Re: [hrpc] draft-tenoever-hrpc-political-00.txt

[Bastiaan Goslings <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

> On 4 Jul 2017, at 06:12, Melinda Shore <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> This is a terrific topic and I’m glad to see this draft.


Absolutely. Very interesting, thanks a lot for all the work done and sharing this milestone!

Some comments, if I may. 

(Disclaimer: I have not been part in the discussions leading up to this draft, nor have I read the doc’s/RFC’s in the references. I therefore take the draft at face value including the quotes it contains.) 


> 1) I don't think the distinction between 3.4 and 3.5 is
> as clear as it could be.  Or rather, it seemed clear in
> the first sentence of 3.5 and then got lost in the Postman
> quote.  I'm not actually sure that 3.4 and 3.5 really are
> that different, effectively.


Yes. Maybe a stronger distinction between 3.4 and 3.5. can help.

3.4 states ‘A technology, once created, has its own logic that is independent of the human actors that either create or use the technology.’ While 3.5 argues, in my words, that protocols are ‘inherently political’ as design influences (or even stronger ‘determines’—> Postman) usage. I do not think 3.4 and 3.5 are effectively saying the same thing, although the design will obviously impact the ‘independent logic’ of a technology.

However, I think both 3.4 and 3.5 need to be more explicit and specific. The way I read the draft is that the crux of the argument that leads to ‘the need for a position’ in chapter 4, is to be found in these two paragraphs. and to some extent in the so called ’pragmatic’ paragraph 3.3 ‘Some protocols are political some times’.

More importantly, I struggle with the line of reasoning in 3.4.

(Indeed, maybe a ‘reference’ [CREF2] can clarify ‘A technology, once created, has its own logic that is independent of the human actors that either create or use the technology.’)

I assume ‘the very existence of the automobile imposes physical forms on the world different from those that come from the electric tram or the horse-cart’ is meant as an example of a technology’s ‘own logic’. To me it is unclear though what this analogy illustrates. If one wants to stick to it, it might be good to describe what ‘physical forms’ an ‘automobile imposes on the world’,  what the consequences are of this supposedly independent and autonomous enforcement (’imposing’) by a particular technology, why that is relevant, and how it relates/compares to other technologies like the ‘electric tram or the horse-cart’ which probably ‘impose’ something else etc.

I also do not understand the ‘Under this view, the technology has its own needs and pressures, independent of those of human actors. As it changes, it will change at least in part  according to those needs and pressures.’ 

Which (‘this’) ‘view’ is being referred to? Why, and what does ’the technology has its own needs and pressures’ mean? Same for ‘it will change at least in part according to those needs and pressures’? Why is this important in this context?
What ‘needs’ does ‘the’ technology have (which technology? ‘once created’?) and what potential ‘pressures’? I have no idea what ‘having pressures’ means btw.

So. For me then the ‘result’ in 3.4’s last sentence is not a logic conclusion: ‘Internet protocols express at least to some extent the logic and values of the overall Internet technology.’

Besides the fact I’d imagine Internet technology to express ‘at least to some extent the logic and values’ of Internet protocols, as the protocols come before the technology based on them, what is ‘the overall Internet technology’ here? And what ‘values’ does it have?

From 3.5:

‘Internet processes and protocols have become part and parcel of political processes and public policies’: be that as it may, it seems to me this is outside the realm of the IETF, i.e. protocols become part of e.g. ‘political processes and public policies’ after they have been designed, for instance within the IETF.  

(And I agree with [CRFEF3]) 

Furthermore ‘According to [Abbate]: “protocols are politics by other means".  This emphasises the interests that are at play in the process of designing standards. This position holds further that protocols can never be understood without their contextual embeddedness’ 

Again, I have not read, in this case, Abbate’s paper. While I personally can sympathise with the ‘contextual’ remark, an ‘according to’ quote doesn’t prove nor emphasise anything IMO, other than the fact that someone made the statement. Which, at least in this draft, has no factual basis and cannot (help) IMO to lead to (support) the conclusion in chapter 4.  

Hope this makes sense, thanks again

regards
Bastiaan