to talk about the regulation of code is out of scope. >> There is one aspect that could be better drawn out: is the >> interpretation of these two documents consistent with the >> interpretation by most governments? If it is not, would proposed >> applications present difficulties in implementing the protocols >> approved by SDOs such as the IETF, and under what circumstances? I am >> specifically thinking of the examples you have in the draft (spam, >> DDOS) as well as perhaps something around lawful intercept (not >> entirely tangential to freedom of assembly). I don’t see that >> outside the scope of the charter. >> >> Also, we just had a live example in the US of use of technology to >> organize what could alternatively be described as a peaceful assembly >> or an insurrection. Surely this draft would be remiss to not explore >> the technology implications, given the use of encryption by some of >> the parties. >> >> Eliot >> >> _______________________________________________ >> hrpc mailing list >> hrpc@irtf.org >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >> >> [1] >> Garanti sans virus. www.avast.com [1] >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Eliot Lear >> To: Mark Perkins >> Cc: hrpc@irtf.org >> Bcc: >> Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 11:06:46 +0100 >> Subject: Re: [hrpc] comments, draft association >> Hi Mark, >> >>> What is the interpretation of 'most' governments? Clearly this >>> question will have multiple responses, as often there is no >>> agreement, in fact there is clear disagreement >> Good point. That in itself is good to understand. One of the >> challenges I’ve faced in other domains like during the 2014(?) >> Budapest Convention review has been potential conflicting regulatory >> requirements. To be clear, I’m not suggesting so wide a scope, but >> rather a focus on how our protocol suite development needs to consider >> these conflicts. >> >>> What is the difference between all of the above, esp UN >>> interpretation & interpretation by 'most' governments OR the >>> different governmental interpretations? >> I like the latter- “different government interpretations”. That >> in itself can highlight problems that the IETF can’t solve, but >> others should. >> >> By the way, real world problems are good problems for this group to >> address (IMHO). >> >> Eliot_______________________________________________ >> hrpc mailing list >> hrpc@irtf.org >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >> >> >> Links: >> ------ >> [1] https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient >> _______________________________________________ >> hrpc mailing list >> hrpc@irtf.org >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc -- Mallory Knodel CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780 From nobody Fri Apr 16 03:06:53 2021 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 43EC03A1E0D for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 03:06:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-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 (1024-bit key) header.d=cdt.org Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2VU5J6Ecapqw for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 03:06:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qv1-xf36.google.com (mail-qv1-xf36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f36]) (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 EDE123A1F3D for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 03:06:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qv1-xf36.google.com with SMTP id h15so3326469qvu.4 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 03:06:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cdt.org; s=google; h=message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject:content-language:to :references:from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zOx/U8ZJ2/YKFCyk0iX9dHrhJWCBotzdVh5I8hwtFqU=; b=sv1saFxWv4BRdJ6AR24SQa8UCljK/m0hV0ekG38MzR1nDrGPmMhlnFlS+caND1vKNw kU5QV9tkqbyEPPbsaTMQadu+mRpfWR4fZMJgimi2PH9ULb65J1hT++qUh+fz4WPq5nD2 ltoDHN796rgh3gEHlVnQG1vHwz5XWLP0zo2pk= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=zOx/U8ZJ2/YKFCyk0iX9dHrhJWCBotzdVh5I8hwtFqU=; b=foZVqyYnohgJfSSFG1OkNFXK1BxPbwyCcEqCczPa4isvAFCHIZxyRNi4Y3OnmfwaQ/ 8FELPrGkCsmRYpdE4oIndXA78UBmvl5FEeKx1+YRLO6V7ObaXObZrfWYjryJs06Yaa1W S2zYQ4SnM0oHllwtNV2msBvborybZFmaI64GAiVI45WJzRlS0e99lxr2HBkj4Bvl7pK+ 6q2EkyTXW1vsszUMO7y5NzORWS8JC6R3+B+mp02Fj0dzT2zSbYWA1nv2jVgfGUgnZxYT JCmdnOJE+qDhIi7NZQPLeOhIcRGbId+cJarOof7n3X97f8RXD2u4bah6HGn5Piilv2lM nlCg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531nlZBD8S+rRiAeMxodD+SugopCyA8GgbqCMAN/TLx9fP5veHxv B2hFcjeRtcW+fDOAKkbNONmD/hcs20P5mA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz8kxcVXQ7zd2Ck5IkhRxKcgG8RPoCpuBfgiaXr0BJn01EYKi4uTRYY9R/Xz4u0EdvpqO6JmQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:88d:: with SMTP id cz13mr7544648qvb.13.1618567603648; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 03:06:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (c-73-163-188-207.hsd1.dc.comcast.net. [73.163.188.207]) by smtp.gmail.com with UTF8SMTPSA id u184sm2519505qkd.82.2021.04.16.03.06.43 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 16 Apr 2021 03:06:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <9e01a920-9f00-9b97-4f55-350bddfbdb60@cdt.org> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 06:06:42 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:88.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/88.0 Content-Language: en-US To: hrpc@irtf.org References: From: Mallory Knodel In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] re implementation of code 451 X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: hrpc discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 10:06:51 -0000 Hi, On 3/8/21 3:27 PM, Sandra Braman wrote: > A correction:  In my earlier email in response to Mallory's response > to my comments on draft association, I referred to errors in a > document about US law.  Having been given next to no time to absorb > and think through the new draft and her comments before IETF began, > during a period in which I have several other commitments in place, I > was in a rush but let me correct the point.  What I was thinking of > was in the draft implementation report on Code 451 > (https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-451-imp-report-00.html#rfc.section.6 > ). > Section 17.1 here re US law is correct, there is a statutory > requirement that third party intermediaries take down copyrighted > content in response to assertions of infringement, having in essence > been deputized by the US government to that end in lieu of requiring > disputes to actually be settled in court (itself very problematic). > Most of the items in 17.2 are private party decisions, not legal > requirements -- it was to those, and additional areas in which high > profile takedowns have taken place recently, upon which I was > commenting when I said that these are NOT legally mandated takedowns > for which use of code 451 would be appropriate. > > As a separate matter:  I'd love to do a full-bore analysis of where > things are with code 451 at this point, if anyone with the technical > skills required to see what has happened and is happening would be > interested in collaborating on such a project. There were a couple of things that sort of dampened this work, though 451 is still in use by some. The first is DoH or any private DNS really where you can't so easily MITM DNS traffic to show someone a landing page with an error code. The second was a general distaste for measuring it. When I talked to folks who do measurement of censorship, they seemed skeptical that the statistics on use of 451 would be meaningful. Besides, they said, they were more interested in illegitimate filtering and blocking being done by authoritarians, not so much interested in how well US lawyers are invoking the DMCA (presumably and anecdotally where most 451 traffic comes from). -Mallory > -- Mallory Knodel CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780 From nobody Fri Apr 16 03:12:13 2021 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 6A4743A1F75 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 03:12:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=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 (1024-bit key) header.d=cdt.org Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dmuoeu_CF_R5 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 03:12:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qk1-x735.google.com (mail-qk1-x735.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::735]) (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 F3FDC3A1F72 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 03:12:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk1-x735.google.com with SMTP id d23so16190766qko.12 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 03:12:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cdt.org; s=google; h=message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject:content-language:to :references:from:in-reply-to; bh=EUKYCDY5LWnFdrnIAZEKYrlWiVliif4wdwP1WhNjdu8=; b=MRCZ/aYyag1/cAmGGIheEk5YAE5gIi2SKQ3Br9z9Adf9lh7vbmuzZdAU0fFV8xm3yn P6F1wkajoEnzzC1SSnYdRQLRyrRFObQqh7udLE73oudVb7lheefkDWRJbeHUGMDYSkSE CLEa3qknflPzsUV5Wkft1SK2i/32P/QK3g828= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:references:from:in-reply-to; bh=EUKYCDY5LWnFdrnIAZEKYrlWiVliif4wdwP1WhNjdu8=; b=Ka84nyrfqgeS5RZvQp5dPA5n31+1E5fNXdtR4FNySky/BzIEZU50VhETVssfd5kxcs sNQNFqEw1Rjf9g/fNWoY3Yp3EG9KGsRcLwwF7WonywQMOcQwW+OMuvcRxAorQhRfy89P EHUmGrOF4E8Gj41A2W36TSvmm4971Gp6x54CkYSueKEo+3V+p4SZLDA8U0WDtv5Aczzo YchyWC7Ncr5YsrqcUJE5DQhEpTZuuSTzQ8yY4+RynMu39YT94MR2EEv00sAMJFch++Il 7RUAnw57vscIVN3hONrpkWObE9dU3an8krGkVxM5PrvWs61egPaAqJVouUEhbF2Lbj/W gkfw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533GzFgAbtL9cM9FNrypLFqjqvYOJA/WlMoLupKHbI2npZLDq1gO xwr1e91uqnGFwI5zgzxSFvwf3gS+bNPqgQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxx2q+pF/5UpKM9lpXJJzc/kOGCk74QvLR1jlqmYArXv+7nrCTLzeG64BAa9clKZzygE1Px/Q== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:5e1:: with SMTP id z1mr3816849qkg.254.1618567925728; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 03:12:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (c-73-163-188-207.hsd1.dc.comcast.net. [73.163.188.207]) by smtp.gmail.com with UTF8SMTPSA id e13sm3721789qtg.6.2021.04.16.03.12.05 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 16 Apr 2021 03:12:05 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------JmeCHCZVhb2ZhbhTntAq0iXG" Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 06:12:03 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:88.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/88.0 Content-Language: en-US To: hrpc@irtf.org References: <72472e7b-5311-75d5-da3a-2db23912ea83@cdt.org> <9d9d9690-c25f-5f96-a6ce-1e81e0968338@yahoo.com> From: Mallory Knodel In-Reply-To: Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] comments, draft association X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: hrpc discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 10:12:12 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------JmeCHCZVhb2ZhbhTntAq0iXG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi, On 3/8/21 5:06 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: >> What is the interpretation of 'most' governments? Clearly this >> question will have multiple responses, as often there is no >> agreement, in fact there is clear disagreement > > Good point.  That in itself is good to understand.  One of the > challenges I’ve faced in other domains like during the 2014(?) > Budapest Convention review has been potential conflicting regulatory > requirements.  To be clear, I’m not suggesting so wide a scope, but > rather a focus on how our protocol suite development needs to consider > these conflicts. >> >> What is the difference between all of the above, esp UN >> interpretation & interpretation by 'most' governments OR the >> different governmental interpretations? >> > > I like the latter- “different government interpretations”.  That > in itself can highlight problems that the IETF *can’t* solve, but > others *should*. > > By the way, real world problems are good problems for this group to > address (IMHO). > I couldn't agree more. I'd like to get the point where we can go more deeply in certain areas. At the same time without some basic grounding in questions like, what is the relationship between the FAA and protocols?, keeps us from using our time on fresher questions. It's an excellent indicator that this more basic (and now old-ish and boring) is sparking such great ideas for how to take this work deeper! It means we've collectively developed ennui with our research paper in its final stages and are ready for the next bunch of things. No one has to wait for draft-assocation's publication to start those projects when it's nearly there already. -Mallory -- Mallory Knodel CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780 --------------JmeCHCZVhb2ZhbhTntAq0iXG Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi,

On 3/8/21 5:06 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
What is the interpretation of 'most' governments? Clearly this question will have multiple responses, as often there is no agreement, in fact there is clear disagreement

Good point.  That in itself is good to understand.  One of the challenges I’ve faced in other domains like during the 2014(?) Budapest Convention review has been potential conflicting regulatory requirements.  To be clear, I’m not suggesting so wide a scope, but rather a focus on how our protocol suite development needs to consider these conflicts.

What is the difference between all of the above, esp UN interpretation & interpretation by 'most' governments OR the different governmental interpretations?


I like the latter- “different government interpretations”.  That in itself can highlight problems that the IETF can’t solve, but others should.

By the way, real world problems are good problems for this group to address (IMHO).

I couldn't agree more. I'd like to get the point where we can go more deeply in certain areas. At the same time without some basic grounding in questions like, what is the relationship between the FAA and protocols?, keeps us from using our time on fresher questions.

It's an excellent indicator that this more basic (and now old-ish and boring) is sparking such great ideas for how to take this work deeper! It means we've collectively developed ennui with our research paper in its final stages and are ready for the next bunch of things.

No one has to wait for draft-assocation's publication to start those projects when it's nearly there already.

