Re: [hrpc] IRTF Chair review of draft-irtf-hrpc-guidelines-10

Gurshabad - 

	I am fine with whatever outcome the working group decides - I provided some possible example text solely to be responsive to the comment received in the review and it was truly optional in nature. 

Thanks,
/John

Disclaimer: my views alone - Note: made with 100% recycled electrons. 

> On 31 Jan 2022, at 12:44 PM, Gurshabad Grover <gurshabad@cis-india.org> wrote:
> 
> Colin, John, Farzaneh, Mallory, Eric: thank you for sharing your thoughts on right to remedy/attribution section.
> 
> As Niels said, the text of the section was arrived at after much discussion, in the hope that it presents group consensus. I think it successfully conveys the trade-offs being discussed on this thread. It also conveys explicitly to the reader that building in attribution mechanisms in a protocol is "most likely not consistent with human rights."
> 
> Since it tends towards advocating _against_ attribution, adding an example is perhaps not as useful as it is for other sections (and may be more contentious than the current text itself). After re-reading all the emails on the topic, I am of the opinion that we should leave the text as it is.
> 
> -Gurshabad
> 
> On 1/27/22 03:00, John Curran wrote:
>> On 25 Jan 2022, at 8:43 AM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> < I am unclear what research you believe is required; the present difficulties of real-world prosecution due to lack of attribution are quite well-known - >
>>> 
>>> But should we solve them here? In this research group? By just inserting opinions in the document? This has been the fundamental problem we have had at HRPC. This group was supposed to be a “research group”. That’s what RG means! Copy and pasting from other sources without even coming up with scope and method and just expressing opinion and which will end up in the document is not research.
>> Farsaneh -
>>    I did not see the guidelines document as an effort to “solve”
>>    anything with regard to the Internet, but rather to serve as a tool
>>    to provide protocol developers with guidance that will aid in their
>>    understanding of how their protocol decisions can potentially
>>    influence the exercise of human rights on the Internet.
>>    One of the human rights impacted by protocol design is access to
>>    remedy, and out of completeness I would expect that we’d want to
>>    include mention of how some protocol attributes (i.e. lack of
>>    attribution and/or anonymity) impacts access to remedy.  This impact
>>    is already clearly documented (e.g. review the section of the
>>    "Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace" report that I
>>    cited earlier, or simply attempt yourself to obtain legal remedy
>>    against a harm committed anonymously over the Internet) but I do
>>    understand that including such a statement in the guidance to
>>    protocol developers may be controversial since “access to remedy” is
>>    not a particularly popular topic in most academic discussions of
>>    human rights. Thanks,
>> /John
>> Disclaimer: my views alone - free to use/reuse/discard as you see fit.
>> _______________________________________________
>> hrpc mailing list
>> hrpc@irtf.org
>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc