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

[Avri <[e-mail]>]

      
  

 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