Re: [HR-rt] Check in on process

Mallory Knodel <> Tue, 14 May 2019 10:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9796812003E for <>; Tue, 14 May 2019 03:43:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R9FMbGuvLvPz for <>; Tue, 14 May 2019 03:43:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F58E1200CC for <>; Tue, 14 May 2019 03:43:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <>) id 1hQUtF-0008Vs-KI for; Tue, 14 May 2019 12:43:03 +0200
References: <> <>
From: Mallory Knodel <>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Autocrypt:; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQENBEx0TWcBCAC8sirY3nlDnRwY6XWmsvZtM9kmEK6H8no3ZuQ723PKwHOddw1nOykh0in/ /QGRmwtyVzsfLh6/94UUZTn10oo+xGAfw2gf1on5IJTIiphykk732PNnUakVGWwHNKQquTVc kLrydUaFVMb89BAXqExBKlMg2ciEjzbYMCs3I/qZAZ0Wr5nF3RQS8O78elTNAgWTZ98yKTZV DlRoDpnvbfwtIPqnISoSjDEvEUBdpykvS3jHqlR1f6Mx6Xs97S5CORaer/0qTcDm0PAb1Z9l IhMsFl05tNt2FpgS4/RN8NyLasAQNOlScpTJbAfRuyyvRm1N8GLIL1KX+YYeLyqzhdhZABEB AAG0Jk1hbGxvcnkgS25vZGVsIDxtYWxsb3J5QGFydGljbGUxOS5vcmc+iQFWBBMBCABAAhsD BwsJCAcDAgEGFQgCCQoLBBYCAwECHgECF4AWIQTj62PgZaOyQLzZsHEMMqJxvTzHgAUCXH1h mgUJEepHrwAKCRAMMqJxvTzHgH3DCAC1sjJmg4+/VcESEzNkiF3KHEDCAssEaQl2FWfuXVvJ /mPliFtjpVv6EhdgUG5lbOcu12TCUWg42wHkE2kbDWXLE3f7HL+Nq0pEPVdMRXLxEfaOs2oR KGx8lh4k1UgYEpnARI486TklOAONKWdJKstEPrtt9LtysnjvhZvYCTzLKJC98c5wUvC46QYy +NdK6GB+uyVzW5kP2uUUBYxiCyHivGBbv77jcJAFVAk96ut1GFpeCCZM2WyYzer95b9n9a1B UGdJgEEVVbbBIQw7yMbMPqEwa8rpfig7QG72GieYItQjllHXGbOECiBcOHrGtrFWsHWxOxJV bZSoVq6sn1UUuQENBEx0TWcBCADiak/YuMW4BbaWL0U9sNg4zO3Qy1OFeye8fJjR8O/wWVSq cqA+sxjzRUee2fHCp6kVLedy6dVfiKmr59p21r4selOdslKaWmEGtz2oYnGpyPB/jKjfleE5 cIkXCdqgDAhfbfuVdF7heHpfhUy4m3yOJl2+CluT/CG9AfaCtyrwqMJzLWK4vmkGXxnBgb92 mGK0WFB2oRydz+SsiobgpCAqJSLcr8ZHQ54SbD9yxxYPv8IsSjt4eJoZCFI7INBsz4i7aj/q 4xcxQ+xiUwyqCZUvrzMxpw7c8TXuPHStDyhnsKkFjxhlY5avNeu0VPwk72C64I+y93gpPrL3 vL0tEmU9ABEBAAGJATwEGAECACYCGwwWIQTj62PgZaOyQLzZsHEMMqJxvTzHgAUCXH1hmgUJ EepHswAKCRAMMqJxvTzHgEDZCACcTamfNdBACpPHsmsJL1hbWertwYZg7h2rZtgmZQ9C2PMT OgkPPSsfi+xZ6PaXlvm2RI/TX51LbJsCJ9Fd2/WxKdtC0s6o7+0Cl3P57AORf3BRfl3zfXuy VhzjLvM9WhDiQM6JBqDuYxiYnjO56l+gozEuBAtUJaPIxGyggyS5eT8kKv8Szpc4g7/skZXq ccVOHj05KCOaFQ774rsIzcwppqJqGjh9X6nX6m2DONuBIYNXjH9U6FxHSJ6gRRxZkiz2/dDZ YqsHYlkKigH82r9gORhIGZkCd7xnRhyLOHnjjeKtIy5pvGwxUohy+y5l8i1155JEPNB7pphY xFxjMOQU
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 13:42:28 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="4e2Vt5rFi7GaguDpvfEQq247OqYJ1lGCB"
X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at
X-Scan-Signature: ee739817b6cd2655ac6326818c89325b
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [HR-rt] Check in on process
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Human Rights Protocol Considerations Review Team <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 10:43:09 -0000

On 14/05/2019 05:40, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 5/13/19 2:03 AM, Mallory Knodel wrote:
>> Would it be better if the work to test IETF WG drafts against RFC 
>> 8280 came back within the fold of HRPC?
> Thanks for bringing this up!  Bringing these discussions back onto 
> the main mailing list would expose the discussion to all RG 
> participants, which I think is critical for trying to get a handle
> on how effective tools like RFC 8280 and draft-irtf-hrpc-guidelines
> are for forming the basis for useful HR evaluations and for writing
> HR considerations sections.  It seems to me that understanding the 
> applicability of the documents in practice is necessarily an
> activity internal to the research group and that it would be
> enormously valuable to fold the review discussions back into the RG.

I agree that evaluating the usefulness of RFC 8280 as a tool should be
brought into HRPC.

> It's also the case that the existence of this mailing list has led
> to some misunderstandings about the HR reviews themselves, so
> there's value, I think, in removing any ambiguity around that.

I'd like to hear from anyone on this list who disagrees with making
non-existent this list before that happens. Let's give it another week
for comments.

> I'd love to see some discussion about metrics or criteria for 
> evaluating 8280 and the guidelines draft.  This is outside my area
> of expertise but I do think it's part of our responsibility as an RG
> to be able to make a statement about correctness.

Maybe Gurshabad could speak to how we can collectively feed into the
guidelines draft.

On the wider process, I think people in HRPC who are using RFC 8280 to
guide their reviews could:

 * Send a message to HRPC about drafts that might be interesting because
of a) clear connection to RFC 8280, b) requests from authors or
engagement with RFC 8280 in the I-D drafting process, or c) existence of
a human rights considerations section in an I-D.

 * CCing HRPC if someone in HRPC conducts a review and cites RFC 8280,

 * Discussion on the list and in meetings about learnings gleaned from
the review process when using RFC 8280 or the guidelines draft.


Mallory Knodel
Head of Digital ::
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9  B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780