Re: [auth48] [IAB] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9307 <draft-iab-aid-workshop-01> for your review

[Colin Perkins <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mirja,

Since ex-officio members aren’t included in the list of IAB members in the body of the document, or other IAB documents, I’d prefer if my affiliation was left as the University of Glasgow.

Colin



On 19 Sep 2022, at 10:21, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Thanks for the updates. These look all good to me.
>
> About affiliations: I guess we could put for Colin and me just “IAB” in there. Collin, what do you think?
>
> Mirja
>
>
>
>> On 16. Sep 2022, at 22:54, Karen Moore <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Niels,
>>
>> Thank you for the reply; we will work on removing the URLs and will get back to you shortly.
>>
>> RFC Editor/kc
>>
>>> On Sep 16, 2022, at 6:50 AM, Niels ten Oever <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear RFC Editor,
>>>
>>> It would indeed better for the txt file to be more readable, so feel free to remove the URLs in the text.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Niels
>>>
>>> On 08-09-2022 02:13, Karen Moore wrote:
>>>> Dear Niels and Colin,
>>>> We have updated our files based on your replies. As discussed, we have also included a list of IAB members and an Informative References section. We have a follow-up question:
>>>> 1) We built an Informative References section and added citations for the URLs listed in Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 4.  Please note that the output looks clean in the html and pdf files (as the URLs are not displayed), but the txt file is a bit harder to read as it includes all of the URLs.  If you would like the txt file to be more readable and match the formatting in RFC 9075 (which is also an IAB document), we can remove the URLs (so instead of being able to access an article directly from the text in the html and pdf files, a reader would click on the citation in the text and then click on the link to the article from the reference entry).
>>>> Please confirm if you would like to leave the visible URLs in the txt file or if you would like to remove them.
>>>> ...
>>>> The updated XML file is here:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307.xml
>>>> The updated output files are here:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307.txt
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307.pdf
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307.html
>>>> This diff file shows all changes made during AUTH48:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307-auth48diff.html
>>>> This diff file shows all changes made to date:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307-diff.html
>>>> Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the most recent version. Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC.
>>>> Please contact us with any further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form.  We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the publication process.
>>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9307
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> RFC Editor/kc
>>>>> On Aug 23, 2022, at 7:39 AM, Niels ten Oever <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 23-08-2022 09:12, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>>>> Authors,
>>>>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary)
>>>>>> the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>>>>>> 1) <!-- [rfced] Please review the guidance for IAB documents
>>>>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/iab-format.txt>
>>>>>> and let us know if any changes are needed.
>>>>>> a) Consensus is set to “true” in the XML and the datatracker, but
>>>>>> the document is missing the “IAB Members at the Time of Approval” section.
>>>>>> Please let us know if we may add this section and include the names appearing
>>>>>> at <https://www.iab.org/about/iab-members/> (excluding ex-officio members).
>>>>>> b) We will remove each author’s affiliation unless we hear objection.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would prefer to keep mine, unless there is a strong reason not to.
>>>>>
>>>>>> c) We will move “Workshop Participants” section to be an appendix as suggested
>>>>>> at <https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/iab-format.txt> . Should the “Program
>>>>>> Committee” section be treated the same?
>>>>>
>>>>> Fine with me!
>>>>>
>>>>>> -->
>>>>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Niels, you previously indicated you prefer that your last
>>>>>> name be capitalized in footers as "Ten Oever" but appear as "ten Oever"
>>>>>> wherever preceded by your first name or initial (i.e., document header,
>>>>>> Authors' Addresses) (e.g., RFC 8280).  We are unable to follow this guidance
>>>>>> in the current XML.  Note that the PDF is the only paginated form.  It shows
>>>>>> "ten Oever, et al." in the page footers.
>>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>>> Fine with me!
>>>>>
>>>>>> 3) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear
>>>>>> in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
>>>>>
>>>>> data science, data anlaysis, data science
>>>>>
>>>>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble parsing this sentence.  Does
>>>>>> "including of Internet protocols..." refer to the standardization activities?
