Re: [hrpc] HRPC recharter

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

obligatory disclaimer still in effect.

On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 09:49:29AM +0100, Eliot Lear wrote:

>2014 had in mind.  However, there is, at least in my mind, no doubt 
>that protocols and policies *can be* highly intertwined (cf SHAKEN and 
>STIR).  Clearly this must have been what you folk on the IAB had in 
>mind when you created this group in the first place, no?

I can't speak for the thoughts of the IAB at the time, but as I understood things then our job was only to review and not to establish or govern the plans of RGs.  I remember participating in the early discussions for the RG.  Early on I was sceptical about the scope then, because it wasn't clear to me what it had to do with protocols, and I thought the chartering discussion helped tighten that up to the point where I thought it would be a useful RG.

>suggestion about using the word "explore".  Also, I have, as you have 
>seen, been concerned about this group addressing only *some* human 
>rights and not *all* human rights.

Right, and the trouble is that the set of rights under the UDHR is not necessarily consistent, as you note.  I have thought it'd be quite conceivably useful for someone to produce guidance for protocol designers on how to evaluate such trade-offs during protocol design.  (I am emphatically not volunteering, because I have no idea.)

>Nevertheless, if I understand the lay of the land correctly, nobody is 
>arguing that this group should have a political advocacy function. 

Hmm.  I have been under the impression that some people do think that, so perhaps I am confused.

>NEW:
>
>>  * Academic papers, for in-depth analysis and discussion of the
>>    values embedded in the Internet architecture and their policy
>>    implications, as well as the impact of policy on protocol development.
>>
>"Policy papers" is often used for papers that are shills for 
>advocacy.  Let's not invite those here.  But both input and output 
>need to consider policy implications.

I think that may be a useful distinction, yes.

>>But it is obscure to me what the research question is in such cases.
>
>Strictly speaking, the RG charter needn't define a research question; 
>it can leave that up to the individual researchers themselves.

Sure.  Perhaps I should have said "topic" rather than "question", though.  The point is still that I don't understand the extent to which such things qualify as research rather than advocacy.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]