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

Mallory Knodel <mallory@article19.org> Mon, 05 November 2018 07:06 UTC

Return-Path: <mallory@article19.org>
X-Original-To: hr-rt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hr-rt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36A1B12EB11 for <hr-rt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Nov 2018 23:06:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4bxglpDb8A8Z for <hr-rt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Nov 2018 23:06:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.89]) (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 61ABF1271FF for <hr-rt@irtf.org>; Sun, 4 Nov 2018 23:06:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.110.112]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <mallory@article19.org>) id 1gJYy0-0004P1-Kb for hr-rt@irtf.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2018 08:06:33 +0100
To: hr-rt@irtf.org
References: <CAD499eJ7_j8zE1NYmYYHyt5HkDMYy-M8P8gBGgKD9ccGyePkyg@mail.gmail.com> <CAD499eLxLPgN0YCJR1e1Mvi18By6hR+893N+myn-wdmf2nGu-A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mallory Knodel <mallory@article19.org>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Autocrypt: addr=mallory@article19.org; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= xsBNBEx0TWcBCAC8sirY3nlDnRwY6XWmsvZtM9kmEK6H8no3ZuQ723PKwHOddw1nOykh0in/ /QGRmwtyVzsfLh6/94UUZTn10oo+xGAfw2gf1on5IJTIiphykk732PNnUakVGWwHNKQquTVc kLrydUaFVMb89BAXqExBKlMg2ciEjzbYMCs3I/qZAZ0Wr5nF3RQS8O78elTNAgWTZ98yKTZV DlRoDpnvbfwtIPqnISoSjDEvEUBdpykvS3jHqlR1f6Mx6Xs97S5CORaer/0qTcDm0PAb1Z9l IhMsFl05tNt2FpgS4/RN8NyLasAQNOlScpTJbAfRuyyvRm1N8GLIL1KX+YYeLyqzhdhZABEB AAHNJU1hbGxvcnkgS25vZGVsIDxtYWxsb3J5QG1heWZpcnN0Lm9yZz7CwJgEEwECAEICGwMG CwkIBwMCBhUIAgkKCwQWAgMBAh4BAheAAhkBFiEE4+tj4GWjskC82bBxDDKicb08x4AFAlqo 9WUFCRAV234ACgkQDDKicb08x4DklAf+ODKRmP6C2MnBz6vL8N8l3vZJUqoRcYXTn3uTpT05 Wou87ZIZ/P/OV2/uOMKkczLQQydj5S8PxbLTeg+U5f/63hdy99ON+K2b4izg7Qasdl1SqXTH q1pmhbrcbLbVKDJ345fdEg7RuMnv4gd3EaT/yQa99zHy8JHaBKaPEUQAa65HTt2Sy2c6L6BA aMZx1TOZ9/cZ7L1gJyytJbEyvg/JLOatJEI4rewUWU2TMSGJijwjAUBagwDPWyxpz+vXdKsD tqRTpY4xvXaeUQo0QXf0c5j1Gcglzv7ywZcyz1MGD1aLS9/CqeB3I4EMbvH/33LS3jNkfKbV XOTSjmo7l22CNc7ATQRMdE1nAQgA4mpP2LjFuAW2li9FPbDYOMzt0MtThXsnvHyY0fDv8FlU qnKgPrMY80VHntnxwqepFS3ncunVX4ipq+fadta+LHpTnbJSmlphBrc9qGJxqcjwf4yo35Xh OXCJFwnaoAwIX237lXRe4Xh6X4VMuJt8jiZdvgpbk/whvQH2grcq8KjCcy1iuL5pBl8ZwYG/ dphitFhQdqEcnc/krIqG4KQgKiUi3K/GR0OeEmw/cscWD7/CLEo7eHiaGQhSOyDQbM+Iu2o/ 6uMXMUPsYlMMqgmVL68zMacO3PE17jx0rQ8oZ7CpBY8YZWOWrzXrtFT8JO9guuCPsvd4KT6y 97y9LRJlPQARAQABwsB8BBgBAgAmAhsMFiEE4+tj4GWjskC82bBxDDKicb08x4AFAlqo9WYF CRAV238ACgkQDDKicb08x4DU4QgAmlyBlFhfU0jpkbyD3HQ+3CJqWdBT422pVIrj3qNT2ehy fWO66Muidmd4Y279uV3p3TQEJOQvnV7FVAC9+bI7AdBy00BAjHgJ5eSQZxKTXUoeeBAsTZHN /HaHewjYWHMvCuuzir/Wt3A6Cehh8gp9I/Vg+oL3dTldVqqgZLgnA83bT/R8fI/e85LDlpdx KJ0+uy/grg3AbH7LUUrmMIC2iO8mQWYuNlizsUZLFvJhCAU2c5l8B5mv2BoWFhL+l7mmNcdF bwBFXon7Ea1jkCnbWVxtXkPYkcuWuMSTJswn9HhZVJWjUonKqUZKAb9PxRzC9crZ+X14tQT3 iJt2a4ZM4w==
Message-ID: <0472f8fe-4353-182c-4070-224c4f476900@article19.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 14:06:27 +0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAD499eLxLPgN0YCJR1e1Mvi18By6hR+893N+myn-wdmf2nGu-A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net
X-Scan-Signature: 028245575ea82c532dbb94a201c00fd0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hr-rt/TAWZGdUin6MzEcLP4mLzAeAr-ss>
Subject: Re: [HR-rt] Fwd: Notes from human rights review team november 4th IETF 103 - quick question
X-BeenThere: hr-rt@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Human Rights Protocol Considerations Review Team <hr-rt.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/hr-rt>, <mailto:hr-rt-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/hr-rt/>
List-Post: <mailto:hr-rt@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hr-rt-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hr-rt>, <mailto:hr-rt-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 07:06:37 -0000

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: ccath@turing.ac.uk <mailto:ccath@turing.ac.uk> &
> corinnecath@gmail.com <mailto:corinnecath@gmail.com>
> Twitter: @C_Cath
> 
> _______________________________________________
> HR-rt mailing list
> HR-rt@irtf.org
> 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