Re: [hrpc] Request to session IRTF slot in Dallas for Human Rights and Protocol Consideration

["Eggert, Lars" <[e-mail]>]

On 2015-1-23, at 16:02, Niels ten Oever <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Please find underneath the information you requested.
> 
> * group name
> Human Rights Protocol Considerations
> 
> * group acronym
> hrpc
> 
> * chairs other than you
> Joana Varon, Niels ten Oever

Three chairs is a bit uncommon. I'd prefer two, if that is possible. (How you organize the work is up to you.)

> * how to subscribe to the list (URL)
> https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
> 
> * any other URLs for the proposed group
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-doria-hrpc-proposal-00

Thanks,
Lars

> 
> Best,
> 
> Niels
> 
> Niels ten Oever
> Head of Digital
> 
> Article 19
> www.article19.org
> 
> PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
>                    678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
> 
> On 01/23/2015 02:25 PM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
> > Hi Avri,
> >
> > in order for me to set this up in the datatracker (so you can
> > request a session), please send me this information:
> >
> > * group name * group acronym * chairs other than you * how to
> > subscribe to the list (URL) * any other URLs for the proposed
> > group
> >
> > Lars
> >
> >
> > On 2015-1-23, at 14:58, Avri Doria <[e-mail]
> > <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Signed PGP part Hi,
> >>
> >> Thanks for the really fast response.  I really appreciate the
> >> approach you take on 'proposed RG's, and really did not want to
> >> have to work on a charter just yet.
> >>
> >> My first approach at answers regarding the session.
> >>
> >> * what kind of meeting do you want to hold in Dallas (on the
> >> agenda, or off)
> >>
> >> On the agenda, as I think it would be good to reach out to other
> >> who might be interested.
> >>
> >> I think a 90 minute slot would be good for this first session.
> >>
> >> I have personal conflict I would like to avoid in scheduling, the
> >> IANA transiton subject.  Additionally we should avoid conflict
> >> with the SAAG meeting as there is where we found many interested
> >> in the discussion at the last meeting and any meetings dealing
> >> with privacy consideration issues.  We can build a conflict list
> >> over the next days if people need to add some.
> >>
> >> * do you have a mailing list?
> >>
> >> Yes, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >>
> >> * do you have a group of people with energy to make the group
> >> successful?
> >>
> >> Not sure yet.  There are at least 3 of us committed to the work
> >> and a bunch of others who have shown interest.  There appeared to
> >> be interest in continuing the discussion at the SAAG meeting, but
> >> it is still early to know.  What I do believe is that we need to
> >> continue the approach that started there and see if we can build
> >> something.
> >>
> >> * do you have some description of the group? (below is an OK
> >> start)
> >>
> >> I would use this  as a start.
> >>
> >> A major premise of our research goals is future-proofing
> >> protocols in relation to their effect on human rights. If we can
> >> discover a reliable set of considerations, we may avoid needing
> >> to fix as many protocols retroactively going forward. We believe
> >> that our goal, consistent with RFC1958, is for the Internet to
> >> continue to serve as a tool enabling connectivity among all
> >> people. Attacks on the Internet's ability to do this are
> >> increasing and worrisome.
> >>
> >> Some of the topics we want to discuss:
> >>
> >> 1) Continue the discussion on the interrelation between
> >> protocols, architectures and rights
> >>
> >> 2) Enable broad community engagement in this discussion as was
> >> discussed in Hawaii.
> >>
> >> 3) Allow this discussion to happen before politicization related
> >> to human rights and the Internet occurs.
> >>
> >> 4) Discuss methods for doing the work.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> avri
> >>
> >>
> >> On 23-Jan-15 08:31, Eggert, Lars wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On 2015-1-23, at 14:21, Avri Doria <[e-mail]
> >> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >>>> I don't know whether it is a BoF or there is some other
> >>>> designation
> >> for an IRTF session for a 'RG in possible formation.'  In any
> >> case, following up on the interest in the SAAG session, and
> >> afterwards, we (Joana, Niels and I) would like to request such a
> >> session.
> >>>