-Mallory

-- 
Mallory Knodel
CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780
--------------JmeCHCZVhb2ZhbhTntAq0iXG-- From nobody Fri Apr 16 03:35:27 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@irtf.org Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8459E3A2041; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 03:35:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Cc: hrpc@irtf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.28.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <161856932449.26840.1010533041134689084@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 03:35:24 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] I-D Action: draft-irtf-hrpc-association-08.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: hrpc discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 10:35:25 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Human Rights Protocol Considerations RG of the IRTF. Title : Freedom of Association on the Internet Authors : Niels ten Oever Gisela Perez de Acha Stéphane Couture Mallory Knodel Filename : draft-irtf-hrpc-association-08.txt Pages : 33 Date : 2021-04-16 Abstract: This document discusses the relationships between the Internet architecture and the ability of people to exercise their right to peaceful assembly and the right to association online. The Internet increasingly mediates our lives, our relationships, and our ability to exercise our human rights. As a global assemblage, the Internet provides a public space, yet it is predominantly built on private infrastructure. Since Internet protocols and architecture play a central role in the management, development, and use of the Internet, we analyze the relation between protocols, architecture, and the rights to assemble and associate to mitigate infringements on those rights. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-hrpc-association/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-hrpc-association-08 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-hrpc-association-08 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-irtf-hrpc-association-08 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Fri Apr 16 09:52:13 2021 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 8E0AE3A2C20 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 09:52:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.398 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.398 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, URI_NOVOWEL=0.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tamu-edu.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 xyxGEh85vGpR for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 09:52:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io1-xd36.google.com (mail-io1-xd36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d36]) (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 B2CF73A2B44 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 09:52:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd36.google.com with SMTP id f15so19562432iob.5 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 09:52:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tamu-edu.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=HXzaExt+YGT27eCt4uvAsewL0tAvAzLvirfhk0H7f8U=; b=sUfu47FTjyQzoff6aV4KOK9Ki4Jh6gOsxs2U3f2NdLc2JMLVpekEa/6ye5PF86g8dl TP0pkORzSQMpY+sMzl75j5ZhSJCCzw3cbEUR4gAfIMcKhIx7ef1/ZR3dDiZYqxVfrhlJ bttjseQjkTKmbmZ5Wadpxw8uSNIoDyZ1jwjyFfdXsfcNIzkl419D+CG8fyGk4tn2tquI aMXDNNecldAN/4Ua/ec5N4aujqxl+GfZ4dRtRjXIIXeNxysxKLXKktiCQj6gQtSgvCGF FD9RvIfB4KrZq0U0xNRDyHus93N1O1IYFLWGKCtIsBVeq9jaJatF98QrRpLQfRAtuVuc 7xig== 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; bh=HXzaExt+YGT27eCt4uvAsewL0tAvAzLvirfhk0H7f8U=; b=BNRYpLRaPIKvBfp2q3M2hlZ/NUOYfALfc1oarqJXXrTA9KEwhe2BUwo7dggCtIUlVZ 0k7qvoyz4cM2g72ySaMRbHlHdfy5qdfM7DonWmTS2pmWc+yZZJC1ICT8cmzm09tShpDM t03YOyDIVpU5/5A1LTckTRKHUEUEPxzLz6oPfW/akrcEdxh3E+14Ft7u8DAsnTWiInlj YrSz+OO0nBH2Ab9LsCLuImH6EH7oeQ6ZXSZbuu5W7YO1EJ1f0c81P2ytyKBLSabyC2Vp TW+DPayg7lnc35Ip7XaFJPzNexLSKauXypG0ePxn6H6wpBrS0xLrio5ymI0NKi54uqjt rLTw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532yYWsLkXhDb/vYSL3c3onDWrlhT3MJIxU2bxoXLmYn93L4wZr+ orlAUcF5zwVqQLsPBUSzMx+ofgz7N4+h4ewqx3AU2elYQA+DVA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwNqkdfJpS3eh0dfefZIrTXOcI9KSENRI1LQQVwfSH4ekke8gDqJLYk3pCEuOJ4rKECVwp+vCvokcdXXR9vpRc= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:7209:: with SMTP id n9mr4052639ioc.190.1618591921397; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 09:52:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Sandra Braman Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 11:51:25 -0500 Message-ID: To: hrpc@irtf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000082f8a405c019cc8c" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] hrpc Digest, Vol 73, Issue 4 X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: hrpc discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 16:52:12 -0000 --00000000000082f8a405c019cc8c Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks for this update, Mallory. To repeat points made more than once before: It would still make a big difference to the utility of the piece if you provide operational definitions of association and assembly -- each as distinct from communication -- in international human rights law. The current draft conflates all of these in a manner that evacuates the meaning of association and assembly as distinct concepts. A half a dozen or so scholarly articles about how the right to association is understood within international human rights law specifically have been provided that will help you with this. Those discussions, references to those items, and further bibliographic searching can help you on the assembly side. Once those definitions are in place, you will want to review the cases you discuss and delete those that involve only communication but not either assembly or association, as I've recommended before, so that the piece is internally coherent. Will look at the revised text once you get there to see if these issues are resolved before considering possible language for your conclusion. Sandra On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:59 AM wrote: > Send hrpc mailing list submissions to > hrpc@irtf.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;= !!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwwsk7= F6A$ > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > hrpc-request@irtf.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > hrpc-owner@irtf.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of hrpc digest..." > Today's Topics: > > 1. draft-association general update + response to: [Re: re > international & national law, draft association] (Mallory Knodel) > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Mallory Knodel > To: lvermeer@riseup.net, hrpc@irtf.org > Cc: lvermeer@icnlalliance.org > Bcc: > Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 05:58:50 -0400 > Subject: [hrpc] draft-association general update + response to: [Re: re > international & national law, draft association] > Hi everyone, > > Excuse the top post. I am following up on this conversation about > draft-association generally, with a specific list of ways forward that > relate to what's been discussed below. > > The notes on draft-association from 110 are transcribed verbatim due to > the importance of the topic and you can find them in the datatracker. I > then translated the clear action points into Github issues. The authors > have worked (are working) through them and a new version should be > coming along shortly. > > In the meeting we addressed the issue of scope and international versus > national laws. So, as it relates here are the two relevant conclusions > for draft-association that we came to: > > 1/ We take the point that the HR framework requires actioned laws by > national implementors, and so we can't discount the impacts on the > subject. In the meeting we decided to reinforce the basis of this by > first treating only IHRL as principles, yet we will *point to future > research, or a research gap, in the conclusion text*. Sandra, would you > be able to provide a very short paragraph about this possible future work= ? > > 2/ Relatedly, we then need to better define the scope up front such that > it's clear we are limiting ourselves to IHRL, and why, and avoiding a > discussion-- for now-- of national laws, at least in this document. > > I hope that's helpful. Excited to share the next version of this > document with you all-- it's looking really good, so thanks very much! > > -Mallory > > On 3/11/21 6:31 AM, lvermeer@riseup.net wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > Apologies for responding to this interesting conversation only now. > > Especially for those of you in the western hemisphere, this controbutio= n > > won't be timely for the meeting later today. I look forward to > > discussing the draft on association this afternoon (CET) and continuing > > it over email. > > > > I must admit I have difficulties keeping track of the discussion across > > multiple email threads so I might be missing out on some argument. See > > my responses to Sandra and Eliot in-line below! > > > > Best to all, Lisa > > > > > > On 08-03-2021 19:06, Sandra Braman wrote: > >> Thanks to you all for launching this discussion. Mallory and her > >> co-authors have made progress, in areas going beyond her email to > >> include significant changes in wording, and I am delighted that > >> another legal expert's advice has been sought. However -- depending > >> upon the goal of the exercise -- in my view there are issues that > >> remain. Rather than bundle several different issues into single > >> emails, as before, here will concentrate on the points brought up in > >> this discussion. > >> > >> It appears that Mallory and her co-authors have misunderstood what the > >> "scope of work" is when relying on international treaties, and > >> therefore misunderstood why some of the comments I made regarding > >> legal sources were made. Will first discuss how the kind of legal > >> problem being addressed here, and the kind of argument these authors > >> are making, are approached by legal scholars; go on to address the > >> specific concepts of association and assembly; and conclude with a > >> point about genre. > >> > >> Doing research on protocols and the rights of association and assembly > >> as established by international human rights law > >> > >> Mallory reminds us of the scope of the HRPC and how draft association > >> fits into it. The word "defined" is used in the HRPC charter to refer > >> to what is said in the UDHR and ICCPR regarding what are to be > >> considered human rights. Those documents, however, don't actually > >> define the concepts involved -- they providing a list of the kinds of > >> rights to be protected. Any work relying on those treaties necessarily > >> involves probing the concepts mentioned for what they actually mean on > >> the ground. There are three ways of doing this: analysis of > >> precedent, analysis of different approaches taken in different > >> jurisdictions, and novel theorization and/or argumentation. These > >> three approaches are often combined for the strongest work products, > >> with the relative proportions of each type of investigation varying > >> with the problem at hand. Undertaking all three of these kinds of > >> analysis are within the scope of the HRPC because they are by > >> definition within the scope of what it means to rely upon the > >> international human rights treaties. > > I'm excited that we are working on this draft at the same time that the > > Human Rights Committee published its General Comment 37 about peaceful > > assembly, one of the rights under discussion. The GC does not provide > > details about how this right is interpreted by various governments but = I > > know that the comment itself it based on a long process of research, > > consultation and negotation. My suggestion for this research paper is t= o > > take the GC37 as starting point for at least the issues related to > > protocols and assembly. Currently, at ICNL and ECNL - and we're not the > > only ones - we're stimulating ongoing discussions about the GC37 and in > > particular what digitally mediated assemblies are an how they should be > > protected, which could provide insight for this community. My suggestio= n > > is to focus our discussion and attention to identifying how protocol > > design relates to digitally mediated assemblies, association and > > discuss and strengthen the exmaples in the paper, instead of long and > > in-depth legal analysis. I agree that references to authoritative > > interpretations should be added to the current list. > >> A strong analog for what HRPC is trying to do with the Internet design > >> process is the effort by the international legal community to figure > >> out whether existing international law applies to cyber operations of > >> national security concern. A particularly rich model of what that > >> involves are the _Tallinn Manual_ and _Tallinn Manual 2.0_, which > >> provide exhaustive analyses of each of the pertinent concepts in > >> international laws of war, clearly specifying where consensus was > >> reached within the group of international legal experts involved, and > >> where it was not, with the diverse positions identified for the > >> latter. > > The Tallinn Manual is indeed an interesting example of how the > > specialized cyber scholarly community tackles an ongoing issue (applyin= g > > int'l law in cyberspace) that at the same time is subject of > > geopolitical debate in the UN. As a former diplomat I know how importan= t > > this manual to underpin governments' positions. My impression however, > > but please forgive me my newby status in this community, is that a > > process like the Tallinn Manual is much too specialized on internationa= l > > law in its full depths compared to what we try to accomplish here i.e. > > help improving protocols. I therefore don't think it's necessary to > > discuss all treaties and all different national interpretations in this > > research paper, but that the most important and up to date notions abou= t > > the FOAA should be there underpinned by authorative voices such as UNSR= s > > and the HRC. > > > >> A discussion of about a week ago of a panel of international legal > >> scholars, including Michael Schmitt, who served as editor for both > >> Tallinn manuals, gives a sense of the state of play regarding > >> international law and war in cyberspace right now. Much of this > >> conversation about international law and cyberespace involved > >> discussing trends in national-level treatment of problems such as > >> whether or not data is an object, identifying the range of positions > >> out there, how many states aligned with each position, and where > >> shifts were taking place, followed by each expert's argument for their > >> preferred position. If you want to see what that kind of conversation > >> looks like, you can see it here: > >> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.dvidshub.net/video/785840/interna= tional-law-professors-discuss-2020-cyberspace-operations-developments-2021-= uscybercom-legal-conference__;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o= _szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwEFLPjjw$ > . > >> My suggestions regarding looking at national law were for this reason > >> -- as sources for insight into how to articulate the two distinct > >> rights of association and assembly for purposes of this attempt to > >> apply international human rights law to Internet standards by looking > >> at how they have been put forth by national governments. > >> > >> (RFC 8280 includes false statements about US law that can be used to > >> take down pages because it ignores Sec. 230, which protects third > >> party intermediaries from liability for speech by those using its > >> platforms. If a US-based platform decides to take down either a > >> specific message or a user who egregiously incites illegal violence > >> likely to harm society or misinformation of a kind that can damage the > >> health of individuals and communities such as drinking bleach, that is > >> NOT because of a law. It is because a private entity decided to take > >> the action on the basis of principles it has established for itself > >> and the communities that the platform hosts and facilitates. It can do > >> that because users of the platform sign a contract to abide by its > >> rules, the terms of service or acceptable use agreement. Contract law > >> is actually the law that matters in this regard.) > >> > >> Development of the law to apply to new problems is heavily influenced > >> by precedent, legal decision-making that has come before. The > >> analytical job in new situations involves identifying what it is in > >> the new situation that is like what came before, and what is different > >> and therefore may justify adapting the law, reinterpreting it, and/or > >> developing new law. The way to conduct this anaylysis is to study > >> pertinent court opinions. My suggestions for looking at court cases > >> involving international human rights law were for this reason -- as > >> sources for insight into how to articulate the rights of association > >> and assembly for purposes of this attempt to apply international human > >> rights law to Internet protocols by looking at how those rights have > >> been interpreted by courts in the past. Much of the thinking in these > >> opinions will not deal specifically with the cyber environment; it is > >> there that the role of original argument and theorization are required > >> to extrapolate from precedent to how it is being recommended that it > >> should apply to Internet protocols. > >> > >> Authors of this draft RFC need not conduct all of the necessary > >> analysis themselves. There is an existing literature on international > >> human rights law and the rights of association and assembly. A quick > >> search identified several items that are far from exhaustive of what > >> is available. These items would complement and expand on what is > >> learned from the piece by Peter Swire, as the piece by a legal scholar > >> that deals with international human rights law and association > >> currently cited. > >> > >> Boyle, Kevin, and Sangeeta Shah. (2014). "Thought, expression, > >> association, and assembly." In Daniel Moeckli, Sangeeta Shah, & > >> Sandesh Sivakumaran (Eds.), _International human rights law_, pp. > >> 257-279. Oxford: Oxford University Press. > >> > >> Haas, Ernst B. (1970). _Human rights and international action: The > >> case of freedom of association_. Stanford: Stanford University Press. > >> > >> Hamilton, Michael. (2020). The meaning and scope of "assembly" in > >> international human rights law, _International and Comparative Law > >> Quarterly_, _69_(3), 521-556. > >> > >> Hamilton, Michael. (2020). To facilitate and protect: State > >> obligations and the right of peaceful assembly in international human > >> right law, _Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law_, > >> _21_(1), 5-34. > >> > >> Kalin, Walter & Kunzli, Jorg. (2019). Protection of participation in > >> political life. In _The law of international human rights protection_, > >> 2nd ed., pp. 491-519. Oxford: Oxford University Press. > >> > >> Salat, Orsolya. (2014). Comparative freedom of assembly and the > >> fragmentation of human rights law, _Nordic Journal of Human Rights_, > >> _32_(2), 140-156. > >> > >> Tyulkina, Svetlana. (2014). Fragmentation in international human > >> rights law: Political parties and freedom of association in the > >> practice of the UN Human Rights Committee, European Court of Human > >> Rights and Inter-American Court of Human Rights, _Nordic Journal of > >> Human Rights_, _32_(2), 157-175. > >> > >> Defining the rights of association and assembly > >> > >> The legal scholarship on international human rights law finds the > >> right of association to refer to formal organizations of individuals > >> who join together to pursue a specific goal. Membership is explicit > >> and recognized, there are rules, typically there are officers, there > >> may be staff, etc. The concept of the right of association in > >> international law has been most fully developed as it applies to labor > >> unions, although it is also understood to apply to political parties > >> and civil society groups of all kinds. The right of assembly, at > >> minimum, requires only two individuals or more who intentionally > >> assemble, though there are interpretations that require more than > >> that. > >> > >> This draft on the rights of association and assembly goes back and > >> forth between treating them as two separate rights and treating them > >> together as a single right, with the text dominated by the latter. The > >> document will be stronger if the authors choose one of these two > >> positions and stick with it. Treating the rights as two separate > >> rights is the approach that aligns with international law because of > >> the difference in how the two concepts are defined and used in > >> international law. > > I agree that the rights should be treated as separate rights thourghout > > the entire text. > > > > The fact that these two rights interact with other > >> rights, such as privacy and freedom of expression, is important and > >> worth including in the analysis, but does not make these rights > >> synonymous with each other. > >> > >> This draft includes temporary groupings of people as an association, > >> although in my understanding this is not upheld by international law. > >> That could, of course, be my ignorance. I would appreciate reference > >> to sources for this element of the definition of association that has > >> been valuably added to this draft. > > Well noted, will look for a good reference because it is indeed > > understood that temporary groupings are also protected under the freedo= m > > to associate. This does raise the question to what extent we should > > adress the legal nitty-gritty (please forgive me, laywers in the room > > :)) of these rights in this paper, or primarily aim to generate basis > > understanding of the key aspects of these rights - with strong > > references to the ongoing scholarly discussion added. With my comments > > to the paper, I hoped to strike a balance between the legal experts on > > the one hand and the tech experts in the IETF community because too muc= h > > detail on legal interpretations might scare readers without a legal > > background. > > > >> This draft also includes being a member of an audience to which a mass > >> message has been sent as a form of assembly, although in my > >> understanding this is not upheld by international law. In the example > >> given, spam, the pertinent right on the part of those who do not wish > >> to receive the messages is the right not to receive, not anything > >> involving association. This again could be my ignorance and I would > >> appreciate reference to sources for making this claim. The item cited > >> by Marcus discusses freedom of expression but does not mention freedom > >> of association. > >> > >> I am not going to review each of the cases discussed in this draft > >> under the rubric of association or work through each of the places > >> where communication, association, and assembly become conflated in > >> ways that are problematic from a legal perspective, but if the authors > >> would like to pull together a group of legal scholars to fully develop > >> understandings of the two separate rights of association and assembly > >> for the cyber environment -- importantly, as they are different from > >> expression, communication, and access to information as other rights > >> distinguished under international human rights law -- I would be happy > >> to join that group. > >> > >> Genre > >> > >> I have been understanding HRPC informational RFCs and drafts as > >> contributions to knowledge production and intended to be of use both > >> within the Internet design community and in the legal community. > >> Concerns about bringing the technical and legal communities into a > >> common conversation to mutual -- and societal -- advantage has been > >> underway for 3 decades now at least (with Mallory's current employer, > >> CDT, an important early and sustained leader in this effort). We are > >> finally seeing new, important, developments in this regard with a > >> quickly growing number of academic programs being launched to train > >> people in both types of expertise and their interactions as well as a > >> now significant literature in this area and maturing sophistication on > >> the part of many policy-makers. > >> > >> Mallory's response to my comments educated me to the history of the > >> decision not to put in place a checklist for use by those involved in > >> designing protocols, and I appreciate the reasoning behind that. As is > >> mentioned in this draft, the dual use nature of almost all, if not > >> all, protocols and their characteristics, could mean that, actually, > >> nothing can be done by engineers other than to acknowledge that uses > >> can be made of their work products that may be in violation of > >> international human rights law. > >> > >> That in itself is not a trivial accomplishment. Research has shown > >> that the RFCs document that those involved in Internet design have > >> been concerned about matters such as privacy, equity, and fairness > >> from the very start, but that discussion has appeared in social > >> science publications not likely to be encountered or referenced by > >> those designing protocols. I may have been misunderstanding the point > >> of the exercise. That would mean that the genre here is actually the > >> metadata -- the fact that human rights has now been officially > >> recognized as something that can be violated through the use of the > >> Internet via documents appearing in the RFCs -- rather than the > >> substance of the evidence and arguments brought to bear. To date, > >> this is essentially the use made of RFC 8280 in the few items > >> published to date both within and outside of the RFCs that reference > >> it. > >> > >> If the genre and rhetorical goals go beyond metadata to also be of use > >> to legal scholars, policy-makers, and social scientists as well, as I > >> originally understood the point of the exercise, then in my view more > >> work needs to be done and I would be willing to join the effort if > >> welcomed. The team put together to accomplish that work should include > >> experts in each of the areas involved; my judgments regarding > >> technical problems in protocol design aren't worth anything at all. > >> This work will be strongest if those with a depth in the law are > >> involved in making legal arguments; the issue mentioned above > >> regarding US law as discussed in RFC 8280 is also not trivial. > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 4:07 AM wrote: > >> > >>> Send hrpc mailing list submissions to > >>> hrpc@irtf.org > >>> > >>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > >>> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;= !!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwwsk7= F6A$ > >>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > >>> hrpc-request@irtf.org > >>> > >>> You can reach the person managing the list at > >>> hrpc-owner@irtf.org > >>> > >>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > >>> than "Re: Contents of hrpc digest..." > >>> Today's Topics: > >>> > >>> 1. Re: comments, draft association (Eliot Lear) > >>> 2. Re: comments, draft association (Mark Perkins) > >>> 3. Re: comments, draft association (Eliot Lear) > >>> > >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>> From: Eliot Lear > >>> To: Mallory Knodel > >>> Cc: Hrpc , Sandra Braman > >>> Bcc: > >>> Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 10:08:27 +0100 > >>> Subject: Re: [hrpc] comments, draft association > >>> > >>> Hi Mallory, > >>> > >>> Ok, so on with it in-line below (combining your two emails): > >>> > >>> On 2/6/21 3:35 AM, Sandra Braman wrote: > >>> > >>> The international treaties discussed in this draft are not a part of > >>> the scholarly literature covered in literature reviews, but the > >>> legal authorities on the basis of which claims made here are > >>> justified. Although I agree with the authors that this is not the > >>> place for a comprehensive discussion and synthesis of the scholarly > >>> literature, coverage of the pertinent treaty provisions _should_ be > >>> comprehensive. Treaty provisions only matter, though, where > >>> treaties have been ratified. It would also be useful to the reader > >>> to know the extent to which these provisions have been interpreted > >>> in courts in cases that have come their way involving assembly and > >>> association. > >>> > >>> This draft is trying to fulfill the explicit language from the HRPC > >>> charter, the relevant portion of which is: > >>> > >>> "The Human Rights Protocol Considerations Research Group is > >>> chartered to research whether standards and protocols can enable, > >>> strengthen or threaten human rights, as defined in the Universal > >>> Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) [1] and the International > >>> Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) [2], specifically, > >>> but not limited to the right to freedom of expression and the right > >>> to freedom of assembly." > >>> > >>> Therefore to talk about the regulation of code is out of scope. > >> There is one aspect that could be better drawn out: is the > >> interpretation of these two documents consistent with the > >> interpretation by most governments? If it is not, would proposed > >> applications present difficulties in implementing the protocols > >> approved by SDOs such as the IETF, and under what circumstances? > > I think there is gap between interpretations of authorities such as the > > HRC and interpretations by many governments. I agree that its important > > to address this to enable readers to understand what it would mean to > > implement protocols given this gap. I look forward to collaborating on > > text suggestions here. > > > >> I am > >> specifically thinking of the examples you have in the draft (spam, > >> DDOS) as well as perhaps something around lawful intercept (not > >> entirely tangential to freedom of assembly). I don=E2=80=99t see that > >> outside the scope of the charter. > >> > >> Also, we just had a live example in the US of use of technology to > >> organize what could alternatively be described as a peaceful assembly > >> or an insurrection. Surely this draft would be remiss to not explore > >> the technology implications, given the use of encryption by some of > >> the parties. > >> > >> Eliot > >> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> From: Mark Perkins > >> To: hrpc@irtf.org > >> Cc: > >> Bcc: > >> Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 20:52:40 +1100 > >> Subject: Re: [hrpc] comments, draft association > >> > >> Eliot > >> > >> "is the interpretation of these two documents consistent with the > >> interpretation by most governments?" > >> > >> Here I think we run into real world problems: > >> > >> What do the documents (UDHR & ICCPR) state? > >> > >> What is the interpretation of these two documents by the relevant UN > >> body (usually found in General Comments of UN Human Rights Committee, > >> but also occassionally International Tribunals, though these are > >> usually Regional decisions rather than International in the Global > >> sense) - eg General comment No. 37(2020) on theright of peaceful > >> assembly (article 21), 17September 2020 > >> > >> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/trea= tybodyexternal/TBSearch.aspx?Lang=3Den&TreatyID=3D8&DocTypeID=3D11__;!!KwNV= nqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwJMK-goE$ > >> > >> What is the interpretation of 'most' governments? Clearly this > >> question will have multiple responses, as often there is no agreement, > >> in fact there is clear disagreement > >> > >> What is the difference between all of the above, esp UN interpretation > >> & interpretation by 'most' governments OR the different governmental > >> interpretations? > >> > >> Mark P. > >> Le 08/03/2021 =C3=A0 20:08, Eliot Lear a =C3=A9crit : > >> > >>> Hi Mallory, > >>> > >>> Ok, so on with it in-line below (combining your two emails): > >>> > >>> On 2/6/21 3:35 AM, Sandra Braman wrote: > >>> > >>> The international treaties discussed in this draft are not a part of > >>> the scholarly literature covered in literature reviews, but the > >>> legal authorities on the basis of which claims made here are > >>> justified. Although I agree with the authors that this is not the > >>> place for a comprehensive discussion and synthesis of the scholarly > >>> literature, coverage of the pertinent treaty provisions _should_ be > >>> comprehensive. Treaty provisions only matter, though, where > >>> treaties have been ratified. It would also be useful to the reader > >>> to know the extent to which these provisions have been interpreted > >>> in courts in cases that have come their way involving assembly and > >>> association. > >>> > >>> This draft is trying to fulfill the explicit language from the HRPC > >>> charter, the relevant portion of which is: > >>> > >>> "The Human Rights Protocol Considerations Research Group is > >>> chartered to research whether standards and protocols can enable, > >>> strengthen or threaten human rights, as defined in the Universal > >>> Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) [1] and the International > >>> Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) [2], specifically, > >>> but not limited to the right to freedom of expression and the right > >>> to freedom of assembly." > >>> > >>> Therefore to talk about the regulation of code is out of scope. > >> There is one aspect that could be better drawn out: is the > >> interpretation of these two documents consistent with the > >> interpretation by most governments? If it is not, would proposed > >> applications present difficulties in implementing the protocols > >> approved by SDOs such as the IETF, and under what circumstances? I am > >> specifically thinking of the examples you have in the draft (spam, > >> DDOS) as well as perhaps something around lawful intercept (not > >> entirely tangential to freedom of assembly). I don=E2=80=99t see that > >> outside the scope of the charter. > >> > >> Also, we just had a live example in the US of use of technology to > >> organize what could alternatively be described as a peaceful assembly > >> or an insurrection. Surely this draft would be remiss to not explore > >> the technology implications, given the use of encryption by some of > >> the parties. > >> > >> Eliot > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> hrpc mailing list > >> hrpc@irtf.org > >> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;= !!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwwsk7= F6A$ > >> > >> [1] > >> Garanti sans virus. > https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.avast.com__;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVAr= zL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwCvRzTNo$ > [1] > >> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> From: Eliot Lear > >> To: Mark Perkins > >> Cc: hrpc@irtf.org > >> Bcc: > >> Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 11:06:46 +0100 > >> Subject: Re: [hrpc] comments, draft association > >> Hi Mark, > >> > >>> What is the interpretation of 'most' governments? Clearly this > >>> question will have multiple responses, as often there is no > >>> agreement, in fact there is clear disagreement > >> Good point. That in itself is good to understand. One of the > >> challenges I=E2=80=99ve faced in other domains like during the 2014(?) > >> Budapest Convention review has been potential conflicting regulatory > >> requirements. To be clear, I=E2=80=99m not suggesting so wide a scope= , but > >> rather a focus on how our protocol suite development needs to consider > >> these conflicts. > >> > >>> What is the difference between all of the above, esp UN > >>> interpretation & interpretation by 'most' governments OR the > >>> different governmental interpretations? > >> I like the latter- =E2=80=9Cdifferent government interpretations=E2=80= =9D. That > >> in itself can highlight problems that the IETF can=E2=80=99t solve, bu= t > >> others should. > >> > >> By the way, real world problems are good problems for this group to > >> address (IMHO). > >> > >> Eliot_______________________________________________ > >> hrpc mailing list > >> hrpc@irtf.org > >> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;= !!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwwsk7= F6A$ > >> > >> > >> Links: > >> ------ > >> [1] > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=3D= email&utm_source=3Dlink&utm_campaign=3Dsig-email&utm_content=3D= emailclient__;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7= l_Zh4PYYkwVMq6gRM$ > >> _______________________________________________ > >> hrpc mailing list > >> hrpc@irtf.org > >> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;= !!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwwsk7= F6A$ > > _______________________________________________ > > hrpc mailing list > > hrpc@irtf.org > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;= !!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwwsk7= F6A$ > > -- > Mallory Knodel > CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology > gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780 > > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;= !!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwwsk7= F6A$ > --00000000000082f8a405c019cc8c Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks for this update, Mallory.=C2=A0

To repeat points made more t= han once before: =C2=A0It would still make a big difference to the utility = of the piece if you provide operational definitions of association and asse= mbly -- each as distinct from communication -- in international human right= s law. The current draft conflates all of these in a manner that evacuates = the meaning of association and assembly as distinct concepts.=C2=A0A half a= dozen or so scholarly articles about how the right to association is under= stood within international human rights law specifically have been provided= that will help you with this. Those discussions, references to those items= , and further bibliographic searching can help you on the assembly side.

Once those definitions are i= n place, you will want to review the cases you discuss and delete those tha= t involve only communication but not either assembly or association, as I&#= 39;ve recommended before, so that the piece is internally coherent.

Will look at the revised text once you get there to see if = these issues are resolved before considering possible language for your con= clusion.=C2=A0

Sandra
=
On Fri= , Apr 16, 2021 at 4:59 AM <hrpc= -request@irtf.org> wrote:
Send hrpc mailin= g list submissions to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 hrpc@irtf.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc= __;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkww= sk7F6A$
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 hrpc-request@irtf.org

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

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

=C2=A0 =C2=A01. draft-association general update + response to: [Re: re
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 international & national law, draft association] (= Mallory Knodel)



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:=C2=A0Mallory K= nodel <mknodel@cdt.= org>
To:=C2=A0lvermeer@riseup.net, hrpc@irtf.org
Cc:=C2=A0lvermeer@icnlalliance.org
Bcc:=C2=A0
Dat= e:=C2=A0Fri, 16 Apr 2021 05:58:50 -0400
Subject:=C2=A0[hrpc] draft-assoc= iation general update + response to: [Re: re international & national l= aw, draft association]
Hi everyone,

Excuse the top post. I am following up on this conversation about
draft-association generally, with a specific list of ways forward that
relate to what's been discussed below.

The notes on draft-association from 110 are transcribed verbatim due to the importance of the topic and you can find them in the datatracker. I then translated the clear action points into Github issues. The authors have worked (are working) through them and a new version should be
coming along shortly.

In the meeting we addressed the issue of scope and international versus national laws. So, as it relates here are the two relevant conclusions
for draft-association that we came to:

1/ We take the point that the HR framework requires actioned laws by
national implementors, and so we can't discount the impacts on the
subject. In the meeting we decided to reinforce the basis of this by
first treating only IHRL as principles, yet we will *point to future
research, or a research gap, in the conclusion text*. Sandra, would you be able to provide a very short paragraph about this possible future work?<= br>
2/ Relatedly, we then need to better define the scope up front such that it's clear we are limiting ourselves to IHRL, and why, and avoiding a <= br> discussion-- for now-- of national laws, at least in this document.

I hope that's helpful. Excited to share the next version of this
document with you all-- it's looking really good, so thanks very much!<= br>
-Mallory

