Re: [hrpc] HRPC recharter

[Mallory Knodel <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

We aren't conceptually replacing protocol with policy, we are just 
adding in policy and leveraging the existing P in the acronym. It should 
be implied that we work on protocols because we are in the IRTF.

If we change the acronym we have to completely re-create the entity in 
the datatracker it seems.

-Mallory

On 12/23/22 10:40 PM, Adrian Gropper wrote:
> The difference between protocol and policy is the difference between 
> engineering and law. IETF is engineering.
>
> For example, engineers build a tunnel that can work for both cars and 
> buses. Policy may preference one or the other but the engineers have a 
> duty to avoid tilting that choice unless it has direct economic impact.
>
> The GNAP example I have brought to this group is asking the engineers 
> to stay out of the decision of whether the resource server or the 
> resource owner has a stronger privacy interest. The GNAP protocol can 
> and therefore should treat both as equally important and let 
> constraints be a matter of policy and law.
>
> Adrian
>
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2022 at 5:18 PM Niels ten Oever 
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     Der all,
>
>     I hope this email finds you all really well. I think I like the
>     aim in this recharter and I think it can help to make hrpc more
>     relevant to more audiences, so a lot of appreciation for that to
>     the chairs.
>
>     There are some questions I have with regards to the new charter,
>     so I hope you'll bare with me. Most boil down to: what do you mean
>     with policy impact, policy concerns, public interest policy, etc.
>     This just to ensure we don't end up in the weeds later when we
>     have the charter.
>
>     # 1
>     [quote1]
>     Moreover it is widely accepted that technical design decisions
>     about the Internet are not value neutral [RFC3935] and can have
>     lasting impacts on public policy and individual rights.
>
>     [/quote1]
>
>     I am not sure whether the nature of the impact of technical design
>     decisions on rights is the same as the impact on public policy,
>     since rights belong to people and policy is an instrument of the
>     state. So I see how technical design decisions can impact people
>     and their rights, and how it can impact the state, but state
>     instruments might be different? I think this is more a question of
>     wordsmithing than ontology though.
>
>     Furthermore I would not refer to "individual rights", but rather
>     to "human rights". Or if you really want to "individual and
>     communal rights".
>
>     A fix could be:
>
>     [proposal1]
>
>     Moreover it is widely accepted that technical design decisions
>     about the Internet are not value neutral [RFC3935] and can have
>     lasting impacts on human rights and affect public policy.
>
>     [/proposal1]
>
>     # 2
>
>     This seems quite a long sentence that is hard to parse:
>
>     [quote2]
>
>     This research group aims to explore the relations between Internet
>     architecture and human rights and to provide guidelines to inform
>     future protocol development and decision making where protocols
>     impact or are informed by policies that serve the public interest
>     and protect human rights.
>
>     [/quote2]
>
>     May I suggest the following:
>
>     [proposal2]
>
>     This research group aims to explore the relations between Internet
>     architecture, protocols, and human rights. Furthermore the
>     research group aims to provide guidelines to inform future
>     protocol development and decision making to align protocols with
>     human rights and the public interest.
>
>     [/proposal2]
>
>     # 3
>
>     I am not sure the research question is really covering the work of
>     the group, I think that is better covered under objectives. If we
>     really want a research question to be in there we need to workshop
>     it a bit more.
>
>     # 4
>
>     [quote]
>
>     The Human Rights and Policy Considerations Research Group is
>     chartered to research of protocol development that is responsible
>     towards and mindful of the human rights of others [RFC3271] and
>     whether standards and protocols can enable, strengthen or threaten
>     human rights, as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human
>     Rights (UDHR) [1] and the International Covenant on Civil and
>     Political Rights (ICCPR) [2].
>
>     [/quote]
>
>     I think this sentence is a bit convoluted, especially where it
>     comes to: "research of protocol development that is responsible
>     towards and mindful of the human rights of others"
>
>     # 5
>
>     RFC3271 does not mention the human rights of others.
>
>     # 6
>
>     [quote]
>
>     Furthermore HRPC researches how protocols can influence policy
>     concerns
>
>     [/quote]
>
>     It might be me, but what are 'policy concerns'? Do we simply mean
>     'concerns of policy makers' with this? If so, probably better to
>     spell it out?
>
>     # 7
>
>     [quote]
>
>     This research group is a discursive resource for the community to
>     ensure the development process fully recognizes these potential
>     public policy impacts, addresses those impacts adequately, and
>     builds evidence and guidance for policy makers on the necessary
>     design tradeoffs that should be made.
>
>     [/quote]
>
>     what do you mean with "a discursive resource"?
>
>     You refer to "these potential public policy impacts", which policy
>     impacts do you mean?
>
>     Happy to discuss.
>
>     Niels
>
>
>     On 22-12-2022 18:30, Mallory Knodel wrote:
>     > Dear RG,
>     >
>     > Hope everyone is well.
>     >
>     > At the 115 meeting HRPC was reviewed by the IAB [0], notes of
>     which are forthcoming from the IAB.
>     >
>     > Partially as a result, though this activity predates the review
>     itself, Sofia and I have been reviewing the HRPC charter. In
>     particular we are keen to expand HRPC slightly, though arguably
>     our area of work will remain the same (more on that later), to
>     explicitly welcome policy discussions.
>     >
>     > The recharter text is available in GitHub [1] where you can view
>     a diff [2]. It is also in a plaintext format with more visual
>     indications of where the changes have been made [3].
>     >
>     > My view on the proposed change to include "policy" as a
>     replacement for "protocol" in the name and charter text have been
>     shaped by both of the past chairs of HRPC and Colin's feedback,
>     which is that the human rights framework can apply to virtually
>     any policy discussion and therefore HRPC has all along according
>     to its charter had a mandate to talk about these issues. However I
>     do think that the slight rephrasing in places gives us necessary
>     updates that reflect the current political moment as well as
>     learning from past lessons since the group was chartered the first
>     time. Additionally I think there is value in the group name and
>     its charter text being written so as to explicitly attract
>     researchers and research that discuss policy, as a "place to land"
>     in the IETF/IRTF.
>     >
>     > We welcome any comments on the proposed changes.
>     >
>     > Happy new year and best wishes to everyone,
>     >
>     > -Chairs, Mallory & Sofia
>     >
>     > [0] https://www.iab.org/wiki/index.php/RG_Reviews
>     >
>     > [1] https://github.com/IRTF-HRPC/IRTF-HRPC/blob/main/hrpccharter.md
>     >
>     > [2]
>     https://github.com/IRTF-HRPC/IRTF-HRPC/commit/1a029b31ab3521e8da1490924c94397a99497d19
>     >
>     > [3] https://pad.riseup.net/p/Qgq2TJuWLbFSY1Jrcxgm
>     >
>     >
>
>     -- 
>     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 network ideologies and how 5G reshapes
>     the internet
>     https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308596122001446
>     _______________________________________________
>     hrpc mailing list
>     [e-mail]
>     https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc

-- 
Mallory Knodel
CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780