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

[Colin Perkins <[e-mail]>]

I have always wondered that…
Colin



On 3 Oct 2022, at 8:53, Niels ten Oever wrote:

> Ah excellent. Thank you very much. Is there a particular reason this 
> is not mention in the RFC (for instance underneath ISSN)?
>
> Best,
>
> Niels
>
> On 3 Oct 2022, 10:49, at 10:49, Colin Perkins <[e-mail]> 
> wrote:
>> All the RFCs have DOIs assigned: 10.17487/RFC9307
>>
>> Colin
>>
>>
>> On 3 Oct 2022, at 7:15, Niels ten Oever wrote:
>>
>>> Hi RFC editor,
>>>
>>> Thanks so much for publication of RFC 9307. I was wondering, will
>> this RFC also receive a DOI, or not? It is completely clear to me
>> if/when RFCs get one. For me it would be helpful.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Niels
>>>
>>> On 21-09-2022 16:22, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
>>>> Thanks! All changes look good to me as well!
>>>>
>>>> *From: *Corinne Cath <[e-mail]>
>>>> *Date: *Wednesday, 21. September 2022 at 15:18
>>>> *To: *Karen Moore <[e-mail]>
>>>> *Cc: *Niels ten Oever <[e-mail]>, Mirja Kuehlewind
>> <[e-mail]>, Colin Perkins <[e-mail]>, 
>> RFC
>> Editor <[e-mail]>, IAB <[e-mail]>,
>> "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>>>> *Subject: *Re: [IAB] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9307
>> <draft-iab-aid-workshop-01> for your review
>>>>
>>>> Hi Karen,
>>>>
>>>> Looks great, thanks so much for all the hard work! kind regards,
>> corinne
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 2:04 AM Karen Moore <[e-mail]
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     Dear Colin, Corinne, Niels, and Mirja,
>>>>
>>>>     Thank you for your replies.  We have added the “University 
>>>> of
>> Cambridge” for Corinne’s affiliation and left the other 
>> affiliations as
>> is. We also noted Niels’ approval on the AUTH48 status page for 
>> this
>> document.
>>>>
>>>>     Please contact us with any further updates or with your 
>>>> approval
>> of the document in its current form.  We will await approvals from
>> Corinne, Colin, and Mirja prior to moving forward in the publication
>> process.
>>>>
>>>>     (Please refresh)
>>>>     The updated XML file is here:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307.xml
>> <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.txt>
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307.pdf
>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307.pdf>
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307.html
>> <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
>> <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
>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307-diff.html>
>>>>
>>>>     For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9307
>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9307>
>>>>
>>>>     Thank you,
>>>>
>>>>     RFC Editor/kc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      > On Sep 20, 2022, at 1:16 AM, Niels ten Oever
>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>      >
>>>>      > Approved!
>>>>      >
>>>>      > Thanks a lot for your work.
>>>>      >
>>>>      > Best,
>>>>      >
>>>>      > Niels
>>>>      >
>>>>      > On 19-09-2022 22:21, Karen Moore wrote:
>>>>      >> Niels and Mirja,
>>>>      >> Thank you for your replies.  We have removed the URLs in
>> Sections 2 and 4 as discussed.  We have not made any changes to the
>> author affiliations yet (we will wait for replies to Mirja’s 
>> query).
>>>>      >> The updated XML file is here:
>>>>      >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307.xml
>> <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.txt>
>>>>      >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307.pdf
>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307.pdf>
>>>>      >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307.html
>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307.html>
>>>>      >> This diff file shows only the changes made during the last
>> edit round:
>>>>      >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307-lastdiff.html
>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307-lastdiff.html>
>>>>      >> This diff file shows all changes made during AUTH48:
>>>>      >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307-auth48diff.html
>> <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
>> <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
>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9307>
>>>>      >> Thank you,
>>>>      >> RFC Editor/kc
>>>>      >>> On Sep 19, 2022, at 2:21 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind
>> <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> 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]
>> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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
>> <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.txt>
>>>>      >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307.pdf
>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307.pdf>
>>>>      >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307.html
>> <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
>> <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
>> <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
>> <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] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>      >>>>>>>
>>>>      >>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>      >>>>>>>
>>>>      >>>>>>> On 23-08-2022 09:12, [e-mail]
>> <mailto:[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
>> <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/
>> <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-61ecd4ae9402f3ac&q=1&e=bbec11dc-0471-4e56-aaef-344948da2125&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iab.org%2Fabout%2Fiab-members%2F>>
>> (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
>> <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 <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
>> <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-2e119dbb88e2b356&q=1&e=bbec11dc-0471-4e56-aaef-344948da2125&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.arkko.com%2Ftools%2Fdocstats.html>
>> ) page and the datatracker
>>>>      >>>>>>>>  statistics (https://datatracker.ietf.org/stats/
>> <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] 
>>>> <mailto:[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]
>> <mailto:[e-mail]> .
>>>>      >>>>>>>> -->
>>>>      >>>>>>>
>>>>      >>>>>>> questions or discussion about the datatracker and
>> possible enhancements may be sent to [e-mail]
>> <mailto:[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-
>> <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-26d12c12b571b1a7&q=1&e=bbec11dc-0471-4e56-aaef-344948da2125&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iab.org%2Fwp-content%2FIAB->
>>>>      >>>>>>>>  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-
>> <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-26d12c12b571b1a7&q=1&e=bbec11dc-0471-4e56-aaef-344948da2125&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iab.org%2Fwp-content%2FIAB->
>>>>      >>>>>>>>  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
>> <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] <mailto:[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/ <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/
>> <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
>> <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]
>> <mailto:[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]
>> <mailto:[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
>> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc>
>>>>      >>>>>>>>          *  The archive itself:
>>>>      >>>>>>>>
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
>> <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]
>> <mailto:[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.xml>
>>>>      >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307.html
>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307.html>
>>>>      >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307.pdf
>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307.pdf>
>>>>      >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307.txt
>> <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-diff.html>
>>>>      >>>>>>>>
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307-rfcdiff.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
>> <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
>> <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
>> <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
>> <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
>> <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-7337d2f7ba42fde2&q=1&e=bbec11dc-0471-4e56-aaef-344948da2125&u=https%3A%2F%2Fnielstenoever.net%2F>
>>>>      >>>>>>> E: [e-mail]
>> <mailto:[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
>> <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
>> <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-7337d2f7ba42fde2&q=1&e=bbec11dc-0471-4e56-aaef-344948da2125&u=https%3A%2F%2Fnielstenoever.net%2F>
>>>>      >>>>> E: [e-mail] 
>>>> <mailto:[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
>> <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
>> <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-7337d2f7ba42fde2&q=1&e=bbec11dc-0471-4e56-aaef-344948da2125&u=https%3A%2F%2Fnielstenoever.net%2F>
>>>>      > E: [e-mail] <mailto:[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
>> <https://journals.open.tudelft.nl/jos/article/view/6205/5361>
>>>>      >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>>
>>>> Dr. Corinne Cath
>>>> ​Minderoo Center for Technology & Democracy, University of 
>>>> Cambridge
>> ​
>>>>
>>>> Web: www.mctd.ac.uk/team-members/corinne-cath/
>> <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-957b69578722a689&q=1&e=bbec11dc-0471-4e56-aaef-344948da2125&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mctd.ac.uk%2Fteam-members%2Fcorinne-cath%2F>
>>  & www.corinnecath.com
>> <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-569768f0eb9e0bbc&q=1&e=bbec11dc-0471-4e56-aaef-344948da2125&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corinnecath.com%2F>
>>>>
>>>> Twitter: @C__CS
>>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> 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