On 3/11/21 6:31 AM, lvermeer@riseup.net wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Apologies for responding to this interesting conversation only now. > Especially for those of you in the western hemisphere, this controbuti= on
> won't be timely for the meeting later today. I look forward to
> discussing the draft on association this afternoon (CET) and continuin= g
> it over email.
>
> I must admit I have difficulties keeping track of the discussion acros= s
> multiple email threads so I might be missing out on some argument. See=
> my responses to Sandra and Eliot in-line below!
>
> Best to all, Lisa
>
>
> On 08-03-2021 19:06, Sandra Braman wrote:
>> Thanks to you all for launching this discussion. Mallory and her >> co-authors have made progress, in areas going beyond her email to<= br> >> include significant changes in wording, and I am delighted that >> another legal expert's advice has been sought. However -- depe= nding
>> upon the goal of the exercise -- in my view there are issues that<= br> >> remain. Rather than bundle several different issues into single >> emails, as before, here will concentrate on the points brought up = in
>> this discussion.
>>
>> It appears that Mallory and her co-authors have misunderstood what= the
>> "scope of work" is when relying on international treatie= s, and
>> therefore misunderstood why some of the comments I made regarding<= br> >> legal sources were made. Will first discuss how the kind of legal<= br> >> problem being addressed here, and the kind of argument these autho= rs
>> are making, are approached by legal scholars; go on to address the=
>> specific concepts of association and assembly; and conclude with a=
>> point about genre.
>>
>> Doing research on protocols and the rights of association and asse= mbly
>> as established by international human rights law
>>
>> Mallory reminds us of the scope of the HRPC and how draft associat= ion
>> fits into it. The word "defined" is used in the HRPC cha= rter to refer
>> to what is said in the UDHR and ICCPR regarding what are to be
>> considered human rights. Those documents, however, don't actua= lly
>> define the concepts involved -- they providing a list of the kinds= of
>> rights to be protected. Any work relying on those treaties necessa= rily
>> involves probing the concepts mentioned for what they actually mea= n on
>> the ground. There are three ways of doing this:=C2=A0 analysis of<= br> >> precedent, analysis of different approaches taken in different
>> jurisdictions, and novel theorization and/or argumentation. These<= br> >> three approaches are often combined for the strongest work product= s,
>> with the relative proportions of each type of investigation varyin= g
>> with the problem at hand. Undertaking all three of these kinds of<= br> >> analysis are within the scope of the HRPC because they are by
>> definition within the scope of what it means to rely upon the
>> international human rights treaties.
> I'm excited that we are working on this draft at the same time tha= t the
> Human Rights Committee published its General Comment 37 about peaceful=
> assembly, one of the rights under discussion. The GC does not provide<= br> > details about how this right is interpreted by various governments but= I
> know that the comment itself it based on a long process of research, > consultation and negotation. My suggestion for this research paper is = to
> take the GC37 as starting point for at least the issues related to
> protocols and assembly. Currently, at ICNL and ECNL - and we're no= t the
> only ones - we're stimulating ongoing discussions about the GC37 a= nd in
> particular what digitally mediated assemblies are an how they should b= e
> protected, which could provide insight for this community. My suggesti= on
> is to focus our discussion and attention to identifying how protocol > design relates to digitally mediated assemblies, association and
> discuss and strengthen the exmaples in the paper, instead of long and<= br> > in-depth legal analysis. I agree that references to authoritative
> interpretations should be added to the current list.
>> A strong analog for what HRPC is trying to do with the Internet de= sign
>> process is the effort by the international legal community to figu= re
>> out whether existing international law applies to cyber operations= of
>> national security concern.=C2=A0 A particularly rich model of what= that
>> involves are the _Tallinn Manual_ and _Tallinn Manual 2.0_, which<= br> >> provide exhaustive analyses of each of the pertinent concepts in >> international laws of war, clearly specifying where consensus was<= br> >> reached within the group of international legal experts involved, = and
>> where it was not, with the diverse positions identified for the >> latter.
> The Tallinn Manual is indeed an interesting example of how the
> specialized cyber scholarly community tackles an ongoing issue (applyi= ng
> int'l law in cyberspace) that at the same time is subject of
> geopolitical debate in the UN. As a former diplomat I know how importa= nt
> this manual to underpin governments' positions. My impression howe= ver,
> but please forgive me my newby status in this community, is that a
> process like the Tallinn Manual is much too specialized on internation= al
> law in its full depths compared to what we try to accomplish here i.e.=
> help improving protocols. I therefore don't think it's necessa= ry to
> discuss all treaties and all different national interpretations in thi= s
> research paper, but that the most important and up to date notions abo= ut
> the FOAA should be there underpinned by authorative voices such as UNS= Rs
> and the HRC.
>
>> A discussion of about a week ago of a panel of international legal=
>> scholars, including Michael Schmitt, who served as editor for both=
>> Tallinn manuals, gives a sense of the state of play regarding
>> international law and war in cyberspace right now. Much of this >> conversation about international law and cyberespace involved
>> discussing trends in national-level treatment of problems such as<= br> >> whether or not data is an object, identifying the range of positio= ns
>> out there, how many states aligned with each position, and where >> shifts were taking place, followed by each expert's argument f= or their
>> preferred position. If you want to see what that kind of conversat= ion
>> looks like, you can see it here:
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.dvidshub.net/video/= 785840/international-law-professors-discuss-2020-cyberspace-operations-deve= lopments-2021-uscybercom-legal-conference__;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsI= J-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwEFLPjjw$ .
>> My suggestions regarding looking at national law were for this rea= son
>> -- as sources for insight into how to articulate the two distinct<= br> >> rights of association and assembly for purposes of this attempt to=
>> apply international human rights law to Internet standards by look= ing
>> at how they have been put forth by national governments.
>>
>> (RFC 8280 includes false statements about US law that can be used = to
>> take down pages because it ignores Sec. 230, which protects third<= br> >> party intermediaries from liability for speech by those using its<= br> >> platforms. If a US-based platform decides to take down either a >> specific message or a user who egregiously incites illegal violenc= e
>> likely to harm society or misinformation of a kind that can damage= the
>> health of individuals and communities such as drinking bleach, tha= t is
>> NOT because of a law. It is because a private entity decided to ta= ke
>> the action on the basis of principles it has established for itsel= f
>> and the communities that the platform hosts and facilitates. It ca= n do
>> that because users of the platform sign a contract to abide by its=
>> rules, the terms of service or acceptable use agreement. Contract = law
>> is actually the law that matters in this regard.)
>>
>> Development of the law to apply to new problems is heavily influen= ced
>> by precedent, legal decision-making that has come before. The
>> analytical job in new situations involves identifying what it is i= n
>> the new situation that is like what came before, and what is diffe= rent
>> and therefore may justify adapting the law, reinterpreting it, and= /or
>> developing new law. The way to conduct this anaylysis is to study<= br> >> pertinent court opinions. My suggestions for looking at court case= s
>> involving international human rights law were for this reason -- a= s
>> sources for insight into how to articulate the rights of associati= on
>> and assembly for purposes of this attempt to apply international h= uman
>> rights law to Internet protocols by looking at how those rights ha= ve
>> been interpreted by courts in the past. Much of the thinking in th= ese
>> opinions will not deal specifically with the cyber environment; it= is
>> there that the role of original argument and theorization are requ= ired
>> to extrapolate from precedent to how it is being recommended that = it
>> should apply to Internet protocols.
>>
>> Authors of this draft RFC need not conduct all of the necessary >> analysis themselves. There is an existing literature on internatio= nal
>> human rights law and the rights of association and assembly. A qui= ck
>> search identified several items that are far from exhaustive of wh= at
>> is available. These items would complement and expand on what is >> learned from the piece by Peter Swire, as the piece by a legal sch= olar
>> that deals with international human rights law and association
>> currently cited.
>>
>> Boyle, Kevin, and Sangeeta Shah.=C2=A0 (2014). "Thought, expr= ession,
>> association, and assembly." In Daniel Moeckli, Sangeeta Shah,= &
>> Sandesh Sivakumaran (Eds.), _International human rights law_, pp.<= br> >> 257-279.=C2=A0 Oxford: Oxford University Press.
>>
>> Haas, Ernst B. (1970). _Human rights and international action: The=
>> case of freedom of association_. Stanford: Stanford University Pre= ss.
>>
>> Hamilton, Michael. (2020). The meaning and scope of "assembly= " in
>> international human rights law, _International and Comparative Law=
>> Quarterly_, _69_(3), 521-556.
>>
>> Hamilton, Michael. (2020). To facilitate and protect: State
>> obligations and the right of peaceful assembly in international hu= man
>> right law, _Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law_,
>> _21_(1), 5-34.
>>
>> Kalin, Walter & Kunzli, Jorg. (2019). Protection of participat= ion in
>> political life. In _The law of international human rights protecti= on_,
>> 2nd ed., pp. 491-519. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
>>
>> Salat, Orsolya. (2014). Comparative freedom of assembly and the >> fragmentation of human rights law, _Nordic Journal of Human Rights= _,
>> _32_(2), 140-156.
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Tyulkina, Svetlana. (2014). Fragmentation in internat= ional human
>> rights law: Political parties and freedom of association in the >> practice of the UN Human Rights Committee, European Court of Human=
>> Rights and Inter-American Court of Human Rights, _Nordic Journal o= f
>> Human Rights_, _32_(2), 157-175.
>>
>> Defining the rights of association and assembly
>>
>> The legal scholarship on international human rights law finds the<= br> >> right of association to refer to formal organizations of individua= ls
>> who join together to pursue a specific goal. Membership is explici= t
>> and recognized, there are rules, typically there are officers, the= re
>> may be staff, etc. The concept of the right of association in
>> international law has been most fully developed as it applies to l= abor
>> unions, although it is also understood to apply to political parti= es
>> and civil society groups of all kinds.=C2=A0 The right of assembly= , at
>> minimum, requires only two individuals or more who intentionally >> assemble, though there are interpretations that require more than<= br> >> that.
>>
>> This draft on the rights of association and assembly goes back and=
>> forth between treating them as two separate rights and treating th= em
>> together as a single right, with the text dominated by the latter.= The
>> document will be stronger if the authors choose one of these two >> positions and stick with it. Treating the rights as two separate >> rights is the approach that aligns with international law because = of
>> the difference in how the two concepts are defined and used in
>> international law.
> I agree that the rights should be treated as separate rights thourghou= t
> the entire text.
>
> The fact that these two rights interact with other
>> rights, such as privacy and freedom of expression, is important an= d
>> worth including in the analysis, but does not make these rights >> synonymous with each other.
>>
>> This draft includes temporary groupings of people as an associatio= n,
>> although in my understanding this is not upheld by international l= aw.
>> That could, of course, be my ignorance. I would appreciate referen= ce
>> to sources for this element of the definition of association that = has
>> been valuably added to this draft.
> Well noted, will look for a good reference because it is indeed
> understood that temporary groupings are also protected under the freed= om
> to associate. This does raise the question to what extent we should > adress the legal nitty-gritty (please forgive me, laywers in the room<= br> > :)) of these rights in this paper, or primarily aim to generate basis<= br> > understanding of the key aspects of these rights - with strong
> references to the ongoing scholarly discussion added. With my comments=
> to the paper, I hoped to strike a balance between the legal experts on=
> the one hand and the tech experts in the IETF community because too mu= ch
> detail on legal interpretations might scare readers without a legal > background.
>
>> This draft also includes being a member of an audience to which a = mass
>> message has been sent as a form of assembly, although in my
>> understanding this is not upheld by international law. In the exam= ple
>> given, spam, the pertinent right on the part of those who do not w= ish
>> to receive the messages is the right not to receive, not anything<= br> >> involving association. This again could be my ignorance and I woul= d
>> appreciate reference to sources for making this claim. The item ci= ted
>> by Marcus discusses freedom of expression but does not mention fre= edom
>> of association.
>>
>> I am not going to review each of the cases discussed in this draft=
>> under the rubric of association or work through each of the places=
>> where communication, association, and assembly become conflated in=
>> ways that are problematic from a legal perspective, but if the aut= hors
>> would like to pull together a group of legal scholars to fully dev= elop
>> understandings of the two separate rights of association and assem= bly
>> for the cyber environment -- importantly, as they are different fr= om
>> expression, communication, and access to information as other righ= ts
>> distinguished under international human rights law -- I would be h= appy
>> to join that group.
>>
>> Genre
>>
>> I have been understanding HRPC informational RFCs and drafts as >> contributions to knowledge production and intended to be of use bo= th
>> within the Internet design community and in the legal community. >> Concerns about bringing the technical and legal communities into a=
>> common conversation to mutual -- and societal -- advantage has bee= n
>> underway for 3 decades now at least (with Mallory's current em= ployer,
>> CDT, an important early and sustained leader in this effort). We a= re
>> finally seeing new, important, developments in this regard with a<= br> >> quickly growing number of academic programs being launched to trai= n
>> people in both types of expertise and their interactions as well a= s a
>> now significant literature in this area and maturing sophisticatio= n on
>> the part of many policy-makers.
>>
>> Mallory's response to my comments educated me to the history o= f the
>> decision not to put in place a checklist for use by those involved= in
>> designing protocols, and I appreciate the reasoning behind that. A= s is
>> mentioned in this draft, the dual use nature of almost all, if not=
>> all, protocols and their characteristics, could mean that, actuall= y,
>> nothing can be done by engineers other than to acknowledge that us= es
>> can be made of their work products that may be in violation of
>> international human rights law.
>>
>> That in itself is not a trivial accomplishment. Research has shown=
>> that the RFCs document that those involved in Internet design have=
>> been concerned about matters such as privacy, equity, and fairness=
>> from the very start, but that discussion has appeared in social >> science publications not likely to be encountered or referenced by=
>> those designing protocols. I may have been misunderstanding the po= int
>> of the exercise. That would mean that the genre here is actually t= he
>> metadata -- the fact that human rights has now been officially
>> recognized as something that can be violated through the use of th= e
>> Internet via documents appearing in the RFCs -- rather than the >> substance of the evidence and arguments brought to bear.=C2=A0 To = date,
>> this is essentially the use made of RFC 8280 in the few items
>> published to date both within and outside of the RFCs that referen= ce
>> it.
>>
>> If the genre and rhetorical goals go beyond metadata to also be of= use
>> to legal scholars, policy-makers, and social scientists as well, a= s I
>> originally understood the point of the exercise, then in my view m= ore
>> work needs to be done and I would be willing to join the effort if=
>> welcomed. The team put together to accomplish that work should inc= lude
>> experts in each of the areas involved; my judgments regarding
>> technical problems in protocol design aren't worth anything at= all.
>> This work will be strongest if those with a depth in the law are >> involved in making legal arguments; the issue mentioned above
>> regarding US law as discussed in RFC 8280 is also not trivial.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 4:07 AM <hrpc-request@irtf.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Send hrpc mailing list submissions to
>>> hrpc@irtf.o= rg
>>>
>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>> https://ur= ldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!!KwNVnqRv!T= DzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwwsk7F6A$ >>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help&#= 39; to
>>> hrp= c-request@irtf.org
>>>
>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>> hrpc-= owner@irtf.org
>>>
>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more spe= cific
>>> than "Re: Contents of hrpc digest..."
>>> Today's Topics:
>>>
>>> 1. Re: comments, draft association (Eliot Lear)
>>> 2. Re: comments, draft association (Mark Perkins)
>>> 3. Re: comments, draft association (Eliot Lear)
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
>>> To: Mallory Knodel <mknodel@cdt.org>
>>> Cc: Hrpc <hrpc@irtf.org>, Sandra Braman <braman@tamu.edu>
>>> Bcc:
>>> Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 10:08:27 +0100
>>> Subject: Re: [hrpc] comments, draft association
>>>
>>> Hi Mallory,
>>>
>>> Ok, so on with it in-line below (combining your two emails): >>>
>>> On 2/6/21 3:35 AM, Sandra Braman wrote:
>>>
>>> The international treaties discussed in this draft are not a p= art of
>>> the scholarly literature covered in literature reviews, but th= e
>>> legal authorities on the basis of which claims made here are >>> justified.=C2=A0 Although I agree with the authors that this i= s not the
>>> place for a comprehensive discussion and synthesis of the scho= larly
>>> literature, coverage of the pertinent treaty provisions _shoul= d_ be
>>> comprehensive.=C2=A0 Treaty provisions only matter, though, wh= ere
>>> treaties have been ratified.=C2=A0 It would also be useful to = the reader
>>> to know the extent to which these provisions have been interpr= eted
>>> in courts in cases that have come their way involving assembly= and
>>> association.
>>>
>>> This draft is trying to fulfill the explicit language from the= HRPC
>>> charter, the relevant portion of which is:
>>>
>>> "The Human Rights Protocol Considerations Research Group = is
>>> chartered to research whether standards and protocols can enab= le,
>>> strengthen or threaten human rights, as defined in the Univers= al
>>> Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) [1] and the International >>> Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) [2], specifical= ly,
>>> but not limited to the right to freedom of expression and the = right
>>> to freedom of assembly."
>>>
>>> Therefore to talk about the regulation of code is out of scope= .
>> There is one aspect that could be better drawn out: is the
>> interpretation of these two documents consistent with the
>> interpretation by most governments?=C2=A0 If it is not, would prop= osed
>> applications present difficulties in implementing the protocols >> approved by SDOs such as the IETF, and under what circumstances? > I think there is gap between interpretations of authorities such as th= e
> HRC and interpretations by many governments. I agree that its importan= t
> to address this to enable readers to understand what it would mean to<= br> > implement protocols given this gap. I look forward to collaborating on=
> text suggestions here.
>
>> I am
>> specifically thinking of the examples you have in the draft (spam,=
>> DDOS) as well as perhaps something around lawful intercept (not >> entirely tangential to freedom of assembly).=C2=A0 I don=E2=80=99t= see that
>> outside the scope of the charter.
>>
>> Also, we just had a live example in the US of use of technology to=
>> organize what could alternatively be described as a peaceful assem= bly
>> or an insurrection.=C2=A0 Surely this draft would be remiss to not= explore
>> the technology implications, given the use of encryption by some o= f
>> the parties.
>>
>> Eliot
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Mark Perkins <marknoumea@yahoo.com>
>> To: hrpc@irtf.o= rg
>> Cc:
>> Bcc:
>> Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 20:52:40 +1100
>> Subject: Re: [hrpc] comments, draft association
>>
>> Eliot
>>
>> "is the interpretation of these two documents consistent with= the
>> interpretation by most governments?"
>>
>> Here I think we run into real world problems:
>>
>> What do the documents (UDHR & ICCPR) state?
>>
>> What is the interpretation of these two documents by the relevant = UN
>> body (usually found in General Comments of UN Human Rights Committ= ee,
>> but also occassionally International Tribunals, though these are >> usually Regional decisions rather than International in the Global=
>> sense) - eg General comment No. 37(2020) on theright of peaceful >> assembly (article 21), 17September 2020
>>
>> https://urld= efense.com/v3/__https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal= /TBSearch.aspx?Lang=3Den&TreatyID=3D8&DocTypeID=3D11__;!!KwNVnqRv!T= DzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwJMK-goE$ >>
>> What is the interpretation of 'most' governments? Clearly = this
>> question will have multiple responses, as often there is no agreem= ent,
>> in fact there is clear disagreement
>>
>> What is the difference between all of the above, esp UN interpreta= tion
>> & interpretation by 'most' governments OR the differen= t governmental
>> interpretations?
>>
>> Mark P.
>> Le 08/03/2021 =C3=A0 20:08, Eliot Lear a =C3=A9crit :
>>
>>> Hi Mallory,
>>>
>>> Ok, so on with it in-line below (combining your two emails): >>>
>>> On 2/6/21 3:35 AM, Sandra Braman wrote:
>>>
>>> The international treaties discussed in this draft are not a p= art of
>>> the scholarly literature covered in literature reviews, but th= e
>>> legal authorities on the basis of which claims made here are >>> justified.=C2=A0 Although I agree with the authors that this i= s not the
>>> place for a comprehensive discussion and synthesis of the scho= larly
>>> literature, coverage of the pertinent treaty provisions _shoul= d_ be
>>> comprehensive.=C2=A0 Treaty provisions only matter, though, wh= ere
>>> treaties have been ratified.=C2=A0 It would also be useful to = the reader
>>> to know the extent to which these provisions have been interpr= eted
>>> in courts in cases that have come their way involving assembly= and
>>> association.
>>>
>>> This draft is trying to fulfill the explicit language from the= HRPC
>>> charter, the relevant portion of which is:
>>>
>>> "The Human Rights Protocol Considerations Research Group = is
>>> chartered to research whether standards and protocols can enab= le,
>>> strengthen or threaten human rights, as defined in the Univers= al
>>> Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) [1] and the International >>> Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) [2], specifical= ly,
>>> but not limited to the right to freedom of expression and the = right
>>> to freedom of assembly."
>>>
>>> Therefore to talk about the regulation of code is out of scope= .
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0There is one aspect that could be better drawn out: is= the
>> interpretation of these two documents consistent with the
>> interpretation by most governments?=C2=A0 If it is not, would prop= osed
>> applications present difficulties in implementing the protocols >> approved by SDOs such as the IETF, and under what circumstances?= =C2=A0 I am
>> specifically thinking of the examples you have in the draft (spam,=
>> DDOS) as well as perhaps something around lawful intercept (not >> entirely tangential to freedom of assembly).=C2=A0 I don=E2=80=99t= see that
>> outside the scope of the charter.
>>
>> Also, we just had a live example in the US of use of technology to=
>> organize what could alternatively be described as a peaceful assem= bly
>> or an insurrection.=C2=A0 Surely this draft would be remiss to not= explore
>> the technology implications, given the use of encryption by some o= f
>> the parties.
>>
>> Eliot
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> hrpc mailing list
>> hrpc@irtf.org
>> https://urldef= ense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmz= oFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwwsk7F6A$
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0[1]
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Garanti sans virus= . https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.av= ast.com__;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh= 4PYYkwCvRzTNo$=C2=A0 [1]
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
>> To: Mark Perkins <marknoumea=3D40yahoo.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
>> Cc: hrpc@irtf.o= rg
>> Bcc:
>> Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 11:06:46 +0100
>> Subject: Re: [hrpc] comments, draft association
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>>> What is the interpretation of 'most' governments? Clea= rly this
>>> question will have multiple responses, as often there is no >>> agreement, in fact there is clear disagreement
>> Good point.=C2=A0 That in itself is good to understand.=C2=A0 One = of the
>> challenges I=E2=80=99ve faced in other domains like during the 201= 4(?)
>> Budapest Convention review has been potential conflicting regulato= ry
>> requirements.=C2=A0 To be clear, I=E2=80=99m not suggesting so wid= e a scope, but
>> rather a focus on how our protocol suite development needs to cons= ider
>> these conflicts.
>>
>>> What is the difference between all of the above, esp UN
>>> interpretation & interpretation by 'most' governme= nts OR the
>>> different governmental interpretations?
>> I like the latter- =E2=80=9Cdifferent government interpretations= =E2=80=9D.=C2=A0 That
>> in itself can highlight problems that the IETF can=E2=80=99t solve= , but
>> others should.
>>
>> By the way, real world problems are good problems for this group t= o
>> address (IMHO).
>>
>> Eliot_______________________________________________
>> hrpc mailing list
>> hrpc@irtf.org
>> https://urldef= ense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmz= oFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwwsk7F6A$
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0
>>
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.avast.com/sig-emai= l?utm_medium=3Demail&amp;utm_source=3Dlink&amp;utm_campaign=3Dsig-e= mail&amp;utm_content=3Demailclient__;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-d= G23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwVMq6gRM$
>> _______________________________________________
>> hrpc mailing list
>> hrpc@irtf.org
>> https://urldef= ense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmz= oFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwwsk7F6A$
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> hrpc@irtf.org > https://urldefense= .com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIV= ArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwwsk7F6A$

