Re: [hrpc] Protocol/Architecture consideration of Attribution & right of legal remedy (was: Re: I-D Action: draft-irtf-hrpc-guidelines-03.txt)

[John Curran <[e-mail]>]

On 12 Jun 2019, at 6:13 AM, Amelia Andersdotter <[e-mail]> wrote:
> ...
> Normally, human rights are obligations on governments and duties on
> companies to respect individuals.

You use the term “normally”, where perhaps you meant “typically”?  All human rights are normal, but I concur that the typical considerations regarding human rights implementation involve preventing otherwise impacting government or business activity. 

> The attribution problem, however,
> seems to me to arise when governments or companies find that individuals
> have not respected their rights, or when individuals have not respected
> other individuals.

Correct. 

> Because the attribution problem in this sense occurs
> in a "reverse setting" (individual -> individual or individual ->
> government/company settings rather than government/company -> individual
> settings), I'd be cautious to include it in RFC8280.

I don’t following how the atypical nature of the "legal remedy” human right makes it any less important than other human rights or warrants its exclusion from aspects that need to be considered by protocol/architecture designers.  In fact, the less obvious relationship between attribution and ability to support the legal remedy human right would argue that it’s likely more important that it be included, less it be readily overlooked by designers when striving to strike an appropriate balance in these areas. 

Thanks! 
/John

p.s. Disclaimer:  my views alone - this message composed of 100% recycled electrons.