>>>>>> What does "its institutions" mean?
>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>   The IETF, as an international Standards Developing Organization
>>>>>>   (SDO), hosts a diverse set of data including on the organization's
>>>>>>   history, development, and current standardization activities,
>>>>>>   including of Internet protocols and its institutions.
>>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>>   The IETF, as an international Standards Developing Organization
>>>>>>   (SDO), hosts a diverse set of data that includes the organization's
>>>>>>   history, development, and current standardization activities, which
>>>>>>   includes Internet protocols and its institutions.
>>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>
>>>>>    The IETF, as an international Standards Developing Organization
>>>>>    (SDO), hosts a diverse set of data that includes the organization's
>>>>>    history, development, and current standardization activities, which
>>>>>    includes Internet protocols, architecture, and its institutions.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 5) <!-- [rfced] We have expanded ICT as "information and communication
>>>>>> technologies".  Please let us know if any corrections are needed.
>>>>>> Current:
>>>>>>   A large
>>>>>>   portion of this data is publicly available, yet it is underutilized
>>>>>>   as a tool to inform the work in the IETF or the broader
>>>>>>   research community focused on topics like Internet governance and
>>>>>>   trends in information and communication technologies (ICT) standard-
>>>>>>   setting.
>>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>>> Excellent
>>>>>
>>>>>> 6) <!-- [rfced] Section 2.1 includes several links to external documents.
>>>>>> For a clearer reference section, may we specify these in an "Informative
>>>>>> References" section along with a list of position papers. This would be
>>>>>> similar to RFC 8980 and RFC 9075.
>>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds good to me.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 7) <!-- [rfced] "related to gender questions" is awkward here.  Perhaps this
>>>>>> could be rephrased as "gender-related information"?  Alternatively, perhaps
>>>>>> "responses to gender-related questions" would work.
>>>>>
>>>>> gender-related information seems like the best option
>>>>>
>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>   These projects could be used to add
>>>>>>   additional insights to the existing IETF statistics
>>>>>>   (https://www.arkko.com/tools/docstats.html) page and the datatracker
>>>>>>   statistics (https://datatracker.ietf.org/stats/), e.g., related to
>>>>>>   gender questions, however, privacy issues andd implication of making
>>>>>>   such data publicly available were discussed as well.
>>>>>> -->
>>>>> s/annd/and
>>>>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Are you still encouraging discussion to take place on
>>>>>> [e-mail], or should this be changed to past tense?
>>>>>> Should a qualifier be added to this sentence, for example, questions
>>>>>> or discussion about the datatracker and possible enhancements may
>>>>>> be sent to...?
>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>   Questions or any
>>>>>>   discussion can be issued to [e-mail].
>>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>>> questions or discussion about the datatracker and possible enhancements may be sent to [e-mail], sounds good to me.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 9) <!-- [rfced] We had trouble parsing this sentence. Please review
>>>>>> and let us know how we may clarify.
>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>   To assess these question it
>>>>>>   has ben discussed to investigate participant's affiliations including
>>>>>>   "indirect" affiliation e.g. by funding and changes in affiliation as
>>>>>>   well as the nessecarity to model company characteristics or
>>>>>>   stakeholder groups.
>>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>>   To assess these questions, investigating participant affiliations,
>>>>>>   including "indirect" affiliations (e.g., by tracking funding and
>>>>>>   changes in affiliation) was discussed.  The need to model company
>>>>>>   characteristics or stakeholder groups was also discussed.
>>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed with proposal.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 10) <!-- [rfced] Would "highlighted" or "emphasized" be more clear
>>>>>> than "stressed" here?
>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>   The human element of the community and diversity was stressed, in
>>>>>>   order to understand the IETF community's diversity it is important to
>>>>>>   talk to people (beyond text analysis) and in order to ensure
>>>>>>   inclusivity individual participants must make an effort to, as one
>>>>>>   participant recounted, tell them their participation is valuable.
>>>>>> Current:
>>>>>>   The human element of the community and diversity was stressed.  In
>>>>>>   order to understand the IETF community's diversity, it is important
>>>>>>   to talk to people (beyond text analysis). ...