--
Mallory Knodel
CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780


_______________________________________________
hrpc mailing list
hrpc@irtf.org
https://urldefense.com/= v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6= ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwwsk7F6A$
--00000000000082f8a405c019cc8c-- From nobody Fri Apr 16 09:55:12 2021 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 2DF053A2C78 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 09:55:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URI_NOVOWEL=0.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cdt.org Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K5HZJSC8IpqM for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 09:55:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qk1-x72f.google.com (mail-qk1-x72f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72f]) (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 0781E3A2C74 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 09:55:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk1-x72f.google.com with SMTP id t17so1063014qkg.4 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 09:55:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cdt.org; s=google; h=message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject:content-language:to :references:from:in-reply-to; bh=V6nNCb19ikSOp73+ATto0S2YCdZJYsNOwdQFoEnN1/o=; b=JsUrxorQMuMv7EGZvPjo4AYLOO82t6JSNPyakG599gIIM6DE+EbFHpkQzqk3KuuRTF p5I7FJhSVPt0EAZVkvTfwGklxmskWISYjoWkUrGvBfV3X8MaKFBysoUaVVNO7WstWCBW NAfxQB1/RKohigGrIpFxSfPsEIOijEuVlcF1k= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:references:from:in-reply-to; bh=V6nNCb19ikSOp73+ATto0S2YCdZJYsNOwdQFoEnN1/o=; b=iBfkX1ockUVwDCIr3AbGt76FFbA4u54bhsvfikZQCNDGVCx7kqtHTQUXMU0hfxx7qN fCBkBfQYBQjf/XsEGQJiKdIXGv8IQbvp/D6rFRgTL41cEJKsMg8RdyRt25K6nHcj20P8 bQuwtPt93MdwSZj3SOe5TmhAvHFVBCwd1YP3HYNTPRLJR+vnTaQpuaJUO/WLLFyIYx2N FI+mY7KQJ9mZwSTcEQprMiP3Q/Sp/9PMf8F3rpL3JqcESwgrDQGiTbHpetIpM70J3xgQ d7N+c4rI0ZrX6P5rDkwvMCfclad22HEdqDyJoCB6THz1/MpvYYnJl0R1r9P1ePFcVNhf JuIQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531yShfYSPs1WZ79OVicxMXI663lTWrnWUAAn2nwiSHyJ9/2iDJT qoYjOv4v+7Xf+k0naU62aUOssw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzhL/O7Uh3pMJ+JcbDAja5RUcS3fUCgYJvzGFLyEwvJizd6cjSaedO/cQ9StUR2wuNA1LNvZw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:110f:: with SMTP id o15mr126574qkk.305.1618592102860; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 09:55:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (c-73-163-188-207.hsd1.dc.comcast.net. [73.163.188.207]) by smtp.gmail.com with UTF8SMTPSA id b4sm4576374qkf.64.2021.04.16.09.55.02 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 16 Apr 2021 09:55:02 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------rB7pR0nIoSa0pLDBBi4Tu04F" Message-ID: <9ace81f2-da09-6e63-7695-f0fd6e9b9e9a@cdt.org> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 12:55:01 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:88.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/88.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Sandra Braman , hrpc@irtf.org References: From: Mallory Knodel In-Reply-To: Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] hrpc Digest, Vol 73, Issue 4 X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: hrpc discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 16:55:11 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------rB7pR0nIoSa0pLDBBi4Tu04F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Sandra, On 4/16/21 12:51 PM, Sandra Braman wrote: > > > To repeat points made more than once before:  It would still make a > big difference to the utility of the piece if you provide operational > definitions of association and assembly -- each as distinct from > communication -- in international human rights law. The current draft > conflates all of these in a manner that evacuates the meaning of > association and assembly as distinct concepts. A half a dozen or so > scholarly articles about how the right to association is understood > within international human rights law specifically have been provided > that will help you with this. Those discussions, references to those > items, and further bibliographic searching can help you on the > assembly side. > Because this is digest mode, I'm not sure which email you're responding to-- did you read the new version and feel it still needs definitional distinction? Because that was something we specifically worked on in the new draft out this morning. > Once those definitions are in place, you will want to review the cases > you discuss and delete those that involve only communication but not > either assembly or association, as I've recommended before, so that > the piece is internally coherent. > I think we were able to do this a couple of versions before. Each case study now does invoke a relationship to FAA, which Stephane made sure of in his review a while back. Thanks, -Mallory > Will look at the revised text once you get there to see if these > issues are resolved before considering possible language for your > conclusion. > > Sandra > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:59 AM > wrote: > > Send hrpc mailing list submissions to >       hrpc@irtf.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >       > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwwsk7F6A$ > > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >       hrpc-request@irtf.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at >       hrpc-owner@irtf.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of hrpc digest..." > Today's Topics: > >    1. draft-association general update + response to: [Re: re >       international & national law, draft association] (Mallory > Knodel) > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Mallory Knodel > > To: lvermeer@riseup.net , > hrpc@irtf.org > Cc: lvermeer@icnlalliance.org > Bcc: > Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 05:58:50 -0400 > Subject: [hrpc] draft-association general update + response to: > [Re: re international & national law, draft association] > Hi everyone, > > Excuse the top post. I am following up on this conversation about > draft-association generally, with a specific list of ways forward > that > relate to what's been discussed below. > > The notes on draft-association from 110 are transcribed verbatim > due to > the importance of the topic and you can find them in the > datatracker. I > then translated the clear action points into Github issues. The > authors > have worked (are working) through them and a new version should be > coming along shortly. > > In the meeting we addressed the issue of scope and international > versus > national laws. So, as it relates here are the two relevant > conclusions > for draft-association that we came to: > > 1/ We take the point that the HR framework requires actioned laws by > national implementors, and so we can't discount the impacts on the > subject. In the meeting we decided to reinforce the basis of this by > first treating only IHRL as principles, yet we will *point to future > research, or a research gap, in the conclusion text*. Sandra, > would you > be able to provide a very short paragraph about this possible > future work? > > 2/ Relatedly, we then need to better define the scope up front > such that > it's clear we are limiting ourselves to IHRL, and why, and avoiding a > discussion-- for now-- of national laws, at least in this document. > > I hope that's helpful. Excited to share the next version of this > document with you all-- it's looking really good, so thanks very much! > > -Mallory > > On 3/11/21 6:31 AM, lvermeer@riseup.net > wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > Apologies for responding to this interesting conversation only now. > > Especially for those of you in the western hemisphere, this > controbution > > won't be timely for the meeting later today. I look forward to > > discussing the draft on association this afternoon (CET) and > continuing > > it over email. > > > > I must admit I have difficulties keeping track of the discussion > across > > multiple email threads so I might be missing out on some > argument. See > > my responses to Sandra and Eliot in-line below! > > > > Best to all, Lisa > > > > > > On 08-03-2021 19:06, Sandra Braman wrote: > >> Thanks to you all for launching this discussion. Mallory and her > >> co-authors have made progress, in areas going beyond her email to > >> include significant changes in wording, and I am delighted that > >> another legal expert's advice has been sought. However -- depending > >> upon the goal of the exercise -- in my view there are issues that > >> remain. Rather than bundle several different issues into single > >> emails, as before, here will concentrate on the points brought > up in > >> this discussion. > >> > >> It appears that Mallory and her co-authors have misunderstood > what the > >> "scope of work" is when relying on international treaties, and > >> therefore misunderstood why some of the comments I made regarding > >> legal sources were made. Will first discuss how the kind of legal > >> problem being addressed here, and the kind of argument these > authors > >> are making, are approached by legal scholars; go on to address the > >> specific concepts of association and assembly; and conclude with a > >> point about genre. > >> > >> Doing research on protocols and the rights of association and > assembly > >> as established by international human rights law > >> > >> Mallory reminds us of the scope of the HRPC and how draft > association > >> fits into it. The word "defined" is used in the HRPC charter to > refer > >> to what is said in the UDHR and ICCPR regarding what are to be > >> considered human rights. Those documents, however, don't actually > >> define the concepts involved -- they providing a list of the > kinds of > >> rights to be protected. Any work relying on those treaties > necessarily > >> involves probing the concepts mentioned for what they actually > mean on > >> the ground. There are three ways of doing this: analysis of > >> precedent, analysis of different approaches taken in different > >> jurisdictions, and novel theorization and/or argumentation. These > >> three approaches are often combined for the strongest work > products, > >> with the relative proportions of each type of investigation varying > >> with the problem at hand. Undertaking all three of these kinds of > >> analysis are within the scope of the HRPC because they are by > >> definition within the scope of what it means to rely upon the > >> international human rights treaties. > > I'm excited that we are working on this draft at the same time > that the > > Human Rights Committee published its General Comment 37 about > peaceful > > assembly, one of the rights under discussion. The GC does not > provide > > details about how this right is interpreted by various > governments but I > > know that the comment itself it based on a long process of research, > > consultation and negotation. My suggestion for this research > paper is to > > take the GC37 as starting point for at least the issues related to > > protocols and assembly. Currently, at ICNL and ECNL - and we're > not the > > only ones - we're stimulating ongoing discussions about the GC37 > and in > > particular what digitally mediated assemblies are an how they > should be > > protected, which could provide insight for this community. My > suggestion > > is to focus our discussion and attention to identifying how protocol > > design relates to digitally mediated assemblies, association and > > discuss and strengthen the exmaples in the paper, instead of > long and > > in-depth legal analysis. I agree that references to authoritative > > interpretations should be added to the current list. > >> A strong analog for what HRPC is trying to do with the Internet > design > >> process is the effort by the international legal community to > figure > >> out whether existing international law applies to cyber > operations of > >> national security concern.  A particularly rich model of what that > >> involves are the _Tallinn Manual_ and _Tallinn Manual 2.0_, which > >> provide exhaustive analyses of each of the pertinent concepts in > >> international laws of war, clearly specifying where consensus was > >> reached within the group of international legal experts > involved, and > >> where it was not, with the diverse positions identified for the > >> latter. > > The Tallinn Manual is indeed an interesting example of how the > > specialized cyber scholarly community tackles an ongoing issue > (applying > > int'l law in cyberspace) that at the same time is subject of > > geopolitical debate in the UN. As a former diplomat I know how > important > > this manual to underpin governments' positions. My impression > however, > > but please forgive me my newby status in this community, is that a > > process like the Tallinn Manual is much too specialized on > international > > law in its full depths compared to what we try to accomplish > here i.e. > > help improving protocols. I therefore don't think it's necessary to > > discuss all treaties and all different national interpretations > in this > > research paper, but that the most important and up to date > notions about > > the FOAA should be there underpinned by authorative voices such > as UNSRs > > and the HRC. > > > >> A discussion of about a week ago of a panel of international legal > >> scholars, including Michael Schmitt, who served as editor for both > >> Tallinn manuals, gives a sense of the state of play regarding > >> international law and war in cyberspace right now. Much of this > >> conversation about international law and cyberespace involved > >> discussing trends in national-level treatment of problems such as > >> whether or not data is an object, identifying the range of > positions > >> out there, how many states aligned with each position, and where > >> shifts were taking place, followed by each expert's argument > for their > >> preferred position. If you want to see what that kind of > conversation > >> looks like, you can see it here: > >> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.dvidshub.net/video/785840/international-law-professors-discuss-2020-cyberspace-operations-developments-2021-uscybercom-legal-conference__;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwEFLPjjw$ > > . > >> My suggestions regarding looking at national law were for this > reason > >> -- as sources for insight into how to articulate the two distinct > >> rights of association and assembly for purposes of this attempt to > >> apply international human rights law to Internet standards by > looking > >> at how they have been put forth by national governments. > >> > >> (RFC 8280 includes false statements about US law that can be > used to > >> take down pages because it ignores Sec. 230, which protects third > >> party intermediaries from liability for speech by those using its > >> platforms. If a US-based platform decides to take down either a > >> specific message or a user who egregiously incites illegal violence > >> likely to harm society or misinformation of a kind that can > damage the > >> health of individuals and communities such as drinking bleach, > that is > >> NOT because of a law. It is because a private entity decided to > take > >> the action on the basis of principles it has established for itself > >> and the communities that the platform hosts and facilitates. It > can do > >> that because users of the platform sign a contract to abide by its > >> rules, the terms of service or acceptable use agreement. > Contract law > >> is actually the law that matters in this regard.) > >> > >> Development of the law to apply to new problems is heavily > influenced > >> by precedent, legal decision-making that has come before. The > >> analytical job in new situations involves identifying what it is in > >> the new situation that is like what came before, and what is > different > >> and therefore may justify adapting the law, reinterpreting it, > and/or > >> developing new law. The way to conduct this anaylysis is to study > >> pertinent court opinions. My suggestions for looking at court cases > >> involving international human rights law were for this reason -- as > >> sources for insight into how to articulate the rights of > association > >> and assembly for purposes of this attempt to apply > international human > >> rights law to Internet protocols by looking at how those rights > have > >> been interpreted by courts in the past. Much of the thinking in > these > >> opinions will not deal specifically with the cyber environment; > it is > >> there that the role of original argument and theorization are > required > >> to extrapolate from precedent to how it is being recommended > that it > >> should apply to Internet protocols. > >> > >> Authors of this draft RFC need not conduct all of the necessary > >> analysis themselves. There is an existing literature on > international > >> human rights law and the rights of association and assembly. A > quick > >> search identified several items that are far from exhaustive of > what > >> is available. These items would complement and expand on what is > >> learned from the piece by Peter Swire, as the piece by a legal > scholar > >> that deals with international human rights law and association > >> currently cited. > >> > >> Boyle, Kevin, and Sangeeta Shah.  (2014). "Thought, expression, > >> association, and assembly." In Daniel Moeckli, Sangeeta Shah, & > >> Sandesh Sivakumaran (Eds.), _International human rights law_, pp. > >> 257-279.  Oxford: Oxford University Press. > >> > >> Haas, Ernst B. (1970). _Human rights and international action: The > >> case of freedom of association_. Stanford: Stanford University > Press. > >> > >> Hamilton, Michael. (2020). The meaning and scope of "assembly" in > >> international human rights law, _International and Comparative Law > >> Quarterly_, _69_(3), 521-556. > >> > >> Hamilton, Michael. (2020). To facilitate and protect: State > >> obligations and the right of peaceful assembly in international > human > >> right law, _Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law_, > >> _21_(1), 5-34. > >> > >> Kalin, Walter & Kunzli, Jorg. (2019). Protection of > participation in > >> political life. In _The law of international human rights > protection_, > >> 2nd ed., pp. 491-519. Oxford: Oxford University Press. > >> > >> Salat, Orsolya. (2014). Comparative freedom of assembly and the > >> fragmentation of human rights law, _Nordic Journal of Human > Rights_, > >> _32_(2), 140-156. > >> > >>    Tyulkina, Svetlana. (2014). Fragmentation in international > human > >> rights law: Political parties and freedom of association in the > >> practice of the UN Human Rights Committee, European Court of Human > >> Rights and Inter-American Court of Human Rights, _Nordic Journal of > >> Human Rights_, _32_(2), 157-175. > >> > >> Defining the rights of association and assembly > >> > >> The legal scholarship on international human rights law finds the > >> right of association to refer to formal organizations of > individuals > >> who join together to pursue a specific goal. Membership is explicit > >> and recognized, there are rules, typically there are officers, > there > >> may be staff, etc. The concept of the right of association in > >> international law has been most fully developed as it applies > to labor > >> unions, although it is also understood to apply to political > parties > >> and civil society groups of all kinds.  The right of assembly, at > >> minimum, requires only two individuals or more who intentionally > >> assemble, though there are interpretations that require more than > >> that. > >> > >> This draft on the rights of association and assembly goes back and > >> forth between treating them as two separate rights and treating > them > >> together as a single right, with the text dominated by the > latter. The > >> document will be stronger if the authors choose one of these two > >> positions and stick with it. Treating the rights as two separate > >> rights is the approach that aligns with international law > because of > >> the difference in how the two concepts are defined and used in > >> international law. > > I agree that the rights should be treated as separate rights > thourghout > > the entire text. > > > > The fact that these two rights interact with other > >> rights, such as privacy and freedom of expression, is important and > >> worth including in the analysis, but does not make these rights > >> synonymous with each other. > >> > >> This draft includes temporary groupings of people as an > association, > >> although in my understanding this is not upheld by > international law. > >> That could, of course, be my ignorance. I would appreciate > reference > >> to sources for this element of the definition of association > that has > >> been valuably added to this draft. > > Well noted, will look for a good reference because it is indeed > > understood that temporary groupings are also protected under the > freedom > > to associate. This does raise the question to what extent we should > > adress the legal nitty-gritty (please forgive me, laywers in the > room > > :)) of these rights in this paper, or primarily aim to generate > basis > > understanding of the key aspects of these rights - with strong > > references to the ongoing scholarly discussion added. With my > comments > > to the paper, I hoped to strike a balance between the legal > experts on > > the one hand and the tech experts in the IETF community because > too much > > detail on legal interpretations might scare readers without a legal > > background. > > > >> This draft also includes being a member of an audience to which > a mass > >> message has been sent as a form of assembly, although in my > >> understanding this is not upheld by international law. In the > example > >> given, spam, the pertinent right on the part of those who do > not wish > >> to receive the messages is the right not to receive, not anything > >> involving association. This again could be my ignorance and I would > >> appreciate reference to sources for making this claim. The item > cited > >> by Marcus discusses freedom of expression but does not mention > freedom > >> of association. > >> > >> I am not going to review each of the cases discussed in this draft > >> under the rubric of association or work through each of the places > >> where communication, association, and assembly become conflated in > >> ways that are problematic from a legal perspective, but if the > authors > >> would like to pull together a group of legal scholars to fully > develop > >> understandings of the two separate rights of association and > assembly > >> for the cyber environment -- importantly, as they are different > from > >> expression, communication, and access to information as other > rights > >> distinguished under international human rights law -- I would > be happy > >> to join that group. > >> > >> Genre > >> > >> I have been understanding HRPC informational RFCs and drafts as > >> contributions to knowledge production and intended to be of use > both > >> within the Internet design community and in the legal community. > >> Concerns about bringing the technical and legal communities into a > >> common conversation to mutual -- and societal -- advantage has been > >> underway for 3 decades now at least (with Mallory's current > employer, > >> CDT, an important early and sustained leader in this effort). > We are > >> finally seeing new, important, developments in this regard with a > >> quickly growing number of academic programs being launched to train > >> people in both types of expertise and their interactions as > well as a > >> now significant literature in this area and maturing > sophistication on > >> the part of many policy-makers. > >> > >> Mallory's response to my comments educated me to the history of the > >> decision not to put in place a checklist for use by those > involved in > >> designing protocols, and I appreciate the reasoning behind > that. As is > >> mentioned in this draft, the dual use nature of almost all, if not > >> all, protocols and their characteristics, could mean that, > actually, > >> nothing can be done by engineers other than to acknowledge that > uses > >> can be made of their work products that may be in violation of > >> international human rights law. > >> > >> That in itself is not a trivial accomplishment. Research has shown > >> that the RFCs document that those involved in Internet design have > >> been concerned about matters such as privacy, equity, and fairness > >> from the very start, but that discussion has appeared in social > >> science publications not likely to be encountered or referenced by > >> those designing protocols. I may have been misunderstanding the > point > >> of the exercise. That would mean that the genre here is > actually the > >> metadata -- the fact that human rights has now been officially > >> recognized as something that can be violated through the use of the > >> Internet via documents appearing in the RFCs -- rather than the > >> substance of the evidence and arguments brought to bear.  To date, > >> this is essentially the use made of RFC 8280 in the few items > >> published to date both within and outside of the RFCs that > reference > >> it. > >> > >> If the genre and rhetorical goals go beyond metadata to also be > of use > >> to legal scholars, policy-makers, and social scientists as > well, as I > >> originally understood the point of the exercise, then in my > view more > >> work needs to be done and I would be willing to join the effort if > >> welcomed. The team put together to accomplish that work should > include > >> experts in each of the areas involved; my judgments regarding > >> technical problems in protocol design aren't worth anything at all. > >> This work will be strongest if those with a depth in the law are > >> involved in making legal arguments; the issue mentioned above > >> regarding US law as discussed in RFC 8280 is also not trivial. > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 4:07 AM > wrote: > >> > >>> Send hrpc mailing list submissions to > >>> hrpc@irtf.org > >>> > >>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > >>> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwwsk7F6A$ > > > >>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > >>> hrpc-request@irtf.org > >>> > >>> You can reach the person managing the list at > >>> hrpc-owner@irtf.org > >>> > >>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more > specific > >>> than "Re: Contents of hrpc digest..." > >>> Today's Topics: > >>> > >>> 1. Re: comments, draft association (Eliot Lear) > >>> 2. Re: comments, draft association (Mark Perkins) > >>> 3. Re: comments, draft association (Eliot Lear) > >>> > >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>> From: Eliot Lear > > >>> To: Mallory Knodel > > >>> Cc: Hrpc >, Sandra Braman > > > >>> Bcc: > >>> Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 10:08:27 +0100 > >>> Subject: Re: [hrpc] comments, draft association > >>> > >>> Hi Mallory, > >>> > >>> Ok, so on with it in-line below (combining your two emails): > >>> > >>> On 2/6/21 3:35 AM, Sandra Braman wrote: > >>> > >>> The international treaties discussed in this draft are not a > part of > >>> the scholarly literature covered in literature reviews, but the > >>> legal authorities on the basis of which claims made here are > >>> justified.  Although I agree with the authors that this is > not the > >>> place for a comprehensive discussion and synthesis of the > scholarly > >>> literature, coverage of the pertinent treaty provisions > _should_ be > >>> comprehensive.  Treaty provisions only matter, though, where > >>> treaties have been ratified.  It would also be useful to the > reader > >>> to know the extent to which these provisions have been interpreted > >>> in courts in cases that have come their way involving assembly and > >>> association. > >>> > >>> This draft is trying to fulfill the explicit language from the > HRPC > >>> charter, the relevant portion of which is: > >>> > >>> "The Human Rights Protocol Considerations Research Group is > >>> chartered to research whether standards and protocols can enable, > >>> strengthen or threaten human rights, as defined in the Universal > >>> Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) [1] and the International > >>> Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) [2], specifically, > >>> but not limited to the right to freedom of expression and the > right > >>> to freedom of assembly." > >>> > >>> Therefore to talk about the regulation of code is out of scope. > >> There is one aspect that could be better drawn out: is the > >> interpretation of these two documents consistent with the > >> interpretation by most governments?  If it is not, would proposed > >> applications present difficulties in implementing the protocols > >> approved by SDOs such as the IETF, and under what circumstances? > > I think there is gap between interpretations of authorities such > as the > > HRC and interpretations by many governments. I agree that its > important > > to address this to enable readers to understand what it would > mean to > > implement protocols given this gap. I look forward to > collaborating on > > text suggestions here. > > > >> I am > >> specifically thinking of the examples you have in the draft (spam, > >> DDOS) as well as perhaps something around lawful intercept (not > >> entirely tangential to freedom of assembly).  I don’t see that > >> outside the scope of the charter. > >> > >> Also, we just had a live example in the US of use of technology to > >> organize what could alternatively be described as a peaceful > assembly > >> or an insurrection.  Surely this draft would be remiss to not > explore > >> the technology implications, given the use of encryption by some of > >> the parties. > >> > >> Eliot > >> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> From: Mark Perkins > > >> To: hrpc@irtf.org > >> Cc: > >> Bcc: > >> Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 20:52:40 +1100 > >> Subject: Re: [hrpc] comments, draft association > >> > >> Eliot > >> > >> "is the interpretation of these two documents consistent with the > >> interpretation by most governments?" > >> > >> Here I think we run into real world problems: > >> > >> What do the documents (UDHR & ICCPR) state? > >> > >> What is the interpretation of these two documents by the > relevant UN > >> body (usually found in General Comments of UN Human Rights > Committee, > >> but also occassionally International Tribunals, though these are > >> usually Regional decisions rather than International in the Global > >> sense) - eg General comment No. 37(2020) on theright of peaceful > >> assembly (article 21), 17September 2020 > >> > >> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/TBSearch.aspx?Lang=en&TreatyID=8&DocTypeID=11__;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwJMK-goE$ > > > >> > >> What is the interpretation of 'most' governments? Clearly this > >> question will have multiple responses, as often there is no > agreement, > >> in fact there is clear disagreement > >> > >> What is the difference between all of the above, esp UN > interpretation > >> & interpretation by 'most' governments OR the different > governmental > >> interpretations? > >> > >> Mark P. > >> Le 08/03/2021 à 20:08, Eliot Lear a écrit : > >> > >>> Hi Mallory, > >>> > >>> Ok, so on with it in-line below (combining your two emails): > >>> > >>> On 2/6/21 3:35 AM, Sandra Braman wrote: > >>> > >>> The international treaties discussed in this draft are not a > part of > >>> the scholarly literature covered in literature reviews, but the > >>> legal authorities on the basis of which claims made here are > >>> justified.  Although I agree with the authors that this is > not the > >>> place for a comprehensive discussion and synthesis of the > scholarly > >>> literature, coverage of the pertinent treaty provisions > _should_ be > >>> comprehensive.  Treaty provisions only matter, though, where > >>> treaties have been ratified.  It would also be useful to the > reader > >>> to know the extent to which these provisions have been interpreted > >>> in courts in cases that have come their way involving assembly and > >>> association. > >>> > >>> This draft is trying to fulfill the explicit language from the > HRPC > >>> charter, the relevant portion of which is: > >>> > >>> "The Human Rights Protocol Considerations Research Group is > >>> chartered to research whether standards and protocols can enable, > >>> strengthen or threaten human rights, as defined in the Universal > >>> Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) [1] and the International > >>> Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) [2], specifically, > >>> but not limited to the right to freedom of expression and the > right > >>> to freedom of assembly." > >>> > >>> Therefore to talk about the regulation of code is out of scope. > >>   There is one aspect that could be better drawn out: is the > >> interpretation of these two documents consistent with the > >> interpretation by most governments?  If it is not, would proposed > >> applications present difficulties in implementing the protocols > >> approved by SDOs such as the IETF, and under what > circumstances?  I am > >> specifically thinking of the examples you have in the draft (spam, > >> DDOS) as well as perhaps something around lawful intercept (not > >> entirely tangential to freedom of assembly).  I don’t see that > >> outside the scope of the charter. > >> > >> Also, we just had a live example in the US of use of technology to > >> organize what could alternatively be described as a peaceful > assembly > >> or an insurrection.  Surely this draft would be remiss to not > explore > >> the technology implications, given the use of encryption by some of > >> the parties. > >> > >> Eliot > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> hrpc mailing list > >> hrpc@irtf.org > >> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwwsk7F6A$ > > > >> > >>               [1] > >>              Garanti sans virus. > https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.avast.com__;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwCvRzTNo$ > > [1] > >> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> From: Eliot Lear > > >> To: Mark Perkins > > >> Cc: hrpc@irtf.org > >> Bcc: > >> Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 11:06:46 +0100 > >> Subject: Re: [hrpc] comments, draft association > >> Hi Mark, > >> > >>> What is the interpretation of 'most' governments? Clearly this > >>> question will have multiple responses, as often there is no > >>> agreement, in fact there is clear disagreement > >> Good point.  That in itself is good to understand. One of the > >> challenges I’ve faced in other domains like during the 2014(?) > >> Budapest Convention review has been potential conflicting > regulatory > >> requirements.  To be clear, I’m not suggesting so wide a > scope, but > >> rather a focus on how our protocol suite development needs to > consider > >> these conflicts. > >> > >>> What is the difference between all of the above, esp UN > >>> interpretation & interpretation by 'most' governments OR the > >>> different governmental interpretations? > >> I like the latter- “different government > interpretations”.  That > >> in itself can highlight problems that the IETF can’t solve, but > >> others should. > >> > >> By the way, real world problems are good problems for this group to > >> address (IMHO). > >> > >> Eliot_______________________________________________ > >> hrpc mailing list > >> hrpc@irtf.org > >> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwwsk7F6A$ > > > >>  > >> > >> Links: > >> ------ > >> [1] > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient__;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwVMq6gRM$ > > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> hrpc mailing list > >> hrpc@irtf.org > >> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwwsk7F6A$ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > hrpc mailing list > > hrpc@irtf.org > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwwsk7F6A$ > > > > -- > Mallory Knodel > CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology > gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780 > > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwwsk7F6A$ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc -- Mallory Knodel CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780 --------------rB7pR0nIoSa0pLDBBi4Tu04F Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi Sandra,

On 4/16/21 12:51 PM, Sandra Braman wrote:


To repeat points made more than once before:  It would still make a big difference to the utility of the piece if you provide operational definitions of association and assembly -- each as distinct from communication -- in international human rights law. The current draft conflates all of these in a manner that evacuates the meaning of association and assembly as distinct concepts. A half a dozen or so scholarly articles about how the right to association is understood within international human rights law specifically have been provided that will help you with this. Those discussions, references to those items, and further bibliographic searching can help you on the assembly side.

