Re: [hrpc] draft-irtf-hrpc-association-02

I've got comments coming too; will try not to be duplicative

On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 12:03 Avri <avri@apc.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Again apologies for the last minute comments.
>
> Abstract: saying that something establishes  ‘the causal link’ is a very
> strong claim.  Are we sure we want to make that strong a claim?  Can we
> really prove a causal link and can we prove that it is ‘the’ causal link. I
> personally do not see this draft as establishing any causal links, though
> it does point toward where they might be found.
>
> Introduction: “by investigating the exact impact of Internet protocols on
> specific human rights,” again a very strong claim.  Can we ever really know
> the exact impact in some possible causal chain?  An even if we want to
> position a possible impact, we need more definitive illustrations and
> argumentation.
>
> There is an ambiguity between  allowing a right to prosper meaning a right
> is enabled, and what looks like a claim to a ‘right to prosper’. This is
> just a language nit, and I have avoided commenting on those for the most
> part, but this jumped out at me.
>
> 4. Methodology
>
> “been further validated through confirmatory research in the form of
> Human Rights Protocol Reviews.” I think this is the primary reason for the
> HRPC to do reviews, but I do not beleive we have established a methodology
> for doing those yet.  At this point some people are doing reviews and
> delivering them to responses that vary from happy acceptance to irritation
> to shock and awe. As far as I can tell we have not yet developed a
> systematic methodology for measuring the impact of the considerations in
> test reviews. Nor are we yet studying the reviews to see how they apply the
> considerations.  We have not yet established a rigorous method for testing
> our ethnographically established hypothesis.
>
> “Even though the present work does not seek to create new guidelines, the
> conclusions could inform the development of new guidelines such as is done
> in draft-irtf-hrpc-guidelines.” I think we need a tighter binding between
> the discussion in this draft and anywhere in the guidelines where a
> consideration is said to be relevant to freedom of Expression/Assembly.
>
> Perhaps this is a personal academic prejudice, but while I think
> ethnography is extremely useful in hypothesis formation, I do not see how
> it can also serve to test and verify relevance and usefulness. Seems
> circular process to me. I think we need to find other methods for testing
> and measuring.
>
> 6.  Cases and examples
>
> Seems like a loose collection of internet features that may or may not
> have a positive or negative affect on expression & assembly.  I do not see
> the persuasive argument that shows the possibility of a causal chain.
> Perhaps I am just not seeing it and others do, I accept.  Even in the two
> discussion sections, 7 & 8, the draft seems to jump from assertion to
> assertion without the rigor of argument that makes the conclusions
> inescapable.  I do not see the arguments that show why consideration in
> general or why specific considerations would be significant in enabling or
> disabling the freedom of association and assembly, though the guidelines
> does make those sorts of claims.
>
> Re considerations:  While I understand that the authors do not want to
> introduce new considerations related to assembly and association - there
> may not be any new considerations or changes to existing considerations, I
> still think the draft needs to show a mapping between internet protocols
> and features and existing considerations.
>
> Note: I have not called them out, but the draft needs a spelling and
> grammatical scrubbing.
>
> Thanks for continued efforts on this draft.
>
> Avri
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> hrpc@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>
-- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
Chief Technologist, Center for Democracy & Technology [https://www.cdt.org]
1401 K ST NW STE 200, Washington DC 20005-3497
e: joe@cdt.org, p: 202.407.8825, pgp: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key
Fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10  1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871