Re: [hrpc] Protocol/Architecture consideration of Attribution & right of legal remedy (was: Re: I-D Action: draft-irtf-hrpc-guidelines-03.txt)

[farzaneh badii <[e-mail]>]

Thanks John. That now makes better sense to me. We can discuss whether it
should be documented and how it should be documented. But we need to
consider many more aspects of it.
We need to understand what  "security" and "legal remedy"  means in IP.
What is "harm"? Harm is a very controversial term which can be interpreted
in various ways.

I suggest we have more discussion about the nuances before arguing about
the inclusion of your text.




Farzaneh


On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 2:05 PM John Curran <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 12 Jun 2019, at 1:48 PM, farzaneh badii <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>
> Frankly, John, what you are suggesting is outrageous.
>
> You don't have to always attribute the wrongdoing to a "person" or even a
> "location" to be able to establish jurisdiction and have access to a legal
> remedy and even preserve security. What you are suggesting will do more
> harm than good for human rights.
>
>
> Farzaneh -
>
> I’m not certain if you read what I wrote, but I certainly did _not_
> advocate that protocols/architectures have to always attribute to a person
> or location – the proposed text provides questions for protocol designers
> to consider in their design activities, not mandates or architectural norms
> to be followed.
>
> If you are correct in that there are cases where attribution isn’t
> necessary to provide access to a legal remedy, then it’s simply a matter of
> documenting (for a given protocol/architecture under assessment) why that
> is the case, since that’s one of the first questions asked in the proposed
> text:
>
> *"What, if any, mechanisms within the protocol or architecture are
> provided for a recipient of communications to obtain redress from
> communication which causes harm?  “*
>
> If redress is readily available, then it is indeed true that attribution
> is a non-issue.  It might be good to document an example of such a
> protocol, since most protocols recourse from “bad behavior” is
> disconnection, and that’s obviously not the same as legal remedy/redress.
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>
>
>
>