Because this is digest mode, I'm not sure which email you're responding to-- did you read the new version and feel it still needs definitional distinction? Because that was something we specifically worked on in the new draft out this morning.


Once those definitions are in place, you will want to review the cases you discuss and delete those that involve only communication but not either assembly or association, as I've recommended before, so that the piece is internally coherent.

I think we were able to do this a couple of versions before. Each case study now does invoke a relationship to FAA, which Stephane made sure of in his review a while back.

Thanks,

-Mallory

Will look at the revised text once you get there to see if these issues are resolved before considering possible language for your conclusion. 

Sandra

On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:59 AM <hrpc-request@irtf.org> wrote:
Send hrpc mailing list submissions to
        hrpc@irtf.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwwsk7F6A$
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        hrpc-request@irtf.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
        hrpc-owner@irtf.org

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

   1. draft-association general update + response to: [Re: re
      international & national law, draft association] (Mallory Knodel)



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mallory Knodel <mknodel@cdt.org>
To: lvermeer@riseup.net, hrpc@irtf.org
Cc: lvermeer@icnlalliance.org
Bcc: 
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 05:58:50 -0400
Subject: [hrpc] draft-association general update + response to: [Re: re international & national law, draft association]
Hi everyone,

Excuse the top post. I am following up on this conversation about
draft-association generally, with a specific list of ways forward that
relate to what's been discussed below.

The notes on draft-association from 110 are transcribed verbatim due to
the importance of the topic and you can find them in the datatracker. I
then translated the clear action points into Github issues. The authors
have worked (are working) through them and a new version should be
coming along shortly.

In the meeting we addressed the issue of scope and international versus
national laws. So, as it relates here are the two relevant conclusions
for draft-association that we came to:

1/ We take the point that the HR framework requires actioned laws by
national implementors, and so we can't discount the impacts on the
subject. In the meeting we decided to reinforce the basis of this by
first treating only IHRL as principles, yet we will *point to future
research, or a research gap, in the conclusion text*. Sandra, would you
be able to provide a very short paragraph about this possible future work?

2/ Relatedly, we then need to better define the scope up front such that
it's clear we are limiting ourselves to IHRL, and why, and avoiding a
discussion-- for now-- of national laws, at least in this document.

I hope that's helpful. Excited to share the next version of this
document with you all-- it's looking really good, so thanks very much!

-Mallory

On 3/11/21 6:31 AM, lvermeer@riseup.net wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Apologies for responding to this interesting conversation only now.
> Especially for those of you in the western hemisphere, this controbution
> won't be timely for the meeting later today. I look forward to
> discussing the draft on association this afternoon (CET) and continuing
> it over email.
>
> I must admit I have difficulties keeping track of the discussion across
> multiple email threads so I might be missing out on some argument. See
> my responses to Sandra and Eliot in-line below!
>
> Best to all, Lisa
>
>
> On 08-03-2021 19:06, Sandra Braman wrote:
>> Thanks to you all for launching this discussion. Mallory and her
>> co-authors have made progress, in areas going beyond her email to
>> include significant changes in wording, and I am delighted that
>> another legal expert's advice has been sought. However -- depending
>> upon the goal of the exercise -- in my view there are issues that
>> remain. Rather than bundle several different issues into single
>> emails, as before, here will concentrate on the points brought up in
>> this discussion.
>>
>> It appears that Mallory and her co-authors have misunderstood what the
>> "scope of work" is when relying on international treaties, and
>> therefore misunderstood why some of the comments I made regarding
>> legal sources were made. Will first discuss how the kind of legal
>> problem being addressed here, and the kind of argument these authors
>> are making, are approached by legal scholars; go on to address the
>> specific concepts of association and assembly; and conclude with a
>> point about genre.
>>
>> Doing research on protocols and the rights of association and assembly
>> as established by international human rights law
>>
>> Mallory reminds us of the scope of the HRPC and how draft association
>> fits into it. The word "defined" is used in the HRPC charter to refer
>> to what is said in the UDHR and ICCPR regarding what are to be
>> considered human rights. Those documents, however, don't actually
>> define the concepts involved -- they providing a list of the kinds of
>> rights to be protected. Any work relying on those treaties necessarily
>> involves probing the concepts mentioned for what they actually mean on
>> the ground. There are three ways of doing this:  analysis of
>> precedent, analysis of different approaches taken in different
>> jurisdictions, and novel theorization and/or argumentation. These
>> three approaches are often combined for the strongest work products,
>> with the relative proportions of each type of investigation varying
>> with the problem at hand. Undertaking all three of these kinds of
>> analysis are within the scope of the HRPC because they are by
>> definition within the scope of what it means to rely upon the
>> international human rights treaties.
> I'm excited that we are working on this draft at the same time that the
> Human Rights Committee published its General Comment 37 about peaceful
> assembly, one of the rights under discussion. The GC does not provide
> details about how this right is interpreted by various governments but I
> know that the comment itself it based on a long process of research,
> consultation and negotation. My suggestion for this research paper is to
> take the GC37 as starting point for at least the issues related to
> protocols and assembly. Currently, at ICNL and ECNL - and we're not the
> only ones - we're stimulating ongoing discussions about the GC37 and in
> particular what digitally mediated assemblies are an how they should be
> protected, which could provide insight for this community. My suggestion
> is to focus our discussion and attention to identifying how protocol
> design relates to digitally mediated assemblies, association and
> discuss and strengthen the exmaples in the paper, instead of long and
> in-depth legal analysis. I agree that references to authoritative
> interpretations should be added to the current list.
>> A strong analog for what HRPC is trying to do with the Internet design
>> process is the effort by the international legal community to figure
>> out whether existing international law applies to cyber operations of
>> national security concern.  A particularly rich model of what that
>> involves are the _Tallinn Manual_ and _Tallinn Manual 2.0_, which
>> provide exhaustive analyses of each of the pertinent concepts in
>> international laws of war, clearly specifying where consensus was
>> reached within the group of international legal experts involved, and
>> where it was not, with the diverse positions identified for the
>> latter.
> The Tallinn Manual is indeed an interesting example of how the
> specialized cyber scholarly community tackles an ongoing issue (applying
> int'l law in cyberspace) that at the same time is subject of
> geopolitical debate in the UN. As a former diplomat I know how important
> this manual to underpin governments' positions. My impression however,
> but please forgive me my newby status in this community, is that a
> process like the Tallinn Manual is much too specialized on international
> law in its full depths compared to what we try to accomplish here i.e.
> help improving protocols. I therefore don't think it's necessary to
> discuss all treaties and all different national interpretations in this
> research paper, but that the most important and up to date notions about
> the FOAA should be there underpinned by authorative voices such as UNSRs
> and the HRC.
>
>> A discussion of about a week ago of a panel of international legal
>> scholars, including Michael Schmitt, who served as editor for both
>> Tallinn manuals, gives a sense of the state of play regarding
>> international law and war in cyberspace right now. Much of this
>> conversation about international law and cyberespace involved
>> discussing trends in national-level treatment of problems such as
>> whether or not data is an object, identifying the range of positions
>> out there, how many states aligned with each position, and where
>> shifts were taking place, followed by each expert's argument for their
>> preferred position. If you want to see what that kind of conversation
>> looks like, you can see it here:
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.dvidshub.net/video/785840/international-law-professors-discuss-2020-cyberspace-operations-developments-2021-uscybercom-legal-conference__;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwEFLPjjw$ .
>> My suggestions regarding looking at national law were for this reason
>> -- as sources for insight into how to articulate the two distinct
>> rights of association and assembly for purposes of this attempt to
>> apply international human rights law to Internet standards by looking
>> at how they have been put forth by national governments.
>>
>> (RFC 8280 includes false statements about US law that can be used to
>> take down pages because it ignores Sec. 230, which protects third
>> party intermediaries from liability for speech by those using its
>> platforms. If a US-based platform decides to take down either a
>> specific message or a user who egregiously incites illegal violence
>> likely to harm society or misinformation of a kind that can damage the
>> health of individuals and communities such as drinking bleach, that is
>> NOT because of a law. It is because a private entity decided to take
>> the action on the basis of principles it has established for itself
>> and the communities that the platform hosts and facilitates. It can do
>> that because users of the platform sign a contract to abide by its
>> rules, the terms of service or acceptable use agreement. Contract law
>> is actually the law that matters in this regard.)
>>
>> Development of the law to apply to new problems is heavily influenced
>> by precedent, legal decision-making that has come before. The
>> analytical job in new situations involves identifying what it is in
>> the new situation that is like what came before, and what is different
>> and therefore may justify adapting the law, reinterpreting it, and/or
>> developing new law. The way to conduct this anaylysis is to study
>> pertinent court opinions. My suggestions for looking at court cases
>> involving international human rights law were for this reason -- as
>> sources for insight into how to articulate the rights of association
>> and assembly for purposes of this attempt to apply international human
>> rights law to Internet protocols by looking at how those rights have
>> been interpreted by courts in the past. Much of the thinking in these
>> opinions will not deal specifically with the cyber environment; it is
>> there that the role of original argument and theorization are required
>> to extrapolate from precedent to how it is being recommended that it
>> should apply to Internet protocols.
>>
>> Authors of this draft RFC need not conduct all of the necessary
>> analysis themselves. There is an existing literature on international
>> human rights law and the rights of association and assembly. A quick
>> search identified several items that are far from exhaustive of what
>> is available. These items would complement and expand on what is
>> learned from the piece by Peter Swire, as the piece by a legal scholar
>> that deals with international human rights law and association
>> currently cited.
>>
>> Boyle, Kevin, and Sangeeta Shah.  (2014). "Thought, expression,
>> association, and assembly." In Daniel Moeckli, Sangeeta Shah, &
>> Sandesh Sivakumaran (Eds.), _International human rights law_, pp.
>> 257-279.  Oxford: Oxford University Press.
>>
>> Haas, Ernst B. (1970). _Human rights and international action: The
>> case of freedom of association_. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
>>
>> Hamilton, Michael. (2020). The meaning and scope of "assembly" in
>> international human rights law, _International and Comparative Law
>> Quarterly_, _69_(3), 521-556.
>>
>> Hamilton, Michael. (2020). To facilitate and protect: State
>> obligations and the right of peaceful assembly in international human
>> right law, _Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law_,
>> _21_(1), 5-34.
>>
>> Kalin, Walter & Kunzli, Jorg. (2019). Protection of participation in
>> political life. In _The law of international human rights protection_,
>> 2nd ed., pp. 491-519. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
>>
>> Salat, Orsolya. (2014). Comparative freedom of assembly and the
>> fragmentation of human rights law, _Nordic Journal of Human Rights_,
>> _32_(2), 140-156.
>>
>>    Tyulkina, Svetlana. (2014). Fragmentation in international human
>> rights law: Political parties and freedom of association in the
>> practice of the UN Human Rights Committee, European Court of Human
>> Rights and Inter-American Court of Human Rights, _Nordic Journal of
>> Human Rights_, _32_(2), 157-175.
>>
>> Defining the rights of association and assembly
>>
>> The legal scholarship on international human rights law finds the
>> right of association to refer to formal organizations of individuals
>> who join together to pursue a specific goal. Membership is explicit
>> and recognized, there are rules, typically there are officers, there
>> may be staff, etc. The concept of the right of association in
>> international law has been most fully developed as it applies to labor
>> unions, although it is also understood to apply to political parties
>> and civil society groups of all kinds.  The right of assembly, at
>> minimum, requires only two individuals or more who intentionally
>> assemble, though there are interpretations that require more than
>> that.
>>
>> This draft on the rights of association and assembly goes back and
>> forth between treating them as two separate rights and treating them
>> together as a single right, with the text dominated by the latter. The
>> document will be stronger if the authors choose one of these two
>> positions and stick with it. Treating the rights as two separate
>> rights is the approach that aligns with international law because of
>> the difference in how the two concepts are defined and used in
>> international law.
> I agree that the rights should be treated as separate rights thourghout
> the entire text.
>
> The fact that these two rights interact with other
>> rights, such as privacy and freedom of expression, is important and
>> worth including in the analysis, but does not make these rights
>> synonymous with each other.
>>
>> This draft includes temporary groupings of people as an association,
>> although in my understanding this is not upheld by international law.
>> That could, of course, be my ignorance. I would appreciate reference
>> to sources for this element of the definition of association that has
>> been valuably added to this draft.
> Well noted, will look for a good reference because it is indeed
> understood that temporary groupings are also protected under the freedom
> to associate. This does raise the question to what extent we should
> adress the legal nitty-gritty (please forgive me, laywers in the room
> :)) of these rights in this paper, or primarily aim to generate basis
> understanding of the key aspects of these rights - with strong
> references to the ongoing scholarly discussion added. With my comments
> to the paper, I hoped to strike a balance between the legal experts on
> the one hand and the tech experts in the IETF community because too much
> detail on legal interpretations might scare readers without a legal
> background.
>
>> This draft also includes being a member of an audience to which a mass
>> message has been sent as a form of assembly, although in my
>> understanding this is not upheld by international law. In the example
>> given, spam, the pertinent right on the part of those who do not wish
>> to receive the messages is the right not to receive, not anything
>> involving association. This again could be my ignorance and I would
>> appreciate reference to sources for making this claim. The item cited
>> by Marcus discusses freedom of expression but does not mention freedom
>> of association.
>>
>> I am not going to review each of the cases discussed in this draft
>> under the rubric of association or work through each of the places
>> where communication, association, and assembly become conflated in
>> ways that are problematic from a legal perspective, but if the authors
>> would like to pull together a group of legal scholars to fully develop
>> understandings of the two separate rights of association and assembly
>> for the cyber environment -- importantly, as they are different from
>> expression, communication, and access to information as other rights
>> distinguished under international human rights law -- I would be happy
>> to join that group.
>>
>> Genre
>>
>> I have been understanding HRPC informational RFCs and drafts as
>> contributions to knowledge production and intended to be of use both
>> within the Internet design community and in the legal community.
>> Concerns about bringing the technical and legal communities into a
>> common conversation to mutual -- and societal -- advantage has been
>> underway for 3 decades now at least (with Mallory's current employer,
>> CDT, an important early and sustained leader in this effort). We are
>> finally seeing new, important, developments in this regard with a
>> quickly growing number of academic programs being launched to train
>> people in both types of expertise and their interactions as well as a
>> now significant literature in this area and maturing sophistication on
>> the part of many policy-makers.
>>
>> Mallory's response to my comments educated me to the history of the
>> decision not to put in place a checklist for use by those involved in
>> designing protocols, and I appreciate the reasoning behind that. As is
>> mentioned in this draft, the dual use nature of almost all, if not
>> all, protocols and their characteristics, could mean that, actually,
>> nothing can be done by engineers other than to acknowledge that uses
>> can be made of their work products that may be in violation of
>> international human rights law.
>>
>> That in itself is not a trivial accomplishment. Research has shown
>> that the RFCs document that those involved in Internet design have
>> been concerned about matters such as privacy, equity, and fairness
>> from the very start, but that discussion has appeared in social
>> science publications not likely to be encountered or referenced by
>> those designing protocols. I may have been misunderstanding the point
>> of the exercise. That would mean that the genre here is actually the
>> metadata -- the fact that human rights has now been officially
>> recognized as something that can be violated through the use of the
>> Internet via documents appearing in the RFCs -- rather than the
>> substance of the evidence and arguments brought to bear.  To date,
>> this is essentially the use made of RFC 8280 in the few items
>> published to date both within and outside of the RFCs that reference
>> it.
>>
>> If the genre and rhetorical goals go beyond metadata to also be of use
>> to legal scholars, policy-makers, and social scientists as well, as I
>> originally understood the point of the exercise, then in my view more
>> work needs to be done and I would be willing to join the effort if
>> welcomed. The team put together to accomplish that work should include
>> experts in each of the areas involved; my judgments regarding
>> technical problems in protocol design aren't worth anything at all.
>> This work will be strongest if those with a depth in the law are
>> involved in making legal arguments; the issue mentioned above
>> regarding US law as discussed in RFC 8280 is also not trivial.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 4:07 AM <hrpc-request@irtf.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Send hrpc mailing list submissions to
>>> hrpc@irtf.org
>>>
>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwwsk7F6A$
>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>> hrpc-request@irtf.org
>>>
>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>> hrpc-owner@irtf.org
>>>
>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>>> than "Re: Contents of hrpc digest..."
>>> Today's Topics:
>>>
>>> 1. Re: comments, draft association (Eliot Lear)
>>> 2. Re: comments, draft association (Mark Perkins)
>>> 3. Re: comments, draft association (Eliot Lear)
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
>>> To: Mallory Knodel <mknodel@cdt.org>
>>> Cc: Hrpc <hrpc@irtf.org>, Sandra Braman <braman@tamu.edu>
>>> Bcc:
>>> Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 10:08:27 +0100
>>> Subject: Re: [hrpc] comments, draft association
>>>
>>> Hi Mallory,
>>>
>>> Ok, so on with it in-line below (combining your two emails):
>>>
>>> On 2/6/21 3:35 AM, Sandra Braman wrote:
>>>
>>> The international treaties discussed in this draft are not a part of
>>> the scholarly literature covered in literature reviews, but the
>>> legal authorities on the basis of which claims made here are
>>> justified.  Although I agree with the authors that this is not the
>>> place for a comprehensive discussion and synthesis of the scholarly
>>> literature, coverage of the pertinent treaty provisions _should_ be
>>> comprehensive.  Treaty provisions only matter, though, where
>>> treaties have been ratified.  It would also be useful to the reader
>>> to know the extent to which these provisions have been interpreted
>>> in courts in cases that have come their way involving assembly and
>>> association.
>>>
>>> This draft is trying to fulfill the explicit language from the HRPC
>>> charter, the relevant portion of which is:
>>>
>>> "The Human Rights Protocol Considerations Research Group is
>>> chartered to research whether standards and protocols can enable,
>>> strengthen or threaten human rights, as defined in the Universal
>>> Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) [1] and the International
>>> Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) [2], specifically,
>>> but not limited to the right to freedom of expression and the right
>>> to freedom of assembly."
>>>
>>> Therefore to talk about the regulation of code is out of scope.
>> There is one aspect that could be better drawn out: is the
>> interpretation of these two documents consistent with the
>> interpretation by most governments?  If it is not, would proposed
>> applications present difficulties in implementing the protocols
>> approved by SDOs such as the IETF, and under what circumstances?
> I think there is gap between interpretations of authorities such as the
> HRC and interpretations by many governments. I agree that its important
> to address this to enable readers to understand what it would mean to
> implement protocols given this gap. I look forward to collaborating on
> text suggestions here.
>
>> I am
>> specifically thinking of the examples you have in the draft (spam,
>> DDOS) as well as perhaps something around lawful intercept (not
>> entirely tangential to freedom of assembly).  I don’t see that
>> outside the scope of the charter.
>>
>> Also, we just had a live example in the US of use of technology to
>> organize what could alternatively be described as a peaceful assembly
>> or an insurrection.  Surely this draft would be remiss to not explore
>> the technology implications, given the use of encryption by some of
>> the parties.
>>
>> Eliot
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Mark Perkins <marknoumea@yahoo.com>
>> To: hrpc@irtf.org
>> Cc:
>> Bcc:
>> Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 20:52:40 +1100
>> Subject: Re: [hrpc] comments, draft association
>>
>> Eliot
>>
>> "is the interpretation of these two documents consistent with the
>> interpretation by most governments?"
>>
>> Here I think we run into real world problems:
>>
>> What do the documents (UDHR & ICCPR) state?
>>
>> What is the interpretation of these two documents by the relevant UN
>> body (usually found in General Comments of UN Human Rights Committee,
>> but also occassionally International Tribunals, though these are
>> usually Regional decisions rather than International in the Global
>> sense) - eg General comment No. 37(2020) on theright of peaceful
>> assembly (article 21), 17September 2020
>>
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/TBSearch.aspx?Lang=en&TreatyID=8&DocTypeID=11__;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwJMK-goE$
>>
>> What is the interpretation of 'most' governments? Clearly this
>> question will have multiple responses, as often there is no agreement,
>> in fact there is clear disagreement
>>
>> What is the difference between all of the above, esp UN interpretation
>> & interpretation by 'most' governments OR the different governmental
>> interpretations?
>>
>> Mark P.
>> Le 08/03/2021 à 20:08, Eliot Lear a écrit :
>>
>>> Hi Mallory,
>>>
>>> Ok, so on with it in-line below (combining your two emails):
>>>
>>> On 2/6/21 3:35 AM, Sandra Braman wrote:
>>>
>>> The international treaties discussed in this draft are not a part of
>>> the scholarly literature covered in literature reviews, but the
>>> legal authorities on the basis of which claims made here are
>>> justified.  Although I agree with the authors that this is not the
>>> place for a comprehensive discussion and synthesis of the scholarly
>>> literature, coverage of the pertinent treaty provisions _should_ be
>>> comprehensive.  Treaty provisions only matter, though, where
>>> treaties have been ratified.  It would also be useful to the reader
>>> to know the extent to which these provisions have been interpreted
>>> in courts in cases that have come their way involving assembly and
>>> association.
>>>
>>> This draft is trying to fulfill the explicit language from the HRPC
>>> charter, the relevant portion of which is:
>>>
>>> "The Human Rights Protocol Considerations Research Group is
>>> chartered to research whether standards and protocols can enable,
>>> strengthen or threaten human rights, as defined in the Universal
>>> Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) [1] and the International
>>> Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) [2], specifically,
>>> but not limited to the right to freedom of expression and the right
>>> to freedom of assembly."
>>>
>>> Therefore to talk about the regulation of code is out of scope.
>>   There is one aspect that could be better drawn out: is the
>> interpretation of these two documents consistent with the
>> interpretation by most governments?  If it is not, would proposed
>> applications present difficulties in implementing the protocols
>> approved by SDOs such as the IETF, and under what circumstances?  I am
>> specifically thinking of the examples you have in the draft (spam,
>> DDOS) as well as perhaps something around lawful intercept (not
>> entirely tangential to freedom of assembly).  I don’t see that
>> outside the scope of the charter.
>>
>> Also, we just had a live example in the US of use of technology to
>> organize what could alternatively be described as a peaceful assembly
>> or an insurrection.  Surely this draft would be remiss to not explore
>> the technology implications, given the use of encryption by some of
>> the parties.
>>
>> Eliot
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> hrpc mailing list
>> hrpc@irtf.org
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwwsk7F6A$
>>
>>               [1]
>>              Garanti sans virus. https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.avast.com__;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwCvRzTNo$  [1]
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
>> To: Mark Perkins <marknoumea=40yahoo.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
>> Cc: hrpc@irtf.org
>> Bcc:
>> Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 11:06:46 +0100
>> Subject: Re: [hrpc] comments, draft association
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>>> What is the interpretation of 'most' governments? Clearly this
>>> question will have multiple responses, as often there is no
>>> agreement, in fact there is clear disagreement
>> Good point.  That in itself is good to understand.  One of the
>> challenges I’ve faced in other domains like during the 2014(?)
>> Budapest Convention review has been potential conflicting regulatory
>> requirements.  To be clear, I’m not suggesting so wide a scope, but
>> rather a focus on how our protocol suite development needs to consider
>> these conflicts.
>>
>>> What is the difference between all of the above, esp UN
>>> interpretation & interpretation by 'most' governments OR the
>>> different governmental interpretations?
>> I like the latter- “different government interpretations”.  That
>> in itself can highlight problems that the IETF can’t solve, but
>> others should.
>>
>> By the way, real world problems are good problems for this group to
>> address (IMHO).
>>
>> Eliot_______________________________________________
>> hrpc mailing list
>> hrpc@irtf.org
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwwsk7F6A$
>>   
>>
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&amp;utm_source=link&amp;utm_campaign=sig-email&amp;utm_content=emailclient__;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwVMq6gRM$
>> _______________________________________________
>> hrpc mailing list
>> hrpc@irtf.org
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwwsk7F6A$
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> hrpc@irtf.org
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwwsk7F6A$

