Re: [hrpc] HRPC recharter

[Adrian Gropper <[e-mail]>]

The difference between protocol and policy is the difference between
engineering and law. IETF is engineering.

For example, engineers build a tunnel that can work for both cars and
buses. Policy may preference one or the other but the engineers have a duty
to avoid tilting that choice unless it has direct economic impact.

The GNAP example I have brought to this group is asking the engineers to
stay out of the decision of whether the resource server or the resource
owner has a stronger privacy interest. The GNAP protocol can and therefore
should treat both as equally important and let constraints be a matter of
policy and law.

Adrian

On Fri, Dec 23, 2022 at 5:18 PM Niels ten Oever <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Der all,
>
> I hope this email finds you all really well. I think I like the aim in
> this recharter and I think it can help to make hrpc more relevant to more
> audiences, so a lot of appreciation for that to the chairs.
>
> There are some questions I have with regards to the new charter, so I hope
> you'll bare with me. Most boil down to: what do you mean with policy
> impact, policy concerns, public interest policy, etc. This just to ensure
> we don't end up in the weeds later when we have the charter.
>
> # 1
> [quote1]
> Moreover it is widely accepted that technical design decisions about the
> Internet are not value neutral [RFC3935] and can have lasting impacts on
> public policy and individual rights.
>
> [/quote1]
>
> I am not sure whether the nature of the impact of technical design
> decisions on rights is the same as the impact on public policy, since
> rights belong to people and policy is an instrument of the state. So I see
> how technical design decisions can impact people and their rights, and how
> it can impact the state, but state instruments might be different? I think
> this is more a question of wordsmithing than ontology though.
>
> Furthermore I would not refer to "individual rights", but rather to "human
> rights". Or if you really want to "individual and communal rights".
>
> A fix could be:
>
> [proposal1]
>
> Moreover it is widely accepted that technical design decisions about the
> Internet are not value neutral [RFC3935] and can have lasting impacts on
> human rights and affect public policy.
>
> [/proposal1]
>
> # 2
>
> This seems quite a long sentence that is hard to parse:
>
> [quote2]
>
> This research group aims to explore the relations between Internet
> architecture and human rights and to provide guidelines to inform future
> protocol development and decision making where protocols impact or are
> informed by policies that serve the public interest and protect human
> rights.
>
> [/quote2]
>
> May I suggest the following:
>
> [proposal2]
>
> This research group aims to explore the relations between Internet
> architecture, protocols, and human rights. Furthermore the research group
> aims to provide guidelines to inform future protocol development and
> decision making to align protocols with human rights and the public
> interest.
>
> [/proposal2]
>
> # 3
>
> I am not sure the research question is really covering the work of the
> group, I think that is better covered under objectives. If we really want a
> research question to be in there we need to workshop it a bit more.
>
> # 4
>
> [quote]
>
> The Human Rights and Policy Considerations Research Group is chartered to
> research of protocol development that is responsible towards and mindful of
> the human rights of others [RFC3271] and whether standards and protocols
> can enable, strengthen or threaten human rights, as defined in the
> Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) [1] and the International
> Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) [2].
>
> [/quote]
>
> I think this sentence is a bit convoluted, especially where it comes to:
> "research of protocol development that is responsible towards and mindful
> of the human rights of others"
>
> # 5
>
> RFC3271 does not mention the human rights of others.
>
> # 6
>
> [quote]
>
> Furthermore HRPC researches how protocols can influence policy concerns
>
> [/quote]
>
> It might be me, but what are 'policy concerns'? Do we simply mean
> 'concerns of policy makers' with this? If so, probably better to spell it
> out?
>
> # 7
>
> [quote]
>
> This research group is a discursive resource for the community to ensure
> the development process fully recognizes these potential public policy
> impacts, addresses those impacts adequately, and builds evidence and
> guidance for policy makers on the necessary design tradeoffs that should be
> made.
>
> [/quote]
>
> what do you mean with "a discursive resource"?
>
> You refer to "these potential public policy impacts", which policy impacts
> do you mean?
>
> Happy to discuss.
>
> Niels
>
>
> On 22-12-2022 18:30, Mallory Knodel wrote:
> > Dear RG,
> >
> > Hope everyone is well.
> >
> > At the 115 meeting HRPC was reviewed by the IAB [0], notes of which are
> forthcoming from the IAB.
> >
> > Partially as a result, though this activity predates the review itself,
> Sofia and I have been reviewing the HRPC charter. In particular we are keen
> to expand HRPC slightly, though arguably our area of work will remain the
> same (more on that later), to explicitly welcome policy discussions.
> >
> > The recharter text is available in GitHub [1] where you can view a diff
> [2]. It is also in a plaintext format with more visual indications of where
> the changes have been made [3].
> >
> > My view on the proposed change to include "policy" as a replacement for
> "protocol" in the name and charter text have been shaped by both of the
> past chairs of HRPC and Colin's feedback, which is that the human rights
> framework can apply to virtually any policy discussion and therefore HRPC
> has all along according to its charter had a mandate to talk about these
> issues. However I do think that the slight rephrasing in places gives us
> necessary updates that reflect the current political moment as well as
> learning from past lessons since the group was chartered the first time.
> Additionally I think there is value in the group name and its charter text
> being written so as to explicitly attract researchers and research that
> discuss policy, as a "place to land" in the IETF/IRTF.
> >
> > We welcome any comments on the proposed changes.
> >
> > Happy new year and best wishes to everyone,
> >
> > -Chairs, Mallory & Sofia
> >
> > [0] https://www.iab.org/wiki/index.php/RG_Reviews
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/IRTF-HRPC/IRTF-HRPC/blob/main/hrpccharter.md
> >
> > [2]
> https://github.com/IRTF-HRPC/IRTF-HRPC/commit/1a029b31ab3521e8da1490924c94397a99497d19
> >
> > [3] https://pad.riseup.net/p/Qgq2TJuWLbFSY1Jrcxgm
> >
> >
>
> --
> Niels ten Oever, PhD
> Postdoctoral Researcher - Media Studies Department - University of
> Amsterdam
> Affiliated Faculty - Digital Democracy Institute - Simon Fraser University
> Non-Resident Fellow 2022-2023 - Center for Democracy & Technology
> Associated Scholar - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - Fundação Getúlio
> Vargas
> Research Fellow - Centre for Internet and Human Rights - European
> University Viadrina
>
> Vice chair - Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet)
>
> W: https://nielstenoever.net
> E: [e-mail]
> T: @nielstenoever
> P/S/WA: [phone]
> PGP: 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3
>
> Read my latest article on network ideologies and how 5G reshapes the
> internet
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308596122001446
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>