Re: [HR-rt] Fwd: Notes from human rights review team november 4th IETF 103 - quick question

[Beatrice Martini <[e-mail]>]

Hello,

Thank you for taking and sharing these notes!

I found them greatly informative, especially not having had the opportunity
to join in person this time.

Looking forward to discussing further!

Best,
Beatrice

On 5 November 2018 at 08:06, Mallory Knodel <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Thanks Corinne,
>
> Another suggestion that's come later is to make the reviews more
> findable. We could:
>
>  * Link to the reviews uploaded to gitlab from hrpc.io
>  * Publish blogs on each review in hrpc.io
>  * Something else.
>
> Keen to find a way forward and operationalise this.
>
> -Mallory
>
> On 05/11/2018 12:59, Corinne Cath wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Please find below my notesof our meeting yesterday. They're quite long
> > but so was the meeting.
> >
> > Let me know if I missed anything. I also added them in a doc below.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Corinne
> >
> >
> > *Notes Human rights review team 4 November *
> >
> > /Present: Niels, Mallory, Shivan, Juliana, Gurshabad, Corinne /
> >
> >
> >
> > _Agenda:_
> >
> > /Reviews/
> >
> > /Lessons learned/
> >
> > /Guidelines draft updates (new version)/
> >
> > /Gitlab/
> >
> > /Reviews as rubberstamps (legitimacy of what we are doing?)/
> >
> >
> >
> > /Reviews:/
> >
> > Reviews done currently:
> >
> > 1)    Marnu
> >
> > 2)    Meeting venue
> >
> > 3)    Suit
> >
> > 4)    Quic
> >
> > 5)    Ipwave
> >
> > 6)    Regex
> >
> >
> > Upcoming reviews:
> >
> > 1)    captive ports
> >
> > 2)    doh/dot
> >
> > 3)    WebRTC and MDNS
> >
> >
> >
> > Question: How expanded do we make these reviews?  NTo will do DoH/DoT in
> > one, ESNI is a different discussion. Maybe we take the information from
> > the DoH/DoT and turn it in an advocacy paper?
> >
> >
> >
> > Question: Why review an RFC?  Because it seems that it would be useful
> > to apply our thumb on the scale. The DoH/DoT discussion is not yet
> > resolved.
> >
> >
> >
> > Question: Should we turn reviews into RFCs? Its dependent on the
> > consensus in the group.
> >
> > If we turn the reviews into RFCs that might also signal legitimacy for a
> > potential issue paper.
> >
> >
> >
> > Discussion: what it is the best strategy for doing advocacy at the IETF:
> > issue paper or formal review. It’s easier to convince people with
> > reviews than with an issue paper. But an issue paper might be relevant
> > to do for the wider community. And/and approach.
> >
> >
> >
> > Discussion: the audience for the reviews is a reoccurring topic of
> > debate in our meeting.
> >
> >
> >
> > Shivan mentions WebRTC and MDNS concerns: Mostly the draft is about
> > privacy now but might have association and accessibility concerns.
> > Right now, he has comments, unclear if it’s a good fit for a formal
> review.
> >
> >
> >
> > /Lessons learnt:/
> >
> >
> >
> > ·With big and influential drafts, the interview/inductive/ethnographic
> > approach works well.
> >
> > ·  Gurshabad approach worked well (putting RFC 8280 next to the draft
> > and match the different questions to different parts of the draft). See
> > here for his approach: https://pad.riseup.net/p/fsEgWAHneHCS-keep
> >
> >
> >
> > /Guidelines draft updates (new version):/
> >
> > 1)    Are people engaging with it?
> >
> > 2)    Are people still updating it?
> >
> > 3)    Where is it going?
> >
> >
> >
> > There are some changes to the guidelines – people who do human rights
> > reviews should be updating the RFC 8280. When it was written RFC 8280
> > was all fiction and speculative, it was done without doing any reviews.
> >
> >
> >
> > What is the projection for where this is going and how we frame it for
> > people?
> >
> >
> >
> > Gurshabad suggested:
> >
> > -   Mentioning that we do other stuff besides protocols
> >
> > - The preferable answers should be yes (and) to the questions (up for
> > discussion)
> >
> > - Guidelines could have an appendix with different review examples.
> >
> >
> >
> > We should consider updating the guidelines with:
> >
> > -       NTo approach
> >
> > -       Gurshabad approach
> >
> > -       Amelia approach
> >
> >
> >
> > Discussion: should we consider adding a “green consideration” for the
> > environmental impacts of a protocol?
> >
> >
> >
> > We can start thinking about new frames and flavors to bring in for
> > reviews, like we did with feminism:
> >
> > -       UNGP
> >
> > -       SDGs
> >
> > -       Etc.
> >
> >
> > /Gitlab:/
> >
> > Discussion: do we do each or some reviews as a project on gitlab?  Maybe
> > for big or collaborative ones have an issue tracker and tickets?
> >
> >
> >
> > Because it would be a low entry place for interested people to have a
> > look at what we do on a public repo and get involved. And means chairs
> > and others don’t need to hassle people for what is going on with
> > different reviews.
> >
> >
> >
> > Maybe ask on the list if this is a good idea to:
> >
> > -       Open a ticket when you start you review
> >
> > -       Close it when you finish
> >
> > -       And upload it to gitlab
> >
> >
> >
> > /Reviews as rubberstamps (legitimacy of what we are doing?)/
> >
> > Discussion: why should people care about our reviews? This came up in
> > response to some of the reviews we did. Where people questioned why they
> > should care about our reviews. IRTF chair suggested some changes the
> > introduction language of reviews. Right now: We find people who are
> > doing good work and review that (that’s why we review MLS). But It’s
> > harder to get legitimacy for bad drafts and to get people to care (Regex)
> >
> >
> >
> > _To do:_
> >
> > -  Further conversation about issue paper on DoH/DoT
> >
> > -  Bring some of the discussion points to the HRPC meeting
> >
> > -  Talk more about who our audiences are for the reviews
> >
> > - Further develop the draft guidelines (add NTo, Gurshabad, and Amelia
> > approaches)
> >
> > -  Ask list what they think about doing reviews on gitlab
> >
> > - Give more thought about what our legitimacy model is for reviews
> >
> > * *
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Corinne Cath - Speth
> > Ph..D. Candidate, Oxford Internet Institute & Alan Turing Institute
> >
> > Web: www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath
> > <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath>
> > Email: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> &
> > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> > Twitter: @C_Cath
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > HR-rt mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hr-rt
> >
>
>
> --
> Mallory Knodel
> Head of Digital :: article19.org
> gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9  B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780
>
> _______________________________________________
> HR-rt mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hr-rt
>



-- 
Beatrice Martini
Twitter <https://twitter.com/beatricemartini> / Blog
<http://beatricemartini.it/blog/> / Newsletter <http://eepurl.com/bbDuEn>