--
Mallory Knodel
CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780


_______________________________________________
hrpc mailing list
hrpc@irtf.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwwsk7F6A$ 

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

-- 
Mallory Knodel
CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780
--------------rB7pR0nIoSa0pLDBBi4Tu04F-- From nobody Fri Apr 16 09:59:27 2021 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 190333A2C95 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 09:59:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.298 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URI_NOVOWEL=0.5] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tamu-edu.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 JHD-HKeHKFW2 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 09:59:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-il1-x12d.google.com (mail-il1-x12d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12d]) (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 2E3783A2C93 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 09:59:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-il1-x12d.google.com with SMTP id r5so15487453ilb.2 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 09:59:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tamu-edu.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=NzOkfR6PhprvaXs/G39ckGbeWnL9k6CU9jXTq6sj9vY=; b=Cz14KfAZAc5eDfNNxU5URWz81u0SC2wrrkyMSZia+aWOaBgb+LPphqPwtLNqoHffe0 czGQeTeqdLyrOMqIZsTKWy1pLDRF3JFG/lXw1Wy8zODKek/RUqTmWh4kr4bePtnYPD13 1FYQgWcue21ZR2qlf3HTwaEYNGOtgOlmWt+1PKM3kgd84NWcRGG1Vg1T7Chk0EbQRZMB lN/tsexDmpdO2XilQ5puPcL89aEwtfla2y/eoZu4se1b+jlJSn1Ean65RfJNz+6lnVYj 207WpodQiE6zNJa7Mm+B6M3/usTQAK0B2ERFw1HVi1YIbw0M9CIlXBpGtGqQU99XhZau mx5Q== 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=NzOkfR6PhprvaXs/G39ckGbeWnL9k6CU9jXTq6sj9vY=; b=TBxBxYOejySX5umJlI1ws/QCRzMGQXuHWurHjEV5vr9McyUZag+fdb+z/McuopE2wV u8IfJGTe66pz7cWZGm8TZyJf9tXQek5nZxx0Qiu1uHczgbnrlQdk3KCGIqsfbYV538hY +IioWYsuYLFKJHoqv/hwKs88mUmdJPY3UIddbomaEtPTLx/XYNkEqQenLYHHXmSBPTxN KdQXiaYtiPC9w6BsoFGSXlp5C4iLUhs22agyqlWdZo938kt2XcLdnyz3lM0vTwzWRgr3 0eWghbKHxHEdiGs8Qo4pUmP2VB+uOp0DLtFP6Y8rFwyw554D15N5nTOjY3Q+Qkfb/IlZ /3tw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532emuXzBl3NwC/lQJVca69yg3K9nZT7m8GENOtYo44ffx9ul+Ov 1Msx2LYq5ro9+juXN2xzuU/43KLwRSRZvYaovEWJwk7xQSQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyaQ1czOM1eL7/42YlD9C5dWLsO2b/FcwyUSPyBWpyoVybnAsnfgcYYX7LmZuQovM1cy3Akyw4cN5EfXkucoEY= X-Received: by 2002:a92:6902:: with SMTP id e2mr7870452ilc.172.1618592353696; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 09:59:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <9ace81f2-da09-6e63-7695-f0fd6e9b9e9a@cdt.org> In-Reply-To: <9ace81f2-da09-6e63-7695-f0fd6e9b9e9a@cdt.org> From: Sandra Braman Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 11:58:37 -0500 Message-ID: To: Mallory Knodel Cc: hrpc@irtf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000047508405c019e6fb" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] hrpc Digest, Vol 73, Issue 4 X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: hrpc discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 16:59:25 -0000 --00000000000047508405c019e6fb Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Had understood today's post to the HRPC to say that you were working on a new draft, hadn't realized there was one posted. Will check it out and report back on my evaluation of it from this perspective. On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 11:55 AM Mallory Knodel wrote: > Hi Sandra, > On 4/16/21 12:51 PM, Sandra Braman wrote: > > > > To repeat points made more than once before: It would still make a big > difference to the utility of the piece if you provide operational > definitions of association and assembly -- each as distinct from > communication -- in international human rights law. The current draft > conflates all of these in a manner that evacuates the meaning of > association and assembly as distinct concepts. A half a dozen or so > scholarly articles about how the right to association is understood withi= n > international human rights law specifically have been provided that will > help you with this. Those discussions, references to those items, and > further bibliographic searching can help you on the assembly side. > > Because this is digest mode, I'm not sure which email you're responding > to-- did you read the new version and feel it still needs definitional > distinction? Because that was something we specifically worked on in the > new draft out this morning. > > > Once those definitions are in place, you will want to review the cases yo= u > discuss and delete those that involve only communication but not either > assembly or association, as I've recommended before, so that the piece is > internally coherent. > > I think we were able to do this a couple of versions before. Each case > study now does invoke a relationship to FAA, which Stephane made sure of = in > his review a while back. > > Thanks, > > -Mallory > > Will look at the revised text once you get there to see if these issues > are resolved before considering possible language for your conclusion. > > Sandra > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:59 AM wrote: > >> Send hrpc mailing list submissions to >> hrpc@irtf.org >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__= ;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwwsk= 7F6A$ >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> hrpc-request@irtf.org >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> hrpc-owner@irtf.org >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of hrpc digest..." >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. draft-association general update + response to: [Re: re >> international & national law, draft association] (Mallory Knodel) >> >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Mallory Knodel >> To: lvermeer@riseup.net, hrpc@irtf.org >> Cc: lvermeer@icnlalliance.org >> Bcc: >> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 05:58:50 -0400 >> Subject: [hrpc] draft-association general update + response to: [Re: re >> international & national law, draft association] >> Hi everyone, >> >> Excuse the top post. I am following up on this conversation about >> draft-association generally, with a specific list of ways forward that >> relate to what's been discussed below. >> >> The notes on draft-association from 110 are transcribed verbatim due to >> the importance of the topic and you can find them in the datatracker. I >> then translated the clear action points into Github issues. The authors >> have worked (are working) through them and a new version should be >> coming along shortly. >> >> In the meeting we addressed the issue of scope and international versus >> national laws. So, as it relates here are the two relevant conclusions >> for draft-association that we came to: >> >> 1/ We take the point that the HR framework requires actioned laws by >> national implementors, and so we can't discount the impacts on the >> subject. In the meeting we decided to reinforce the basis of this by >> first treating only IHRL as principles, yet we will *point to future >> research, or a research gap, in the conclusion text*. Sandra, would you >> be able to provide a very short paragraph about this possible future wor= k? >> >> 2/ Relatedly, we then need to better define the scope up front such that >> it's clear we are limiting ourselves to IHRL, and why, and avoiding a >> discussion-- for now-- of national laws, at least in this document. >> >> I hope that's helpful. Excited to share the next version of this >> document with you all-- it's looking really good, so thanks very much! >> >> -Mallory >> >> On 3/11/21 6:31 AM, lvermeer@riseup.net wrote: >> > Dear all, >> > >> > Apologies for responding to this interesting conversation only now. >> > Especially for those of you in the western hemisphere, this controbuti= on >> > won't be timely for the meeting later today. I look forward to >> > discussing the draft on association this afternoon (CET) and continuin= g >> > it over email. >> > >> > I must admit I have difficulties keeping track of the discussion acros= s >> > multiple email threads so I might be missing out on some argument. See >> > my responses to Sandra and Eliot in-line below! >> > >> > Best to all, Lisa >> > >> > >> > On 08-03-2021 19:06, Sandra Braman wrote: >> >> Thanks to you all for launching this discussion. Mallory and her >> >> co-authors have made progress, in areas going beyond her email to >> >> include significant changes in wording, and I am delighted that >> >> another legal expert's advice has been sought. However -- depending >> >> upon the goal of the exercise -- in my view there are issues that >> >> remain. Rather than bundle several different issues into single >> >> emails, as before, here will concentrate on the points brought up in >> >> this discussion. >> >> >> >> It appears that Mallory and her co-authors have misunderstood what th= e >> >> "scope of work" is when relying on international treaties, and >> >> therefore misunderstood why some of the comments I made regarding >> >> legal sources were made. Will first discuss how the kind of legal >> >> problem being addressed here, and the kind of argument these authors >> >> are making, are approached by legal scholars; go on to address the >> >> specific concepts of association and assembly; and conclude with a >> >> point about genre. >> >> >> >> Doing research on protocols and the rights of association and assembl= y >> >> as established by international human rights law >> >> >> >> Mallory reminds us of the scope of the HRPC and how draft association >> >> fits into it. The word "defined" is used in the HRPC charter to refer >> >> to what is said in the UDHR and ICCPR regarding what are to be >> >> considered human rights. Those documents, however, don't actually >> >> define the concepts involved -- they providing a list of the kinds of >> >> rights to be protected. Any work relying on those treaties necessaril= y >> >> involves probing the concepts mentioned for what they actually mean o= n >> >> the ground. There are three ways of doing this: analysis of >> >> precedent, analysis of different approaches taken in different >> >> jurisdictions, and novel theorization and/or argumentation. These >> >> three approaches are often combined for the strongest work products, >> >> with the relative proportions of each type of investigation varying >> >> with the problem at hand. Undertaking all three of these kinds of >> >> analysis are within the scope of the HRPC because they are by >> >> definition within the scope of what it means to rely upon the >> >> international human rights treaties. >> > I'm excited that we are working on this draft at the same time that th= e >> > Human Rights Committee published its General Comment 37 about peaceful >> > assembly, one of the rights under discussion. The GC does not provide >> > details about how this right is interpreted by various governments but= I >> > know that the comment itself it based on a long process of research, >> > consultation and negotation. My suggestion for this research paper is = to >> > take the GC37 as starting point for at least the issues related to >> > protocols and assembly. Currently, at ICNL and ECNL - and we're not th= e >> > only ones - we're stimulating ongoing discussions about the GC37 and i= n >> > particular what digitally mediated assemblies are an how they should b= e >> > protected, which could provide insight for this community. My suggesti= on >> > is to focus our discussion and attention to identifying how protocol >> > design relates to digitally mediated assemblies, association and >> > discuss and strengthen the exmaples in the paper, instead of long and >> > in-depth legal analysis. I agree that references to authoritative >> > interpretations should be added to the current list. >> >> A strong analog for what HRPC is trying to do with the Internet desig= n >> >> process is the effort by the international legal community to figure >> >> out whether existing international law applies to cyber operations of >> >> national security concern. A particularly rich model of what that >> >> involves are the _Tallinn Manual_ and _Tallinn Manual 2.0_, which >> >> provide exhaustive analyses of each of the pertinent concepts in >> >> international laws of war, clearly specifying where consensus was >> >> reached within the group of international legal experts involved, and >> >> where it was not, with the diverse positions identified for the >> >> latter. >> > The Tallinn Manual is indeed an interesting example of how the >> > specialized cyber scholarly community tackles an ongoing issue (applyi= ng >> > int'l law in cyberspace) that at the same time is subject of >> > geopolitical debate in the UN. As a former diplomat I know how importa= nt >> > this manual to underpin governments' positions. My impression however, >> > but please forgive me my newby status in this community, is that a >> > process like the Tallinn Manual is much too specialized on internation= al >> > law in its full depths compared to what we try to accomplish here i.e. >> > help improving protocols. I therefore don't think it's necessary to >> > discuss all treaties and all different national interpretations in thi= s >> > research paper, but that the most important and up to date notions abo= ut >> > the FOAA should be there underpinned by authorative voices such as UNS= Rs >> > and the HRC. >> > >> >> A discussion of about a week ago of a panel of international legal >> >> scholars, including Michael Schmitt, who served as editor for both >> >> Tallinn manuals, gives a sense of the state of play regarding >> >> international law and war in cyberspace right now. Much of this >> >> conversation about international law and cyberespace involved >> >> discussing trends in national-level treatment of problems such as >> >> whether or not data is an object, identifying the range of positions >> >> out there, how many states aligned with each position, and where >> >> shifts were taking place, followed by each expert's argument for thei= r >> >> preferred position. If you want to see what that kind of conversation >> >> looks like, you can see it here: >> >> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.dvidshub.net/video/785840/intern= ational-law-professors-discuss-2020-cyberspace-operations-developments-2021= -uscybercom-legal-conference__;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3= o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwEFLPjjw$ >> . >> >> My suggestions regarding looking at national law were for this reason >> >> -- as sources for insight into how to articulate the two distinct >> >> rights of association and assembly for purposes of this attempt to >> >> apply international human rights law to Internet standards by looking >> >> at how they have been put forth by national governments. >> >> >> >> (RFC 8280 includes false statements about US law that can be used to >> >> take down pages because it ignores Sec. 230, which protects third >> >> party intermediaries from liability for speech by those using its >> >> platforms. If a US-based platform decides to take down either a >> >> specific message or a user who egregiously incites illegal violence >> >> likely to harm society or misinformation of a kind that can damage th= e >> >> health of individuals and communities such as drinking bleach, that i= s >> >> NOT because of a law. It is because a private entity decided to take >> >> the action on the basis of principles it has established for itself >> >> and the communities that the platform hosts and facilitates. It can d= o >> >> that because users of the platform sign a contract to abide by its >> >> rules, the terms of service or acceptable use agreement. Contract law >> >> is actually the law that matters in this regard.) >> >> >> >> Development of the law to apply to new problems is heavily influenced >> >> by precedent, legal decision-making that has come before. The >> >> analytical job in new situations involves identifying what it is in >> >> the new situation that is like what came before, and what is differen= t >> >> and therefore may justify adapting the law, reinterpreting it, and/or >> >> developing new law. The way to conduct this anaylysis is to study >> >> pertinent court opinions. My suggestions for looking at court cases >> >> involving international human rights law were for this reason -- as >> >> sources for insight into how to articulate the rights of association >> >> and assembly for purposes of this attempt to apply international huma= n >> >> rights law to Internet protocols by looking at how those rights have >> >> been interpreted by courts in the past. Much of the thinking in these >> >> opinions will not deal specifically with the cyber environment; it is >> >> there that the role of original argument and theorization are require= d >> >> to extrapolate from precedent to how it is being recommended that it >> >> should apply to Internet protocols. >> >> >> >> Authors of this draft RFC need not conduct all of the necessary >> >> analysis themselves. There is an existing literature on international >> >> human rights law and the rights of association and assembly. A quick >> >> search identified several items that are far from exhaustive of what >> >> is available. These items would complement and expand on what is >> >> learned from the piece by Peter Swire, as the piece by a legal schola= r >> >> that deals with international human rights law and association >> >> currently cited. >> >> >> >> Boyle, Kevin, and Sangeeta Shah. (2014). "Thought, expression, >> >> association, and assembly." In Daniel Moeckli, Sangeeta Shah, & >> >> Sandesh Sivakumaran (Eds.), _International human rights law_, pp. >> >> 257-279. Oxford: Oxford University Press. >> >> >> >> Haas, Ernst B. (1970). _Human rights and international action: The >> >> case of freedom of association_. Stanford: Stanford University Press. >> >> >> >> Hamilton, Michael. (2020). The meaning and scope of "assembly" in >> >> international human rights law, _International and Comparative Law >> >> Quarterly_, _69_(3), 521-556. >> >> >> >> Hamilton, Michael. (2020). To facilitate and protect: State >> >> obligations and the right of peaceful assembly in international human >> >> right law, _Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law_, >> >> _21_(1), 5-34. >> >> >> >> Kalin, Walter & Kunzli, Jorg. (2019). Protection of participation in >> >> political life. In _The law of international human rights protection_= , >> >> 2nd ed., pp. 491-519. Oxford: Oxford University Press. >> >> >> >> Salat, Orsolya. (2014). Comparative freedom of assembly and the >> >> fragmentation of human rights law, _Nordic Journal of Human Rights_, >> >> _32_(2), 140-156. >> >> >> >> Tyulkina, Svetlana. (2014). Fragmentation in international human >> >> rights law: Political parties and freedom of association in the >> >> practice of the UN Human Rights Committee, European Court of Human >> >> Rights and Inter-American Court of Human Rights, _Nordic Journal of >> >> Human Rights_, _32_(2), 157-175. >> >> >> >> Defining the rights of association and assembly >> >> >> >> The legal scholarship on international human rights law finds the >> >> right of association to refer to formal organizations of individuals >> >> who join together to pursue a specific goal. Membership is explicit >> >> and recognized, there are rules, typically there are officers, there >> >> may be staff, etc. The concept of the right of association in >> >> international law has been most fully developed as it applies to labo= r >> >> unions, although it is also understood to apply to political parties >> >> and civil society groups of all kinds. The right of assembly, at >> >> minimum, requires only two individuals or more who intentionally >> >> assemble, though there are interpretations that require more than >> >> that. >> >> >> >> This draft on the rights of association and assembly goes back and >> >> forth between treating them as two separate rights and treating them >> >> together as a single right, with the text dominated by the latter. Th= e >> >> document will be stronger if the authors choose one of these two >> >> positions and stick with it. Treating the rights as two separate >> >> rights is the approach that aligns with international law because of >> >> the difference in how the two concepts are defined and used in >> >> international law. >> > I agree that the rights should be treated as separate rights thourghou= t >> > the entire text. >> > >> > The fact that these two rights interact with other >> >> rights, such as privacy and freedom of expression, is important and >> >> worth including in the analysis, but does not make these rights >> >> synonymous with each other. >> >> >> >> This draft includes temporary groupings of people as an association, >> >> although in my understanding this is not upheld by international law. >> >> That could, of course, be my ignorance. I would appreciate reference >> >> to sources for this element of the definition of association that has >> >> been valuably added to this draft. >> > Well noted, will look for a good reference because it is indeed >> > understood that temporary groupings are also protected under the freed= om >> > to associate. This does raise the question to what extent we should >> > adress the legal nitty-gritty (please forgive me, laywers in the room >> > :)) of these rights in this paper, or primarily aim to generate basis >> > understanding of the key aspects of these rights - with strong >> > references to the ongoing scholarly discussion added. With my comments >> > to the paper, I hoped to strike a balance between the legal experts on >> > the one hand and the tech experts in the IETF community because too mu= ch >> > detail on legal interpretations might scare readers without a legal >> > background. >> > >> >> This draft also includes being a member of an audience to which a mas= s >> >> message has been sent as a form of assembly, although in my >> >> understanding this is not upheld by international law. In the example >> >> given, spam, the pertinent right on the part of those who do not wish >> >> to receive the messages is the right not to receive, not anything >> >> involving association. This again could be my ignorance and I would >> >> appreciate reference to sources for making this claim. The item cited >> >> by Marcus discusses freedom of expression but does not mention freedo= m >> >> of association. >> >> >> >> I am not going to review each of the cases discussed in this draft >> >> under the rubric of association or work through each of the places >> >> where communication, association, and assembly become conflated in >> >> ways that are problematic from a legal perspective, but if the author= s >> >> would like to pull together a group of legal scholars to fully develo= p >> >> understandings of the two separate rights of association and assembly >> >> for the cyber environment -- importantly, as they are different from >> >> expression, communication, and access to information as other rights >> >> distinguished under international human rights law -- I would be happ= y >> >> to join that group. >> >> >> >> Genre >> >> >> >> I have been understanding HRPC informational RFCs and drafts as >> >> contributions to knowledge production and intended to be of use both >> >> within the Internet design community and in the legal community. >> >> Concerns about bringing the technical and legal communities into a >> >> common conversation to mutual -- and societal -- advantage has been >> >> underway for 3 decades now at least (with Mallory's current employer, >> >> CDT, an important early and sustained leader in this effort). We are >> >> finally seeing new, important, developments in this regard with a >> >> quickly growing number of academic programs being launched to train >> >> people in both types of expertise and their interactions as well as a >> >> now significant literature in this area and maturing sophistication o= n >> >> the part of many policy-makers. >> >> >> >> Mallory's response to my comments educated me to the history of the >> >> decision not to put in place a checklist for use by those involved in >> >> designing protocols, and I appreciate the reasoning behind that. As i= s >> >> mentioned in this draft, the dual use nature of almost all, if not >> >> all, protocols and their characteristics, could mean that, actually, >> >> nothing can be done by engineers other than to acknowledge that uses >> >> can be made of their work products that may be in violation of >> >> international human rights law. >> >> >> >> That in itself is not a trivial accomplishment. Research has shown >> >> that the RFCs document that those involved in Internet design have >> >> been concerned about matters such as privacy, equity, and fairness >> >> from the very start, but that discussion has appeared in social >> >> science publications not likely to be encountered or referenced by >> >> those designing protocols. I may have been misunderstanding the point >> >> of the exercise. That would mean that the genre here is actually the >> >> metadata -- the fact that human rights has now been officially >> >> recognized as something that can be violated through the use of the >> >> Internet via documents appearing in the RFCs -- rather than the >> >> substance of the evidence and arguments brought to bear. To date, >> >> this is essentially the use made of RFC 8280 in the few items >> >> published to date both within and outside of the RFCs that reference >> >> it. >> >> >> >> If the genre and rhetorical goals go beyond metadata to also be of us= e >> >> to legal scholars, policy-makers, and social scientists as well, as I >> >> originally understood the point of the exercise, then in my view more >> >> work needs to be done and I would be willing to join the effort if >> >> welcomed. The team put together to accomplish that work should includ= e >> >> experts in each of the areas involved; my judgments regarding >> >> technical problems in protocol design aren't worth anything at all. >> >> This work will be strongest if those with a depth in the law are >> >> involved in making legal arguments; the issue mentioned above >> >> regarding US law as discussed in RFC 8280 is also not trivial. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 4:07 AM wrote: >> >> >> >>> Send hrpc mailing list submissions to >> >>> hrpc@irtf.org >> >>> >> >>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> >>> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__= ;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwwsk= 7F6A$ >> >>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> >>> hrpc-request@irtf.org >> >>> >> >>> You can reach the person managing the list at >> >>> hrpc-owner@irtf.org >> >>> >> >>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> >>> than "Re: Contents of hrpc digest..." >> >>> Today's Topics: >> >>> >> >>> 1. Re: comments, draft association (Eliot Lear) >> >>> 2. Re: comments, draft association (Mark Perkins) >> >>> 3. Re: comments, draft association (Eliot Lear) >> >>> >> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> >>> From: Eliot Lear >> >>> To: Mallory Knodel >> >>> Cc: Hrpc , Sandra Braman >> >>> Bcc: >> >>> Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 10:08:27 +0100 >> >>> Subject: Re: [hrpc] comments, draft association >> >>> >> >>> Hi Mallory, >> >>> >> >>> Ok, so on with it in-line below (combining your two emails): >> >>> >> >>> On 2/6/21 3:35 AM, Sandra Braman wrote: >> >>> >> >>> The international treaties discussed in this draft are not a part of >> >>> the scholarly literature covered in literature reviews, but the >> >>> legal authorities on the basis of which claims made here are >> >>> justified. Although I agree with the authors that this is not the >> >>> place for a comprehensive discussion and synthesis of the scholarly >> >>> literature, coverage of the pertinent treaty provisions _should_ be >> >>> comprehensive. Treaty provisions only matter, though, where >> >>> treaties have been ratified. It would also be useful to the reader >> >>> to know the extent to which these provisions have been interpreted >> >>> in courts in cases that have come their way involving assembly and >> >>> association. >> >>> >> >>> This draft is trying to fulfill the explicit language from the HRPC >> >>> charter, the relevant portion of which is: >> >>> >> >>> "The Human Rights Protocol Considerations Research Group is >> >>> chartered to research whether standards and protocols can enable, >> >>> strengthen or threaten human rights, as defined in the Universal >> >>> Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) [1] and the International >> >>> Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) [2], specifically, >> >>> but not limited to the right to freedom of expression and the right >> >>> to freedom of assembly." >> >>> >> >>> Therefore to talk about the regulation of code is out of scope. >> >> There is one aspect that could be better drawn out: is the >> >> interpretation of these two documents consistent with the >> >> interpretation by most governments? If it is not, would proposed >> >> applications present difficulties in implementing the protocols >> >> approved by SDOs such as the IETF, and under what circumstances? >> > I think there is gap between interpretations of authorities such as th= e >> > HRC and interpretations by many governments. I agree that its importan= t >> > to address this to enable readers to understand what it would mean to >> > implement protocols given this gap. I look forward to collaborating on >> > text suggestions here. >> > >> >> I am >> >> specifically thinking of the examples you have in the draft (spam, >> >> DDOS) as well as perhaps something around lawful intercept (not >> >> entirely tangential to freedom of assembly). I don=E2=80=99t see tha= t >> >> outside the scope of the charter. >> >> >> >> Also, we just had a live example in the US of use of technology to >> >> organize what could alternatively be described as a peaceful assembly >> >> or an insurrection. Surely this draft would be remiss to not explore >> >> the technology implications, given the use of encryption by some of >> >> the parties. >> >> >> >> Eliot >> >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> >> From: Mark Perkins >> >> To: hrpc@irtf.org >> >> Cc: >> >> Bcc: >> >> Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 20:52:40 +1100 >> >> Subject: Re: [hrpc] comments, draft association >> >> >> >> Eliot >> >> >> >> "is the interpretation of these two documents consistent with the >> >> interpretation by most governments?" >> >> >> >> Here I think we run into real world problems: >> >> >> >> What do the documents (UDHR & ICCPR) state? >> >> >> >> What is the interpretation of these two documents by the relevant UN >> >> body (usually found in General Comments of UN Human Rights Committee, >> >> but also occassionally International Tribunals, though these are >> >> usually Regional decisions rather than International in the Global >> >> sense) - eg General comment No. 37(2020) on theright of peaceful >> >> assembly (article 21), 17September 2020 >> >> >> >> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/tre= atybodyexternal/TBSearch.aspx?Lang=3Den&TreatyID=3D8&DocTypeID=3D11__;!!KwN= VnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwJMK-goE$ >> >> >> >> What is the interpretation of 'most' governments? Clearly this >> >> question will have multiple responses, as often there is no agreement= , >> >> in fact there is clear disagreement >> >> >> >> What is the difference between all of the above, esp UN interpretatio= n >> >> & interpretation by 'most' governments OR the different governmental >> >> interpretations? >> >> >> >> Mark P. >> >> Le 08/03/2021 =C3=A0 20:08, Eliot Lear a =C3=A9crit : >> >> >> >>> Hi Mallory, >> >>> >> >>> Ok, so on with it in-line below (combining your two emails): >> >>> >> >>> On 2/6/21 3:35 AM, Sandra Braman wrote: >> >>> >> >>> The international treaties discussed in this draft are not a part of >> >>> the scholarly literature covered in literature reviews, but the >> >>> legal authorities on the basis of which claims made here are >> >>> justified. Although I agree with the authors that this is not the >> >>> place for a comprehensive discussion and synthesis of the scholarly >> >>> literature, coverage of the pertinent treaty provisions _should_ be >> >>> comprehensive. Treaty provisions only matter, though, where >> >>> treaties have been ratified. It would also be useful to the reader >> >>> to know the extent to which these provisions have been interpreted >> >>> in courts in cases that have come their way involving assembly and >> >>> association. >> >>> >> >>> This draft is trying to fulfill the explicit language from the HRPC >> >>> charter, the relevant portion of which is: >> >>> >> >>> "The Human Rights Protocol Considerations Research Group is >> >>> chartered to research whether standards and protocols can enable, >> >>> strengthen or threaten human rights, as defined in the Universal >> >>> Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) [1] and the International >> >>> Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) [2], specifically, >> >>> but not limited to the right to freedom of expression and the right >> >>> to freedom of assembly." >> >>> >> >>> Therefore to talk about the regulation of code is out of scope. >> >> There is one aspect that could be better drawn out: is the >> >> interpretation of these two documents consistent with the >> >> interpretation by most governments? If it is not, would proposed >> >> applications present difficulties in implementing the protocols >> >> approved by SDOs such as the IETF, and under what circumstances? I a= m >> >> specifically thinking of the examples you have in the draft (spam, >> >> DDOS) as well as perhaps something around lawful intercept (not >> >> entirely tangential to freedom of assembly). I don=E2=80=99t see tha= t >> >> outside the scope of the charter. >> >> >> >> Also, we just had a live example in the US of use of technology to >> >> organize what could alternatively be described as a peaceful assembly >> >> or an insurrection. Surely this draft would be remiss to not explore >> >> the technology implications, given the use of encryption by some of >> >> the parties. >> >> >> >> Eliot >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> hrpc mailing list >> >> hrpc@irtf.org >> >> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__= ;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwwsk= 7F6A$ >> >> >> >> [1] >> >> Garanti sans virus. >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.avast.com__;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVA= rzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwCvRzTNo$ >> [1] >> >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> >> From: Eliot Lear >> >> To: Mark Perkins >> >> Cc: hrpc@irtf.org >> >> Bcc: >> >> Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 11:06:46 +0100 >> >> Subject: Re: [hrpc] comments, draft association >> >> Hi Mark, >> >> >> >>> What is the interpretation of 'most' governments? Clearly this >> >>> question will have multiple responses, as often there is no >> >>> agreement, in fact there is clear disagreement >> >> Good point. That in itself is good to understand. One of the >> >> challenges I=E2=80=99ve faced in other domains like during the 2014(?= ) >> >> Budapest Convention review has been potential conflicting regulatory >> >> requirements. To be clear, I=E2=80=99m not suggesting so wide a scop= e, but >> >> rather a focus on how our protocol suite development needs to conside= r >> >> these conflicts. >> >> >> >>> What is the difference between all of the above, esp UN >> >>> interpretation & interpretation by 'most' governments OR the >> >>> different governmental interpretations? >> >> I like the latter- =E2=80=9Cdifferent government interpretations=E2= =80=9D. That >> >> in itself can highlight problems that the IETF can=E2=80=99t solve, b= ut >> >> others should. >> >> >> >> By the way, real world problems are good problems for this group to >> >> address (IMHO). >> >> >> >> Eliot_______________________________________________ >> >> hrpc mailing list >> >> hrpc@irtf.org >> >> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__= ;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwwsk= 7F6A$ >> >> >> >> >> >> Links: >> >> ------ >> >> [1] >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium= =3Demail&utm_source=3Dlink&utm_campaign=3Dsig-email&utm_content= =3Demailclient__;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Q= aj7l_Zh4PYYkwVMq6gRM$ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> hrpc mailing list >> >> hrpc@irtf.org >> >> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__= ;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwwsk= 7F6A$ >> > _______________________________________________ >> > hrpc mailing list >> > hrpc@irtf.org >> > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__= ;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwwsk= 7F6A$ >> >> -- >> Mallory Knodel >> CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology >> gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> hrpc mailing list >> hrpc@irtf.org >> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__= ;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwwsk= 7F6A$ >> > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing listhrpc@irtf.orghttps://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc = > > -- > Mallory Knodel > CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology > gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780 > > --00000000000047508405c019e6fb Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Had understood today's post to the HRPC to say that yo= u were working on a new draft, hadn't realized there was one posted. Wi= ll check it out and report back on my evaluation of it from this perspectiv= e.=C2=A0

