Re: [hrpc] new title for draft-tenoever-hrpc-political

[Tony Rutkowski <[e-mail]>]

Hi Niels,

Just a few questions and concerns about this draft.

Concerning the title, "Notes on networking standards and politics"
doesn't seem to fit the contents of the draft - which deals only with
the IETF.  There are an enormous array of "networking standards" that
have been around in standards bodies since about 1850.  Minimally,
"IETF" should be inserted in the title.  You also use the term
"networking" only three places in the body text in somewhat vague ways -
and never define the term.  On page 5, you refer to "networking
technology, such as protocols."  So it isn't very clear what exactly
what is included under the penumbra of "networking standards."  Lastly,
since your research question asks "are protocols political," the title
should probably read "Notes on IETF protocols and politics" - which
seems to describe the scope and content.

The research question "are protocols political?" Seems a trivial one. 
Of course they are political.  They always have been and always will
be.  Try looking at the  minutes of the first intergovernmental meeting
to develop a treaty for internet communications at Dresden in 1850. 
Lots of politics! :-)  So you might simply begin with the assertion that
they are political...or more precisely, political-economic.

You also seem to ignore the history of what you seem to be dealing with
here - the specs for what was known for years as the DARPA internet (and
before that, the host-to-host protocol network).  See
https://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall08/cos561/papers/cerf74.pdf. 
See also, https://www.darpa.mil/about-us/timeline/tcp-ip

The IETF was created in 1986 (not 1994).  Moreover, the tcp/ip platform
for the first 20 years was hardly open or voluntary.   It ran on DOD and
then additional NSF links - with NSA bit level security for the first
ten years.  Every user, host, address, port, service and network was
well-known and allocated by the NIC.  Every packet was monitored.  That
didn't begin to change until the mid-90s.  As a member of the USG's
InterNIC oversight panel as well as Sprint's internet director, I can
speak to every detail.  Most of the information is publicly available,
so I suggest for references, using actual sources rather than someone's
views citing someone's views citing someone's views...

Your treatment of relevant international treaty provisions in clause 5.1
is without citations or much credibility .   For example, the commentary
about the WTO's used of "standards" has no citations whatsoever.   The
WTO has many diverse treaty instruments.  The most relevant are the GATS
provisions - which were developed in the early 1990s  as a companion to
the ITU 1988 Melbourne treaty provisions to legalize public internets
internationally.  Prior to that, only government sponsored internets
were allowed across borders pursuant to CCITT Rec. D.1.  The GATS
provisions refer to only two standards bodies - the ITU and the ISO - to
prevent anticompetitive assertion of national security constraints.  I
know, because I was the ITU representative to the negotiations and
inserted them!

You also completely ignore the ITU - whose treaty provisions tracing
back to 1850 constitute the foundation for how nation states allow
traffic to enter their national jurisdictions, services to be provided,
radio emissions protected, and communication satellites placed in
orbit.  They have lots of network protocol standards!  The first one in
1850 even had a major protocol political component - they adopted Mr.
Morse's standards!

I'd also encourage a rather more open conceptualisation of human
rights.  See, e.g., draft-rutkowski-hrpc-hraas-00.  (Unless, of course,
there is no interest in the full breadth of international human rights -
which are of considerable concern today.)

Hopefully this helps with the improvement of this draft.