> >>> I'm happy to have that discussion. I do note that we will need
> >>> to
> >> conclude this in the next few days, because scheduling for rooms
> >> for Dallas will begin.
> >>>
> >>>> At the end of the requested session, the goal would be to
> >>>> discuss the
> >> formation of a RG.
> >>>
> >>> That's not quite how I handle this in the IRTF. For folks that
> >>> come
> >> with an idea for a new RG, I'm willing to give them meeting rooms
> >> at IETF meetings for a year, and (if they like) have the meeting
> >> listed on the agenda as a "proposed RG" meeting. (It is also
> >> possible to have some of these meetings off the agenda, i.e.,
> >> with invitations handled by the proponents of the group.) The
> >> instructions to the proponents are basically "go and pretend you
> >> are an RG", in other words, invite the people you want to invite,
> >> have the discussions you want to have and don't worry about the
> >> charter text.
> >>>
> >>> After that year has passed, I sit down with the proponents, the
> >>> IRSG
> >> and IAB and we discuss if the proposed group is off to a good
> >> start.
> >>>
> >>> The reason I'm doing it this way is that I've seen to many new
> >>> RGs in
> >> the past focus on charter text, get it perfect and then die on
> >> the starting line because of lack of energy or lack of community
> >> building by the proponents. So I've decided to front-load that,
> >> and fine tune the charter afterwards.
> >>>
> >>> Of course you will need some sort of text to explain the group
> >>> to new
> >> people, so they can determine if it's for them, but it doesn't
> >> need to be as formal as a charter.
> >>>
> >>> So:
> >>>
> >>> * what kind of meeting do you want to hold in Dallas (on the
> >>> agenda,
> >> or off)
> >>>
> >>> * do you have a mailing list?
> >>>
> >>> * do you have a group of people with energy to make the group
> >> successful?
> >>>
> >>> * do you have some description of the group? (below is an OK
> >>> start)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> But we would like to make it substantive and include the
> >>>> following
> >> discussion items:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) Continue the discussion on the interrelation between
> >>>> protocols,
> >> architectures and rights
> >>>>
> >>>> 2) Enable broad community engagement in this discussion as
> >>>> was
> >> discussed in Hawaii.
> >>>>
> >>>> 3) Allow this discussion to happen before politicization
> >>>> related to
> >> human rights and the Internet occurs.
> >>>>
> >>>> A major premise of our research goals is future-proofing
> >>>> protocols in
> >> relation to their effect on human rights. If we can discover a
> >> reliable set of considerations, we may avoid needing to fix as
> >> many protocols retroactively going forward. We believe that our
> >> goal, consistent with RFC1958, is for the Internet to continue to
> >> serve as a tool enabling connectivity among all people. Attacks
> >> on the Internet's ability to do this are increasing and
> >> worrisome.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think we could use a full session for the discussion, but
> >>>> one of
> >> the shorter slots would probably work.
> >>>
> >>> If you want an "on the agenda" meeting, you need to determine
> >>> how many
> >> hours it should be (1h, 1.5h, 2h, 2.5h) and you need to determine
> >> your list of conflicts with other RGs and WGs.
> >>>
> >>> If you want an "off the agenda" meeting, those are not
> >>> scheduled in
> >> parallel to WG and RG sessions, so it would need to be breakfast,
> >> lunch or evening time.
> >>>
> >>>> Lars, please let us know of any specific information you need
> >>>> or
> >> specific steps you would like us to take in following up on this
> >> request.
> >>>
> >>> See above.
> >>>
> >>>> We would also be intersted in hearing from the list as to
> >>>> other
> >> things that might be worth adding to the such a discussion so
> >> that we can adjust the proposed 'agenda' to suit. Optimally we
> >> can evolve from the 3 of us trying to get this going to a group
> >> working on moving it forward.  But time was getting late for
> >> requesting a slot and we felt we needed to get this moving.
> >>>
> >>> Heads up: I may not make it to Dallas for personal reasons. I
> >>> should
> >> know for sure in a few weeks. But since we're not deciding on the
> >> formal chartering of the group in Dallas, that's OK. I will be
> >> able to go to your future meetings.
> >>>
> >>> Lars
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________ hrpc mailing list
> > [e-mail] https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
> >
>