On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 11:55 AM Mallory Knodel <mknodel@cdt.org> wrote:
=20 =20 =20

Hi Sandra,

On 4/16/21 12:51 PM, Sandra Braman wrote:
=20


To repeat points made more than once before: =C2= =A0It would still make a big difference to the utility of the piece if you provide operational definitions of association and assembly -- each as distinct from communication -- in international human rights law. The current draft conflates all of these in a manner that evacuates the meaning of association and assembly as distinct concepts.=C2=A0A half a doze= n or so scholarly articles about how the right to association is understood within international human rights law specifically have been provided that will help you with this. Those discussions, references to those items, and further bibliographic searching can help you on the assembly side.

Because this is digest mode, I'm not sure which email you're responding to-- did you read the new version and feel it still needs definitional distinction? Because that was something we specifically worked on in the new draft out this morning.


Once those definitions are in place, you will want to review the cases you discuss and delete those that involve only communication but not either assembly or association, as I've recommended before, so that the piece is internally coherent.

I think we were able to do this a couple of versions before. Each case study now does invoke a relationship to FAA, which Stephane made sure of in his review a while back.

Thanks,

-Mallory

Will look at the revised text once you get there to see if these issues are resolved before considering possible language for your conclusion.=C2=A0

Sandra

On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:59 AM <hrpc-request@irtf.org> wrote:
Send hrpc mailing list submissions to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 hrpc@irtf.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/lis= tinfo/hrpc__;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l= _Zh4PYYkwwsk7F6A$
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help'= to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 hrpc-request@irtf.org

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

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

=C2=A0 =C2=A01. draft-association general update + response to: [= Re: re
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 international & national law, draft asso= ciation] (Mallory Knodel)



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:=C2=A0Mallory Knodel <mknodel@cdt.org>
To:=C2=A0lvermeer@riseup.net, hrpc@irtf.org
Cc:=C2=A0lvermeer@icnlalliance.org
Bcc:=C2=A0
Date:=C2=A0Fri, 16 Apr 2021 05:58:50 -0400
Subject:=C2=A0[hrpc] draft-association general update + response to: [Re: re international & national law, draft association]
Hi everyone,

Excuse the top post. I am following up on this conversation about
draft-association generally, with a specific list of ways forward that
relate to what's been discussed below.

The notes on draft-association from 110 are transcribed verbatim due to
the importance of the topic and you can find them in the datatracker. I
then translated the clear action points into Github issues. The authors
have worked (are working) through them and a new version should be
coming along shortly.

In the meeting we addressed the issue of scope and international versus
national laws. So, as it relates here are the two relevant conclusions
for draft-association that we came to:

1/ We take the point that the HR framework requires actioned laws by
national implementors, and so we can't discount the impacts o= n the
subject. In the meeting we decided to reinforce the basis of this by
first treating only IHRL as principles, yet we will *point to future
research, or a research gap, in the conclusion text*. Sandra, would you
be able to provide a very short paragraph about this possible future work?

2/ Relatedly, we then need to better define the scope up front such that
it's clear we are limiting ourselves to IHRL, and why, and avoiding a
discussion-- for now-- of national laws, at least in this document.

I hope that's helpful. Excited to share the next version of this
document with you all-- it's looking really good, so thanks very much!

-Mallory

On 3/11/21 6:31 AM, lvermeer@riseup.net wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Apologies for responding to this interesting conversation only now.
> Especially for those of you in the western hemisphere, this controbution
> won't be timely for the meeting later today. I look forward to
> discussing the draft on association this afternoon (CET) and continuing
> it over email.
>
> I must admit I have difficulties keeping track of the discussion across
> multiple email threads so I might be missing out on some argument. See
> my responses to Sandra and Eliot in-line below!
>
> Best to all, Lisa
>
>
> On 08-03-2021 19:06, Sandra Braman wrote:
>> Thanks to you all for launching this discussion. Mallory and her
>> co-authors have made progress, in areas going beyond her email to
>> include significant changes in wording, and I am delighted that
>> another legal expert's advice has been sought. However -- depending
>> upon the goal of the exercise -- in my view there are issues that
>> remain. Rather than bundle several different issues into single
>> emails, as before, here will concentrate on the points brought up in
>> this discussion.
>>
>> It appears that Mallory and her co-authors have misunderstood what the
>> "scope of work" is when relying on internation= al treaties, and
>> therefore misunderstood why some of the comments I made regarding
>> legal sources were made. Will first discuss how the kind of legal
>> problem being addressed here, and the kind of argument these authors
>> are making, are approached by legal scholars; go on to address the
>> specific concepts of association and assembly; and conclude with a
>> point about genre.
>>
>> Doing research on protocols and the rights of association and assembly
>> as established by international human rights law
>>
>> Mallory reminds us of the scope of the HRPC and how draft association
>> fits into it. The word "defined" is used in th= e HRPC charter to refer
>> to what is said in the UDHR and ICCPR regarding what are to be
>> considered human rights. Those documents, however, don't actually
>> define the concepts involved -- they providing a list of the kinds of
>> rights to be protected. Any work relying on those treaties necessarily
>> involves probing the concepts mentioned for what they actually mean on
>> the ground. There are three ways of doing this:=C2=A0 analysis of
>> precedent, analysis of different approaches taken in different
>> jurisdictions, and novel theorization and/or argumentation. These
>> three approaches are often combined for the strongest work products,
>> with the relative proportions of each type of investigation varying
>> with the problem at hand. Undertaking all three of these kinds of
>> analysis are within the scope of the HRPC because they are by
>> definition within the scope of what it means to rely upon the
>> international human rights treaties.
> I'm excited that we are working on this draft at the sam= e time that the
> Human Rights Committee published its General Comment 37 about peaceful
> assembly, one of the rights under discussion. The GC does not provide
> details about how this right is interpreted by various governments but I
> know that the comment itself it based on a long process of research,
> consultation and negotation. My suggestion for this research paper is to
> take the GC37 as starting point for at least the issues related to
> protocols and assembly. Currently, at ICNL and ECNL - and we're not the
> only ones - we're stimulating ongoing discussions about the GC37 and in
> particular what digitally mediated assemblies are an how they should be
> protected, which could provide insight for this community. My suggestion
> is to focus our discussion and attention to identifying how protocol
> design relates to digitally mediated assemblies, association and
> discuss and strengthen the exmaples in the paper, instead of long and
> in-depth legal analysis. I agree that references to authoritative
> interpretations should be added to the current list.
>> A strong analog for what HRPC is trying to do with the Internet design
>> process is the effort by the international legal community to figure
>> out whether existing international law applies to cyber operations of
>> national security concern.=C2=A0 A particularly rich mod= el of what that
>> involves are the _Tallinn Manual_ and _Tallinn Manual 2.0_, which
>> provide exhaustive analyses of each of the pertinent concepts in
>> international laws of war, clearly specifying where consensus was
>> reached within the group of international legal experts involved, and
>> where it was not, with the diverse positions identified for the
>> latter.
> The Tallinn Manual is indeed an interesting example of how the
> specialized cyber scholarly community tackles an ongoing issue (applying
> int'l law in cyberspace) that at the same time is subjec= t of
> geopolitical debate in the UN. As a former diplomat I know how important
> this manual to underpin governments' positions. My impression however,
> but please forgive me my newby status in this community, is that a
> process like the Tallinn Manual is much too specialized on international
> law in its full depths compared to what we try to accomplish here i.e.
> help improving protocols. I therefore don't think it'= ;s necessary to
> discuss all treaties and all different national interpretations in this
> research paper, but that the most important and up to date notions about
> the FOAA should be there underpinned by authorative voices such as UNSRs
> and the HRC.
>
>> A discussion of about a week ago of a panel of international legal
>> scholars, including Michael Schmitt, who served as editor for both
>> Tallinn manuals, gives a sense of the state of play regarding
>> international law and war in cyberspace right now. Much of this
>> conversation about international law and cyberespace involved
>> discussing trends in national-level treatment of problems such as
>> whether or not data is an object, identifying the range of positions
>> out there, how many states aligned with each position, and where
>> shifts were taking place, followed by each expert's argument for their
>> preferred position. If you want to see what that kind of conversation
>> looks like, you can see it here:
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.dvidshub.= net/video/785840/international-law-professors-discuss-2020-cyberspace-opera= tions-developments-2021-uscybercom-legal-conference__;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVA= rzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwEFLPjjw$ .
>> My suggestions regarding looking at national law were for this reason
>> -- as sources for insight into how to articulate the two distinct
>> rights of association and assembly for purposes of this attempt to
>> apply international human rights law to Internet standards by looking
>> at how they have been put forth by national governments.
>>
>> (RFC 8280 includes false statements about US law that can be used to
>> take down pages because it ignores Sec. 230, which protects third
>> party intermediaries from liability for speech by those using its
>> platforms. If a US-based platform decides to take down either a
>> specific message or a user who egregiously incites illegal violence
>> likely to harm society or misinformation of a kind that can damage the
>> health of individuals and communities such as drinking bleach, that is
>> NOT because of a law. It is because a private entity decided to take
>> the action on the basis of principles it has established for itself
>> and the communities that the platform hosts and facilitates. It can do
>> that because users of the platform sign a contract to abide by its
>> rules, the terms of service or acceptable use agreement. Contract law
>> is actually the law that matters in this regard.)
>>
>> Development of the law to apply to new problems is heavily influenced
>> by precedent, legal decision-making that has come before. The
>> analytical job in new situations involves identifying what it is in
>> the new situation that is like what came before, and what is different
>> and therefore may justify adapting the law, reinterpreting it, and/or
>> developing new law. The way to conduct this anaylysis is to study
>> pertinent court opinions. My suggestions for looking at court cases
>> involving international human rights law were for this reason -- as
>> sources for insight into how to articulate the rights of association
>> and assembly for purposes of this attempt to apply international human
>> rights law to Internet protocols by looking at how those rights have
>> been interpreted by courts in the past. Much of the thinking in these
>> opinions will not deal specifically with the cyber environment; it is
>> there that the role of original argument and theorization are required
>> to extrapolate from precedent to how it is being recommended that it
>> should apply to Internet protocols.
>>
>> Authors of this draft RFC need not conduct all of the necessary
>> analysis themselves. There is an existing literature on international
>> human rights law and the rights of association and assembly. A quick
>> search identified several items that are far from exhaustive of what
>> is available. These items would complement and expand on what is
>> learned from the piece by Peter Swire, as the piece by a legal scholar
>> that deals with international human rights law and association
>> currently cited.
>>
>> Boyle, Kevin, and Sangeeta Shah.=C2=A0 (2014). "Tho= ught, expression,
>> association, and assembly." In Daniel Moeckli, Sangeeta Shah, &
>> Sandesh Sivakumaran (Eds.), _International human rights law_, pp.
>> 257-279.=C2=A0 Oxford: Oxford University Press.
>>
>> Haas, Ernst B. (1970). _Human rights and international action: The
>> case of freedom of association_. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
>>
>> Hamilton, Michael. (2020). The meaning and scope of "assembly" in
>> international human rights law, _International and Comparative Law
>> Quarterly_, _69_(3), 521-556.
>>
>> Hamilton, Michael. (2020). To facilitate and protect: State
>> obligations and the right of peaceful assembly in international human
>> right law, _Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law_,
>> _21_(1), 5-34.
>>
>> Kalin, Walter & Kunzli, Jorg. (2019). Protection of participation in
>> political life. In _The law of international human rights protection_,
>> 2nd ed., pp. 491-519. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
>>
>> Salat, Orsolya. (2014). Comparative freedom of assembly and the
>> fragmentation of human rights law, _Nordic Journal of Human Rights_,
>> _32_(2), 140-156.
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Tyulkina, Svetlana. (2014). Fragmentation i= n international human
>> rights law: Political parties and freedom of association in the
>> practice of the UN Human Rights Committee, European Court of Human
>> Rights and Inter-American Court of Human Rights, _Nordic Journal of
>> Human Rights_, _32_(2), 157-175.
>>
>> Defining the rights of association and assembly
>>
>> The legal scholarship on international human rights law finds the
>> right of association to refer to formal organizations of individuals
>> who join together to pursue a specific goal. Membership is explicit
>> and recognized, there are rules, typically there are officers, there
>> may be staff, etc. The concept of the right of association in
>> international law has been most fully developed as it applies to labor
>> unions, although it is also understood to apply to political parties
>> and civil society groups of all kinds.=C2=A0 The right o= f assembly, at
>> minimum, requires only two individuals or more who intentionally
>> assemble, though there are interpretations that require more than
>> that.
>>
>> This draft on the rights of association and assembly goes back and
>> forth between treating them as two separate rights and treating them
>> together as a single right, with the text dominated by the latter. The
>> document will be stronger if the authors choose one of these two
>> positions and stick with it. Treating the rights as two separate
>> rights is the approach that aligns with international law because of
>> the difference in how the two concepts are defined and used in
>> international law.
> I agree that the rights should be treated as separate rights thourghout
> the entire text.
>
> The fact that these two rights interact with other
>> rights, such as privacy and freedom of expression, is important and
>> worth including in the analysis, but does not make these rights
>> synonymous with each other.
>>
>> This draft includes temporary groupings of people as an association,
>> although in my understanding this is not upheld by international law.
>> That could, of course, be my ignorance. I would appreciate reference
>> to sources for this element of the definition of association that has
>> been valuably added to this draft.
> Well noted, will look for a good reference because it is indeed
> understood that temporary groupings are also protected under the freedom
> to associate. This does raise the question to what extent we should
> adress the legal nitty-gritty (please forgive me, laywers in the room
> :)) of these rights in this paper, or primarily aim to generate basis
> understanding of the key aspects of these rights - with strong
> references to the ongoing scholarly discussion added. With my comments
> to the paper, I hoped to strike a balance between the legal experts on
> the one hand and the tech experts in the IETF community because too much
> detail on legal interpretations might scare readers without a legal
> background.
>
>> This draft also includes being a member of an audience to which a mass
>> message has been sent as a form of assembly, although in my
>> understanding this is not upheld by international law. In the example
>> given, spam, the pertinent right on the part of those who do not wish
>> to receive the messages is the right not to receive, not anything
>> involving association. This again could be my ignorance and I would
>> appreciate reference to sources for making this claim. The item cited
>> by Marcus discusses freedom of expression but does not mention freedom
>> of association.
>>
>> I am not going to review each of the cases discussed in this draft
>> under the rubric of association or work through each of the places
>> where communication, association, and assembly become conflated in
>> ways that are problematic from a legal perspective, but if the authors
>> would like to pull together a group of legal scholars to fully develop
>> understandings of the two separate rights of association and assembly
>> for the cyber environment -- importantly, as they are different from
>> expression, communication, and access to information as other rights
>> distinguished under international human rights law -- I would be happy
>> to join that group.
>>
>> Genre
>>
>> I have been understanding HRPC informational RFCs and drafts as
>> contributions to knowledge production and intended to be of use both
>> within the Internet design community and in the legal community.
>> Concerns about bringing the technical and legal communities into a
>> common conversation to mutual -- and societal -- advantage has been
>> underway for 3 decades now at least (with Mallory's current employer,
>> CDT, an important early and sustained leader in this effort). We are
>> finally seeing new, important, developments in this regard with a
>> quickly growing number of academic programs being launched to train
>> people in both types of expertise and their interactions as well as a
>> now significant literature in this area and maturing sophistication on
>> the part of many policy-makers.
>>
>> Mallory's response to my comments educated me to the history of the
>> decision not to put in place a checklist for use by those involved in
>> designing protocols, and I appreciate the reasoning behind that. As is
>> mentioned in this draft, the dual use nature of almost all, if not
>> all, protocols and their characteristics, could mean that, actually,
>> nothing can be done by engineers other than to acknowledge that uses
>> can be made of their work products that may be in violation of
>> international human rights law.
>>
>> That in itself is not a trivial accomplishment. Research has shown
>> that the RFCs document that those involved in Internet design have
>> been concerned about matters such as privacy, equity, and fairness
>> from the very start, but that discussion has appeared in social
>> science publications not likely to be encountered or referenced by
>> those designing protocols. I may have been misunderstanding the point
>> of the exercise. That would mean that the genre here is actually the
>> metadata -- the fact that human rights has now been officially
>> recognized as something that can be violated through the use of the
>> Internet via documents appearing in the RFCs -- rather than the
>> substance of the evidence and arguments brought to bear.=C2=A0 To date,
>> this is essentially the use made of RFC 8280 in the few items
>> published to date both within and outside of the RFCs that reference
>> it.
>>
>> If the genre and rhetorical goals go beyond metadata to also be of use
>> to legal scholars, policy-makers, and social scientists as well, as I
>> originally understood the point of the exercise, then in my view more
>> work needs to be done and I would be willing to join the effort if
>> welcomed. The team put together to accomplish that work should include
>> experts in each of the areas involved; my judgments regarding
>> technical problems in protocol design aren't worth anything at all.
>> This work will be strongest if those with a depth in the law are
>> involved in making legal arguments; the issue mentioned above
>> regarding US law as discussed in RFC 8280 is also not trivial.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 4:07 AM <hrpc-request@irtf.org> wrote:<= br> >>
>>> Send hrpc mailing list submissions to
>>> h= rpc@irtf.org
>>>
>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>> = https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!!= KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwwsk7F6= A$
>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>> hrpc-request@irtf.org
>>>
>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>> hrpc-owner@irtf.org
>>>
>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>>> than "Re: Contents of hrpc digest..."
>>> Today's Topics:
>>>
>>> 1. Re: comments, draft association (Eliot Lear)
>>> 2. Re: comments, draft association (Mark Perkins) >>> 3. Re: comments, draft association (Eliot Lear)
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
>>> To: Mallory Knodel <mknodel@cdt.org>
>>> Cc: Hrpc <hrpc@irtf.org>, Sandra Braman <braman@tamu.edu>
>>> Bcc:
>>> Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 10:08:27 +0100
>>> Subject: Re: [hrpc] comments, draft association
>>>
>>> Hi Mallory,
>>>
>>> Ok, so on with it in-line below (combining your two emails):
>>>
>>> On 2/6/21 3:35 AM, Sandra Braman wrote:
>>>
>>> The international treaties discussed in this draft are not a part of
>>> the scholarly literature covered in literature reviews, but the
>>> legal authorities on the basis of which claims made here are
>>> justified.=C2=A0 Although I agree with the authors that this is not the
>>> place for a comprehensive discussion and synthesis of the scholarly
>>> literature, coverage of the pertinent treaty provisions _should_ be
>>> comprehensive.=C2=A0 Treaty provisions only matter, though, where
>>> treaties have been ratified.=C2=A0 It would also be useful to the reader
>>> to know the extent to which these provisions have been interpreted
>>> in courts in cases that have come their way involving assembly and
>>> association.
>>>
>>> This draft is trying to fulfill the explicit language from the HRPC
>>> charter, the relevant portion of which is:
>>>
>>> "The Human Rights Protocol Considerations Research Group is
>>> chartered to research whether standards and protocols can enable,
>>> strengthen or threaten human rights, as defined in the Universal
>>> Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) [1] and the International
>>> Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) [2], specifically,
>>> but not limited to the right to freedom of expression and the right
>>> to freedom of assembly."
>>>
>>> Therefore to talk about the regulation of code is out of scope.
>> There is one aspect that could be better drawn out: is the
>> interpretation of these two documents consistent with the
>> interpretation by most governments?=C2=A0 If it is not, would proposed
>> applications present difficulties in implementing the protocols
>> approved by SDOs such as the IETF, and under what circumstances?
> I think there is gap between interpretations of authorities such as the
> HRC and interpretations by many governments. I agree that its important
> to address this to enable readers to understand what it would mean to
> implement protocols given this gap. I look forward to collaborating on
> text suggestions here.
>
>> I am
>> specifically thinking of the examples you have in the draft (spam,
>> DDOS) as well as perhaps something around lawful intercept (not
>> entirely tangential to freedom of assembly).=C2=A0 I don= =E2=80=99t see that
>> outside the scope of the charter.
>>
>> Also, we just had a live example in the US of use of technology to
>> organize what could alternatively be described as a peaceful assembly
>> or an insurrection.=C2=A0 Surely this draft would be remiss to not explore
>> the technology implications, given the use of encryption by some of
>> the parties.
>>
>> Eliot
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Mark Perkins <marknoumea@yahoo.com>
>> To: h= rpc@irtf.org
>> Cc:
>> Bcc:
>> Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 20:52:40 +1100
>> Subject: Re: [hrpc] comments, draft association
>>
>> Eliot
>>
>> "is the interpretation of these two documents consistent with the
>> interpretation by most governments?"
>>
>> Here I think we run into real world problems:
>>
>> What do the documents (UDHR & ICCPR) state?
>>
>> What is the interpretation of these two documents by the relevant UN
>> body (usually found in General Comments of UN Human Rights Committee,
>> but also occassionally International Tribunals, though these are
>> usually Regional decisions rather than International in the Global
>> sense) - eg General comment No. 37(2020) on theright of peaceful
>> assembly (article 21), 17September 2020
>>
>> ht= tps://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybo= dyexternal/TBSearch.aspx?Lang=3Den&TreatyID=3D8&DocTypeID=3D11__;!!= KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwJMK-go= E$
>>
>> What is the interpretation of 'most' governments= ? Clearly this
>> question will have multiple responses, as often there is no agreement,
>> in fact there is clear disagreement
>>
>> What is the difference between all of the above, esp UN interpretation
>> & interpretation by 'most' governments OR th= e different governmental
>> interpretations?
>>
>> Mark P.
>> Le 08/03/2021 =C3=A0 20:08, Eliot Lear a =C3=A9crit : >>
>>> Hi Mallory,
>>>
>>> Ok, so on with it in-line below (combining your two emails):
>>>
>>> On 2/6/21 3:35 AM, Sandra Braman wrote:
>>>
>>> The international treaties discussed in this draft are not a part of
>>> the scholarly literature covered in literature reviews, but the
>>> legal authorities on the basis of which claims made here are
>>> justified.=C2=A0 Although I agree with the authors that this is not the
>>> place for a comprehensive discussion and synthesis of the scholarly
>>> literature, coverage of the pertinent treaty provisions _should_ be
>>> comprehensive.=C2=A0 Treaty provisions only matter, though, where
>>> treaties have been ratified.=C2=A0 It would also be useful to the reader
>>> to know the extent to which these provisions have been interpreted
>>> in courts in cases that have come their way involving assembly and
>>> association.
>>>
>>> This draft is trying to fulfill the explicit language from the HRPC
>>> charter, the relevant portion of which is:
>>>
>>> "The Human Rights Protocol Considerations Research Group is
>>> chartered to research whether standards and protocols can enable,
>>> strengthen or threaten human rights, as defined in the Universal
>>> Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) [1] and the International
>>> Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) [2], specifically,
>>> but not limited to the right to freedom of expression and the right
>>> to freedom of assembly."
>>>
>>> Therefore to talk about the regulation of code is out of scope.
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0There is one aspect that could be better dra= wn out: is the
>> interpretation of these two documents consistent with the
>> interpretation by most governments?=C2=A0 If it is not, would proposed
>> applications present difficulties in implementing the protocols
>> approved by SDOs such as the IETF, and under what circumstances?=C2=A0 I am
>> specifically thinking of the examples you have in the draft (spam,
>> DDOS) as well as perhaps something around lawful intercept (not
>> entirely tangential to freedom of assembly).=C2=A0 I don= =E2=80=99t see that
>> outside the scope of the charter.
>>
>> Also, we just had a live example in the US of use of technology to
>> organize what could alternatively be described as a peaceful assembly
>> or an insurrection.=C2=A0 Surely this draft would be remiss to not explore
>> the technology implications, given the use of encryption by some of
>> the parties.
>>
>> Eliot
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> hrpc mailing list
>> hrpc@= irtf.org
>> http= s://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!!KwNV= nqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwwsk7F6A$
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0[1= ]
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Garanti = sans virus. https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:= //www.avast.com__;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7= Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwCvRzTNo$=C2=A0 [1]
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
>> To: Mark Perkins <marknoumea=3D40yahoo.com@dmarc.ietf.org>= ;
>> Cc: h= rpc@irtf.org
>> Bcc:
>> Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 11:06:46 +0100
>> Subject: Re: [hrpc] comments, draft association
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>>> What is the interpretation of 'most' governm= ents? Clearly this
>>> question will have multiple responses, as often there is no
>>> agreement, in fact there is clear disagreement
>> Good point.=C2=A0 That in itself is good to understand.= =C2=A0 One of the
>> challenges I=E2=80=99ve faced in other domains like duri= ng the 2014(?)
>> Budapest Convention review has been potential conflicting regulatory
>> requirements.=C2=A0 To be clear, I=E2=80=99m not suggest= ing so wide a scope, but
>> rather a focus on how our protocol suite development needs to consider
>> these conflicts.
>>
>>> What is the difference between all of the above, esp UN
>>> interpretation & interpretation by 'most'= ; governments OR the
>>> different governmental interpretations?
>> I like the latter- =E2=80=9Cdifferent government interpretations=E2=80=9D.=C2=A0 That
>> in itself can highlight problems that the IETF can=E2=80= =99t solve, but
>> others should.
>>
>> By the way, real world problems are good problems for this group to
>> address (IMHO).
>>
>> Eliot_______________________________________________
>> hrpc mailing list
>> hrpc@= irtf.org
>> http= s://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!!KwNV= nqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwwsk7F6A$
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0
>>
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.avast.com= /sig-email?utm_medium=3Demail&amp;utm_source=3Dlink&amp;utm_campaig= n=3Dsig-email&amp;utm_content=3Demailclient__;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6= ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwVMq6gRM$
>> _______________________________________________
>> hrpc mailing list
>> hrpc@= irtf.org
>> http= s://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!!KwNV= nqRv!TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwwsk7F6A$
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> hrpc@irtf= .org
> https://= urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!!KwNVnqRv= !TDzmzoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwwsk7F6A$

--
Mallory Knodel
CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780


_______________________________________________
hrpc mailing list
hrpc@irtf.org<= /a>
https://urlde= fense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!!KwNVnqRv!TDzm= zoFIVArzL6ZIpfsIJ-dG23QTrBzb3o_szTMhI6DXB7Qaj7l_Zh4PYYkwwsk7F6A$ 

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

--=20
Mallory Knodel
CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780
--00000000000047508405c019e6fb-- From nobody Fri Apr 16 10:11:52 2021 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 9711B3A2C89 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 10:11:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cdt.org Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3j0Uv53L0iMe for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 10:11:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qk1-x72f.google.com (mail-qk1-x72f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72f]) (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 209953A2BC7 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 10:11:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk1-x72f.google.com with SMTP id v7so1505899qkj.13 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 10:11:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cdt.org; s=google; h=message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:content-language:to :references:from:subject:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QxahuoWOGKZmVWGSbyG6bOS546L5JsZEloJZ7wdLwyY=; b=CjuCMdghCUOjNlICiaBpsaKAFbWpnRcwFNDlj1zcbIY1ZC7dQkLqk6KzjFTGBu8PWK WXpN8F+4Sxl1Sd3pY5nZvoorOt1DxfCW4hkiop/3Szr6CHNgaY+mnnIGyq8nyllLQU+R wX83KEhi5znKz4Y8z9rZj7wWTaPqqSdwQCx94= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent :content-language:to:references:from:subject:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=QxahuoWOGKZmVWGSbyG6bOS546L5JsZEloJZ7wdLwyY=; b=LCIzG/IZEASaK/SFlUbNfy2R+zLM7mQHR0oWAvE2sjSClT3OQhF0JV70UXWy9E0a/C dChmtCXdbmNIOG9Ifz/2X2RLyxqsvD7Maego14uScu8r8G38uz0aOdhCEQoMzwgAKrtl OpBs1lLwdmDTHVi7kFUm15X63VG7CW1xGYfe/TpZ9HgZdiCUgJ083koDe2Q9uhmWz7aB JHvEHFgy+B0RcgcEE0LXviyZOHeL/6yWzpmG9WUjRHklBn8XtEqnwpCPzuD3f7xh/VVt 7eoO16nIcnXtRCi1hoCVEUDHQBONJcgLMB8Bub0bH1qmLVdO4Ftv6uS7Imk7hR2hispm e02Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532PP0jFykYaWhoTdhkiGDC04zCQ0EBzToBqSbKIxBcjiaFRWVMb 71190k4y0VL/ejcWjAOsuoe3iDpxgIY+Gw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw+4i49933LbdiKuQd0W+ATfKS2pPmMe68bbW2AxsqpkQ6x2CE+BqpB7WzZNXMDMHOiSGGcGg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:2053:: with SMTP id d19mr278914qka.40.1618593103123; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 10:11:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (c-73-163-188-207.hsd1.dc.comcast.net. [73.163.188.207]) by smtp.gmail.com with UTF8SMTPSA id h8sm4191812qta.53.2021.04.16.10.11.42 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 16 Apr 2021 10:11:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5c1c55d6-919c-643a-e5ef-61cc0806abdb@cdt.org> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 13:11:42 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:88.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/88.0 Content-Language: en-US To: hrpc@irtf.org, internet-drafts@ietf.org, i-d-announce@ietf.org References: <161856932449.26840.1010533041134689084@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Mallory Knodel In-Reply-To: <161856932449.26840.1010533041134689084@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] I-D Action: draft-irtf-hrpc-association-08.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: hrpc discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 17:11:51 -0000 Hi all, I think we've addressed all the comments from the list and the 110 session with this draft. Please send your feedback here, or in Github. Thanks! -Mallory On 4/16/21 6:35 AM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the Human Rights Protocol Considerations RG of the IRTF. > > Title : Freedom of Association on the Internet > Authors : Niels ten Oever > Gisela Perez de Acha > Stéphane Couture > Mallory Knodel > Filename : draft-irtf-hrpc-association-08.txt > Pages : 33 > Date : 2021-04-16 > > Abstract: > This document discusses the relationships between the Internet > architecture and the ability of people to exercise their right to > peaceful assembly and the right to association online. The Internet > increasingly mediates our lives, our relationships, and our ability > to exercise our human rights. As a global assemblage, the Internet > provides a public space, yet it is predominantly built on private > infrastructure. Since Internet protocols and architecture play a > central role in the management, development, and use of the Internet, > we analyze the relation between protocols, architecture, and the > rights to assemble and associate to mitigate infringements on those > rights. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-hrpc-association/ > > There are also htmlized versions available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-hrpc-association-08 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-hrpc-association-08 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-irtf-hrpc-association-08 > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc -- Mallory Knodel CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780 From nobody Fri Apr 16 13:13:20 2021 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 D6EBB3A33BC for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 13:13:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 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_NONE=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=rtfm-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 sPmYNV6VJ-U5 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 13:13:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io1-xd2f.google.com (mail-io1-xd2f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2f]) (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 E9B9D3A33B9 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 13:13:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd2f.google.com with SMTP id a9so18031948ioc.8 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 13:13:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Xa4h18tL7LL27rNiOZiHkcN5ZWyRn+QAXyVTbn1/BB4=; b=Vg/PKeA+stNc5RZRkh90dcND1gxOSS7Jh3Ersqc/KVmFx0iO7IIsRXxau2Fn6ufSdF Y+QgpSEuH1Q6+DMs7RjEEW03MaEpdqWRaRu/cVorNuwUeJK2RMpGG81F/8hde+PoDIaW 3weDax71UTS7FnyaZlltoSVZu3N4sZ8fU0mnnVNJIrVSGpHwWlWJOD8TzY/RmROuYXu2 lkmNX66+M7CDnDGMFhtAPIdjUecjFJDM0FuxOF9raWr5ltGBIj19wKsG2srjMvoXe+XA 6CsPMZkxZbkOZiBcAlYQU7EAW9o4RxqyCkOpHczkk2wKAVBVas0MKIF2/IhIVEsoxKcw YNlw== 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=Xa4h18tL7LL27rNiOZiHkcN5ZWyRn+QAXyVTbn1/BB4=; b=AxqV/AhYhs87Okew0W/x5Ynx5pHv521O0LzKMhcM5SuMAixR3irC332pHCSRkgduT9 DNJjl8moPBxfb7KlBBTVcRvsu/CV1sbrrgFXMm7srGZWDUOzdTO688fnIYiyvuu7CpF9 n5YbcBTtPfzpFQirVUlNiEcwVeOryD95zsE4eMSERgX5bhZE/IK3bieHmZZW3bXE0Vd5 cavau3shGmOD8tJkvk1E/Syrsi2R3/4WK+Rw5rZmWs1HMWviOG1kreD6U3kkHFzSjfyv +3MFA7ZKs+ASuTulZ+ncCdqMEdI20tkjckEIFHiDcC9T0De1VYeCF5+0E5ZrR/u0X9K2 UfYA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531qD1YklKXNQTYP+2/kKIxqvVnecSdDNCsfL8/s6+3xSdxbsm+s buT5aOg6TSm6S4BVxERdxhjYT0UtJh4QS8dVgFJ9ZA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyy7u2/xmcgMro0teJ+pM3TNekI3LwdL8IHR9CaG9sZ13Z2FbVuj53sOg7QxZ93kjN36nlfTyHiwkUyC6O7K/A= X-Received: by 2002:a5e:c00f:: with SMTP id u15mr3916667iol.48.1618603992654; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 13:13:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <9e01a920-9f00-9b97-4f55-350bddfbdb60@cdt.org> In-Reply-To: <9e01a920-9f00-9b97-4f55-350bddfbdb60@cdt.org> From: Eric Rescorla Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 13:12:35 -0700 Message-ID: To: Mallory Knodel Cc: hrpc@irtf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000003bb2005c01c9c79" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] re implementation of code 451 X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: hrpc discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 20:13:19 -0000 --00000000000003bb2005c01c9c79 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 3:06 AM Mallory Knodel wrote: > Hi, > > On 3/8/21 3:27 PM, Sandra Braman wrote: > > A correction: In my earlier email in response to Mallory's response > > to my comments on draft association, I referred to errors in a > > document about US law. Having been given next to no time to absorb > > and think through the new draft and her comments before IETF began, > > during a period in which I have several other commitments in place, I > > was in a rush but let me correct the point. What I was thinking of > > was in the draft implementation report on Code 451 > > (https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-451-imp-report-00.html#rfc.section.6 > > )= .=C3=82 > > > Section 17.1 here re US law is correct, there is a statutory > > requirement that third party intermediaries take down copyrighted > > content in response to assertions of infringement, having in essence > > been deputized by the US government to that end in lieu of requiring > > disputes to actually be settled in court (itself very problematic). > > Most of the items in 17.2 are private party decisions, not legal > > requirements -- it was to those, and additional areas in which high > > profile takedowns have taken place recently, upon which I was > > commenting when I said that these are NOT legally mandated takedowns > > for which use of code 451 would be appropriate. > > > > As a separate matter: I'd love to do a full-bore analysis of where > > things are with code 451 at this point, if anyone with the technical > > skills required to see what has happened and is happening would be > > interested in collaborating on such a project. > > There were a couple of things that sort of dampened this work, though > 451 is still in use by some. > > The first is DoH or any private DNS really where you can't so easily > MITM DNS traffic to show someone a landing page with an error code. > It's worth nothing that even without DoH, this is increasingly impractical because of the use of HTTPS. -Ekr > The second was a general distaste for measuring it. When I talked to > folks who do measurement of censorship, they seemed skeptical that the > statistics on use of 451 would be meaningful. Besides, they said, they > were more interested in illegitimate filtering and blocking being done > by authoritarians, not so much interested in how well US lawyers are > invoking the DMCA (presumably and anecdotally where most 451 traffic > comes from). > > -Mallory > > > -- > > Mallory Knodel > CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology > gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780 > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > --00000000000003bb2005c01c9c79 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 3:06 AM Mallo= ry Knodel <mknodel@cdt.org> wr= ote:
Hi,

On 3/8/21 3:27 PM, Sandra Braman wrote:
> A correction:=C2=A0 In my earlier email in response to Mallory's r= esponse
> to my comments on draft association, I referred to errors in a
> document about US law.=C2=A0 Having been given next to no time to abso= rb
> and think through the new draft and her comments before IETF began, > during a period in which I have several other commitments in place, I =
> was in a rush but let me correct the point.=C2=A0 What I was thinking = of
> was in the draft implementation report on Code 451
> (https://tools.ietf.org/id/= draft-451-imp-report-00.html#rfc.section.6
> <https://tools.ietf.org/= id/draft-451-imp-report-00.html#rfc.section.6>).=C3=82
> Section 17.1 here re US law is correct, there is a statutory
> requirement that third party intermediaries take down copyrighted
> content in response to assertions of infringement, having in essence <= br> > been deputized by the US government to that end in lieu of requiring <= br> > disputes to actually be settled in court (itself very problematic). > Most of the items in 17.2 are private party decisions, not legal
> requirements -- it was to those, and additional areas in which high > profile takedowns have taken place recently, upon which I was
> commenting when I said that these are NOT legally mandated takedowns <= br> > for which use of code 451 would be appropriate.
>
> As a separate matter:=C2=A0 I'd love to do a full-bore analysis of= where
> things are with code 451 at this point, if anyone with the technical <= br> > skills required to see what has happened and is happening would be > interested in collaborating on such a project.

There were a couple of things that sort of dampened this work, though
451 is still in use by some.

The first is DoH or any private DNS really where you can't so easily MITM DNS traffic to show someone a landing page with an error code.

It's worth nothing that even without DoH, = this is increasingly impractical because of the use of HTTPS.
-Ekr


The second was a general distaste for measuring it. When I talked to
folks who do measurement of censorship, they seemed skeptical that the
statistics on use of 451 would be meaningful. Besides, they said, they
were more interested in illegitimate filtering and blocking being done
by authoritarians, not so much interested in how well US lawyers are
invoking the DMCA (presumably and anecdotally where most 451 traffic
comes from).

-Mallory

> --

Mallory Knodel
CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780

_______________________________________________
hrpc mailing list
hrpc@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
--00000000000003bb2005c01c9c79-- From nobody Wed Apr 28 11:43:44 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@irtf.org Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D4F63A1AFB; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 11:43:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: IETF Meeting Session Request Tool To: Cc: hrpc-chairs@ietf.org, hrpc@irtf.org, irtf-chair@irtf.org, mknodel@cdt.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.28.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <161963542233.28282.12434191534858106028@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 11:43:42 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] hrpc - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 111 X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: hrpc discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 18:43:43 -0000 A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Mallory Knodel, a Chair of the hrpc working group. --------------------------------------------------------- Working Group Name: Human Rights Protocol Considerations Area Name: IRTF Session Requester: Mallory Knodel Number of Sessions: 1 Length of Session(s): 2 Hours Number of Attendees: 100 Conflicts to Avoid: Chair Conflict: dprive gaia irtfopen pearg Technology Overlap: mls dnsop openpgp Key Participant Conflict: lamps gendispatch People who must be present: Avri Doria Mallory Knodel Resources Requested: Special Requests: ---------------------------------------------------------