>>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>>> s/stressed/highlighted
>>>>>
>>>>>> 11) <!-- [rfced] This document seems to use "draft" generically and to
>>>>>> refer to Internet-Drafts in some places.  Please review and consider
>>>>>> whether the text should refer specifically to Internet-Drafts in some
>>>>>> places for clarity.
>>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed
>>>>>
>>>>>> 12) <!-- [rfced] Have these questions already been answered or does
>>>>>> analysis need to be completed to identify the answers?
>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>   Answers to these questions come from analysis of IETF emails, RFCs
>>>>>>   and Internet-Drafts, meeting minutes, recordings, Github data, and
>>>>>>   external data such as surveys, etc.
>>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>>   Analysis of data such as IETF emails, RFCs and Internet-Drafts,
>>>>>>   meeting minutes, recordings, Github data, and external data (e.g., surveys)
>>>>>>   may help answer these questions.
>>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed with proposal, perhaps add a comma as follows:
>>>>>
>>>>>    Analysis of data, such as IETF emails, RFCs and Internet-Drafts,
>>>>>    meeting minutes, recordings, Github data, and external data (e.g., surveys)
>>>>>    may help answer these questions.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 13) <!-- [rfced] Note that we changed "CO2 emissions" to "carbon emissions"
>>>>>> here to match use in the rest of the paragraph.  Please let us know if
>>>>>> corrections are needed.
>>>>>> Original (the whole paragraph is provided for context):
>>>>>>   Discussion started by considering how sustainable are IETF meetings,
>>>>>>   focussing on how much CO2 emissions are IETF meetings responsible for
>>>>>>   and how can we make the IETF more sustainable.  Analysis looked at
>>>>>>   the home locations of participants, meeting locations, and carbon
>>>>>>   footprint of air travel and remote attendance, to estimate the carbon
>>>>>>   costs of an IETF meeting.  Initial results suggest that the costs of
>>>>>>   holding multiple in-person IETF meetings per year are likely
>>>>>>   unsustainable in terms of carbon emission, although the analysis is
>>>>>>   ongoing.
>>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we should be using the scientifically correct terms (not the colloquial ones), which would be: C02 emissions or carbon dioxide emissions.
>>>>>
>>>>> But we can leave carbon footprint in the text imho.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 14) <!-- [rfced] This text was difficult to follow.  Please consider
>>>>>> our suggested text and and let us know if it captures your intended meaning:
>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>   Discussion also considered to what extent are climate impacts
>>>>>>   considered in the development and standardization of Internet
>>>>>>   protocols?  It reviewed the text of RFCs and active working group
>>>>>>   drafts, looking for relevant keywords to highlight the extent to
>>>>>>   which climate change, energy efficiency, and related topics are
>>>>>>   considered in the design of Internet protocols, to show the limited
>>>>>>   extent to which these topics have been considered.  Ongoing work is
>>>>>>   considering meeting minutes and mail archives, to get a fuller
>>>>>>   picture, but initial results show only limited consideration of these
>>>>>>   important issues.
>>>>>> Current:
>>>>>>   The extent to which climate impacts are
>>>>>>   considered during the development and standardization of Internet
>>>>>>   protocols was discussed.  RFCs and Internet-Drafts of active working
>>>>>>   groups were reviewed for relevant keywords to highlight the extent to
>>>>>>   which climate change, energy efficiency, and related topics were
>>>>>>   considered in the design of Internet protocols.  This review revealed
>>>>>>   the limited extent to which these topics have been considered.  There
>>>>>>   is ongoing work to get a fuller picture by reviewing meeting minutes
>>>>>>   and mail archives as well, but initial results show only limited
>>>>>>   consideration of these important issues.
>>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed with the proposal.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 15) <!-- [rfced] Would it be helpful for readers to include a reference
>>>>>> for the IETF gather.town area?
>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>   All groups had their own work space and
>>>>>>   could use their own communication methods and channels, or use IETF's
>>>>>>   gather.town.
>>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 16) <!-- [rfced] Please confirm that asking participants to "submit groups"
>>>>>> is correct, as this reads "asking participants to submit groups to facilitate
>>>>>> the formation of groups".  Perhaps "groups" could be ommitted?
>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>   Future workshops that choose to integrate a hackathon could consider
>>>>>>   to ask participants to submit groups, issues, and questions
>>>>>>   beforehand (potentially as part of the positions paper or the sign-up
>>>>>>   process) to facilitate the formation of groups.
>>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed, so it would be as follows:
>>>>>
>>>>>    Future workshops that choose to integrate a hackathon could consider
>>>>>    to ask participants to submit issues, and questions
>>>>>    beforehand (potentially as part of the positions paper or the sign-up
>>>>>    process) to facilitate the formation of groups.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 17) <!-- [rfced] Sections 4.1 - 4.5: While possibly a bit redundant, it may be
>>>>>> helpful to the reader to include text to introduce the position papers and
>>>>>> subject matter.  Please provide text if you would like to make updates.
>>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>>> Not necessary imho
>>>>>
>>>>>> 18) <!-- [rfced] Concerning the titles of the two position papers discussed below, please consider whether any updates are desired.
>>>>>> a) Don Le's paper originally was named "Position Paper" in the reference.
>>>>>> We have updated this to “Article 19” to match what we see at the URL provided.
>>>>>> However, perhaps "Analysing IETF Data Position Paper [ARTICLE 19]" as shown in
>>>>>> the page info would be more informative?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>   Don Le Position Paper (https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-
>>>>>>   uploads/2021/11/Le.pdf)
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed with proposed title ("Analysing IETF Data Position Paper [ARTICLE 19]")
>>>>>
>>>>>> b) Mark McFadden's paper is named "Position Paper" in the reference and the
>>>>>> paper itself has no title.  Perhaps we can use the title provided via
>>>>>> page info: IAB Workshop Proposal?  Alternatively, perhaps "A position paper by Mark McFadden" would work?> Original:
>>>>>>   Mark McFadden Position Paper (https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-
>>>>>>   uploads/2021/11/McFadden.pdf)
>>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed with: "A position paper by Mark McFadden"
>>>>>
>>>>>> 19) <!-- [rfced] Note that the Acknowledgements section was updated
>>>>>> so that two paragraphs about support for Niels ten Oever appear
>>>>>> closer together.
>>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the last paragraph should mention Colin Perkins:
>>>>>
>>>>>  Efforts in the organization of this workshop by Colin Perkins were
>>>>>  supported in part by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences
>>>>>  Research Council under grant EP/S036075/1.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 20) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online
>>>>>> Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
>>>>>> and let us know if any changes are needed.  Note that our script did not
>>>>>> flag any words or phrases of concern. -->
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks - nothing found.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Niels
>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>> RFC Editor
>>>>>> On Aug 22, 2022, at 11:57 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>>>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>>>>>> Updated 2022/08/22
>>>>>> RFC Author(s):
>>>>>> --------------
>>>>>> Instructions for Completing AUTH48
>>>>>> Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and
>>>>>> approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.
>>>>>> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies
>>>>>> available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
>>>>>> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
>>>>>> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing
>>>>>> your approval.
>>>>>> Planning your review
>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>>> Please review the following aspects of your document:
>>>>>> *  RFC Editor questions
>>>>>>   Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor
>>>>>>   that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
>>>>>>   follows:
>>>>>>   <!-- [rfced] ... -->
>>>>>>   These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
>>>>>> *  Changes submitted by coauthors
>>>>>>   Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
>>>>>>   coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you
>>>>>>   agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
>>>>>> *  Content
>>>>>>   Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
>>>>>>   change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
>>>>>>   - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
>>>>>>   - contact information
>>>>>>   - references
>>>>>> *  Copyright notices and legends
>>>>>>   Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
>>>>>>   RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
>>>>>>   (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).
>>>>>> *  Semantic markup
>>>>>>   Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of
>>>>>>   content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode>
>>>>>>   and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at
>>>>>>   <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary> .
