Re: [hrpc] Interim meeting - 25 Feb 16 UTC

[avri doria <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

This is going on now.

cheers,

avri


On 16-Feb-20 00:16, avri doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks Stéphane for the report.
>
> This interim has been registered with the secretariat and been announced
> on list and elsewhere.
>
> Hope people saw the announcement.
>
> It is scheduled for: 25 Feb 1600 - 1800 UTC
>
> Stéphane is providing the zoom room for the meeting:
>
> 1. Zoom :
>
> https://yorku.zoom.us/j/234314123
> Meeting ID: 234 314 123
> Find your local number: https://yorku.zoom.us/u/avFFYbR4w
>
> Draft Agenda -
>
> Single issue: draft-association
>
> - Welcome & Agenda review
>
> - Summary of discussion/work since last HRPC mtg
>
> - Discussion on next steps for draft
>
> - Discussion of cases to be included in draft
>
> - Recruit someone, or more, to work with Stéphane on completing the draft
>
> - AOB
>
> Thanks
>
> avri
>
>
> On 14-Feb-20 16:53, Stéphane Couture wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Sorry for the delays, but here is a report I made from our last Zoom
>> meeting about draft-association, that we held two weeks ago. Sorry
>> also for the typos.
>>
>> As stated in this report and announced previously, the next meeting
>> will be on February 25th  from 16:00 to 18:00 GMT, and will be an
>> interim meeting (Avri or Mallory could say more on this). 
>>
>> 0. Participants
>> ===========
>>
>> Stéphane, Niels, Avri, Mallory (for the first part), Juliana
>>
>> 1. Editorial team
>> =============
>>
>> Since Joe doesn’t have much time, Niels is still participating and
>> Juliana wants to participate more, but doesn’t know to what extent. We
>> have decided to make an « open » editorial committee for now, and we
>> will decide later on the order of authors, based on who has
>> contributed the more (overall, not just in terms of commits on the git
>> hub). Stéphane is ok to follow up on coordination until the next IETF
>> but we will need a co-editor after.
>>
>> 2. Report from first seminar 
>> =====================
>>
>> Stéphane presented some of the stuff we discussed in the first
>> seminar. See the slides :
>> https://framadrop.org/r/jgvRpOZUq6#VZ8mgyiCF/fDgIeYUFfhS+JkaJra01Vr98VFv0jKAmU=
>>
>> For the goals, it was suggested that we reframe the goal to “explore
>> and map the relationships.”
>>
>> As for the goals: Niels mentioned that the goal is to explore the
>> relationships, before making some recommendations. For instance, you
>> have to study – and establish – the relationships between drinking and
>> driving, before making decision related to this. This might raise
>> (again) the point of the theoretical framework we use to “explore”
>> these relationships. If our aim is to establish some kind of causality
>> – as we would do for drinking and driving – an interpretative
>> framework might not be the best for this.
>>
>> 3. Work since the last seminar: literature review
>> ====================================
>>
>> Stéphane presented his work on enhancing literature review. A few more
>> documents addressing explicitly the relations between “freedom of
>> association and assembly” and “the digital” were found. In particular,
>> a draft document from the European Council that was not known to us,
>> presented some social cases (slide 12), that could be re-used in the
>> research. We still had debates about the relevance of starting with
>> social cases rather than technological cases (as it is right now in
>> draft-association).
>>
>> It was agreed that these references should be briefly added to the
>> draft-association. Niels mentioned that all the cases identified in
>> this document have already been discussed on the list and that it
>> would be important to look at how it plays out in “architectural”
>> layers relevant to IETF. For instance, the design of encryption is an
>> inherent part of protocols, or using source routing. If we can show
>> that these choices can make association or joining easier or more
>> difficult, it would be good.
>>
>> Note about the notion of “infrastructural”: We use here
>> “infrastructure” in a general sense to refer to the “behind the
>> scenes” of normal internet usages, especially protocols.
>> Infrastructural is thus opposed here to “policy” or “economic”
>> dimensions. What we are interested in here is the broad scope of IETF
>> work, not the specific realm of how “infrastructure” is used within
>> IETF. To avoid confusion, it was proposed that we talk about the
>> “architecture of the Internet”, instead of the “infrastructure of the
>> Internet.”
>>
>> We also presented a summary of an encyclopedia article about “freedom
>> of association”, where they present a nuanced version of freedom of
>> association. It was mentioned that in an earlier version, Gisela made
>> a similar work, but it was considered too “legal”. We might want to
>> look at this previous version of the draft
>>
>> 4. The cases
>> ===========
>>
>> We still had some discussions about the current cases, and especially
>> the way in which they inhibit association. We went through the
>> difference case studies, and discussing their enabling or disabling
>> capacity. This part of the discussion was fully transcribed.  It is
>> proposed that we create a table to address each of these cases, which
>> will help in turn clarifying the argument. See the table here :
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1r88InF_YejQHmcmHIgtVY1gEXPa1dDT2TAWpuUdMu80/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>> 4. What’s next
>> ===========
>>
>> The next meeting will be an ‘interim meeting”, so we will be able to
>> have formal decisions.
>>
>> 1. By the next meeting, we should have a table that analyzes the way
>> in which protocols mentioned in the paper inhibit or enable
>> association. This table should be done collaboratively.:
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1r88InF_YejQHmcmHIgtVY1gEXPa1dDT2TAWpuUdMu80/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>> 2. In the next meeting we should decide if we analyze more thoroughly
>> social cases, or we stick to the cases currently in the paper. If we
>> go and analyze social cases, it might make the paper stronger, but it
>> would probably take much more time.
>>
>> 3. A “diff” should be presented in the next meeting, so it is approved.
>>
>> 4. Make sure we resubmit the draft (by March 8^th , 2020).
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> hrpc mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>