--tony

On 18-Aug-18 9:45 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
> Hi chairs,
>
> Small reminder for this e-mail.
>
> Best,
>
> Niels
>
> On 07/27/2018 11:09 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
>> Hi chairs,
>>
>> With unanimous support for 'Notes on networking standards and politics'
>> on the list as a title for draft-political, it seems like the final
>> hurdle for RG adoption of the document (as discussed in Montreal) has
>> been passed, right?
>>
>> Can I publish it as RG document with the new title?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Niels
>>
>> On 07/20/2018 08:00 PM, Amelia Andersdotter wrote:
>>> On 2018-07-20 10:33, Corinne Cath wrote:
>>>> I like a.) Notes on networking standards and politics part of this
>>>> whole process imho is to get people to read the doc to begin with,
>>>> which seems most likely with a clear and recognizable title. my 2
>>>> cents, corinne 
>>>>
>>> yeah, a)
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 1:19 AM, Mark Perkins
>>>> <marknoumea=[e-mail]
>>>> <mailto:marknoumea=[e-mail]..org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     'Notes on networking standards and politics'
>>>>
>>>>     get my vote!
>>>>
>>>>     Mark Perkins
>>>>
>>>>     On Friday, July 20, 2018, 10:10:27 AM GMT+11, Niels ten Oever
>>>>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Off-list discussion with Stephen resulted in a new option:
>>>>
>>>>     'Notes on networking standards and politics'
>>>>
>>>>     That gives us a few options:
>>>>
>>>>     a) Notes on networking standards and politics
>>>>     b) On Value Neutrality and the Politics of Standards
>>>>     c) Notes on Value Neutrality and the Politics of Standards
>>>>     d) ?
>>>>
>>>>     Curious to hear what the RG thinks sounds best, new suggestions
>>>>     ofc also
>>>>     welcome.
>>>>
>>>>     Best,
>>>>
>>>>     Niels
>>>>
>>>>     On 07/20/2018 12:43 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
>>>>     >
>>>>     >
>>>>     > On 07/20/2018 12:38 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> Hiya,
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> On 19/07/18 23:33, Niels ten Oever wrote:
>>>>     >>> Hi all,
>>>>     >>>
>>>>     >>> Thank you all very much for the spirited discussion at the
>>>>     session. To
>>>>     >>> resolve the issue with draft political and remove the last
>>>>     issue mention
>>>>     >>> blocking adoption I would like to propose to rename the draft:
>>>>     >>>
>>>>     >>> On Value Neutrality and the Politics of Standards
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> Meh:-)
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> How'd something more like "Some background on networking standards
>>>>     >> and politics" work? That seems to describe the content of the draft
>>>>     >> better to me, (modulo not having carefully read the latest rev,
>>>>     as I
>>>>     >> admitted at the mic, so don't take me too seriously.)
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> My reason for suggesting that is to try end up with something that
>>>>     >> would be less surprising for an IETF (or IEEE 802 or W3C...)
>>>>     reader.
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >
>>>>     > Exactly that audience is saying time and again that 'technology is
>>>>     > neutral' / 'protocols are neutral' / 'standards are neutral'.
>>>>     That is I
>>>>     > would like to address that in the title (and the draft).
>>>>     >
>>>>     > Following work can then address how we could come up with
>>>>     approaches to
>>>>     > address that.
>>>>     >
>>>>     >
>>>>     >> Cheers,
>>>>     >> S.
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >>>
>>>>     >>> Would that work for you all? I also added a few mentions of value
>>>>     >>> neutrality (and the lack thereof) for consistency in the abstract,
>>>>     >>> introduction, conclusion and the way forward.
>>>>     >>>
>>>>     >>> Changes can be seen here:
>>>>     >>>
>>>>     https://github.com/nllz/IRTF-HRPC/commit/03826cd73959e692bb1f7aa305f9fbdee325dbd2#diff-fb9d617868a367dd946ef225cc5e6de1
>>>>     <https://github.com/nllz/IRTF-HRPC/commit/03826cd73959e692bb1f7aa305f9fbdee325dbd2#diff-fb9d617868a367dd946ef225cc5e6de1>
>>>>     >>>
>>>>     >>> Happy to discuss.
>>>>     >>>
>>>>     >>> Best,
>>>>     >>>
>>>>     >>> Niels
>>>>     >>>
>>>>     >
>>>>
>>>>     -- 
>>>>     Niels ten Oever
>>>>     Researcher and PhD Candidate
>>>>     Datactive Research Group
>>>>     University of Amsterdam
>>>>
>>>>     PGP fingerprint      2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488
>>>>                       643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3
>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>     hrpc mailing list
>>>>     [e-mail] <mailto:hrpc@irtf..org>
>>>>     https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>>>>     <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc>
>>>>
>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>     hrpc mailing list
>>>>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>     https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>>>>     <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Corinne Cath
>>>> Ph.D. Candidate, Oxford Internet Institute & Alan Turing Institute
>>>>
>>>> Web: www.oii..ox.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath
>>>> <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath>
>>>> Email: [e-mail] <mailto:ccath@turing..ac.uk> &
>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>> Twitter: @C_Cath
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> hrpc mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>>>