>>>>>> *  Formatted output
>>>>>>   Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
>>>>>>   formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is
>>>>>>   reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting
>>>>>>   limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
>>>>>> Submitting changes
>>>>>> ------------------
>>>>>> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all
>>>>>> the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties
>>>>>> include:
>>>>>>   *  your coauthors
>>>>>>       *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)
>>>>>>   *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
>>>>>>      IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
>>>>>>      responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
>>>>>>         *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list
>>>>>>      to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion
>>>>>>      list:
>>>>>>           *  More info:
>>>>>>   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
>>>>>>           *  The archive itself:
>>>>>>   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
>>>>>>     *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out
>>>>>>        of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
>>>>>>        If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you
>>>>>>        have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,
>>>>>>        [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and
>>>>>>        its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
>>>>>> You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
>>>>>> An update to the provided XML file
>>>>>> — OR —
>>>>>> An explicit list of changes in this format
>>>>>> Section # (or indicate Global)
>>>>>> OLD:
>>>>>> old text
>>>>>> NEW:
>>>>>> new text
>>>>>> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit
>>>>>> list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
>>>>>> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
>>>>>> beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text,
>>>>>> and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in
>>>>>> the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
>>>>>> Approving for publication
>>>>>> --------------------------
>>>>>> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
>>>>>> that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
>>>>>> as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
>>>>>> Files
>>>>>> -----
>>>>>> The files are available here:
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307.xml
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307.html
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307.pdf
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307.txt
>>>>>> Diff file of the text:
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307-diff.html
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>>>>>> Diff of the XML:
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307-xmldiff1.html
>>>>>> The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own
>>>>>> diff files of the XML.
>>>>>> Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307.original.v2v3.xml
>>>>>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
>>>>>> only:
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307.form.xml
>>>>>> Tracking progress
>>>>>> -----------------
>>>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9307
>>>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>>>>>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>>>>>> RFC Editor
>>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>>> RFC9307 (draft-iab-aid-workshop-01)
>>>>>> Title            : Report from the IAB Workshop on Analyzing IETF Data (AID), 2021
>>>>>> Author(s)        : N. Oever, C. Cath, M. Kühlewind, C. Perkins
>>>>>> WG Chair(s)      :
>>>>>> Area Director(s) :
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Niels ten Oever, PhD
>>>>> Postdoctoral Researcher - Media Studies Department - University of Amsterdam
>>>>> Affiliated Faculty - Digital Democracy Institute - Simon Fraser University
>>>>> Non-Resident Fellow 2022-2023 - Center for Democracy & Technology
>>>>> Associated Scholar - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - Fundação Getúlio Vargas
>>>>> Research Fellow - Centre for Internet and Human Rights - European University Viadrina
>>>>>
>>>>> Vice chair - Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet)
>>>>>
>>>>> W: https://nielstenoever.net
>>>>> E: [e-mail]
>>>>> T: @nielstenoever
>>>>> P/S/WA: [phone]
>>>>> PGP: 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3
>>>>>
>>>>> Read my latest article on understanding power in standardization in the Journal of Standardisation here: https://journals.open.tudelft.nl/jos/article/view/6205/5361
>>>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Niels ten Oever, PhD
>>> Postdoctoral Researcher - Media Studies Department - University of Amsterdam
>>> Affiliated Faculty - Digital Democracy Institute - Simon Fraser University
>>> Non-Resident Fellow 2022-2023 - Center for Democracy & Technology
>>> Associated Scholar - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - Fundação Getúlio Vargas
>>> Research Fellow - Centre for Internet and Human Rights - European University Viadrina
>>>
>>> Vice chair - Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet)
>>>
>>> W: https://nielstenoever.net
>>> E: [e-mail]
>>> T: @nielstenoever
>>> P/S/WA: [phone]
>>> PGP: 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3
>>>
>>> Read my latest article on understanding power in standardization in the Journal of Standardisation here: https://journals.open.tudelft.nl/jos/article/view/6205/5361
>>>
>>
>>