Re: [hrpc] new title for draft-tenoever-hrpc-political

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

I don't believe it is even remotely desirable to limit this draft to IETF 
protocols. I can see a reason to limit it to internetworking protocols (so, 
e.g., phone systems would probably be out, because I don't think they were 
designed in an internetworking way).

Best regards,

A

--
Please excuse my clumbsy thums
----------
On August 18, 2018 11:58:12 Tony Rutkowski <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Niels,
>
> Just a few questions and concerns about this draft.
>
> Concerning the title, "Notes on networking standards and politics"
> doesn't seem to fit the contents of the draft - which deals only with
> the IETF.  There are an enormous array of "networking standards" that
> have been around in standards bodies since about 1850.  Minimally,
> "IETF" should be inserted in the title.  You also use the term
> "networking" only three places in the body text in somewhat vague ways -
> and never define the term.  On page 5, you refer to "networking
> technology, such as protocols."  So it isn't very clear what exactly
> what is included under the penumbra of "networking standards."  Lastly,
> since your research question asks "are protocols political," the title
> should probably read "Notes on IETF protocols and politics" - which
> seems to describe the scope and content.
>
> The research question "are protocols political?" Seems a trivial one.
> Of course they are political.  They always have been and always will
> be.  Try looking at the  minutes of the first intergovernmental meeting
> to develop a treaty for internet communications at Dresden in 1850.
> Lots of politics! :-)  So you might simply begin with the assertion that
> they are political...or more precisely, political-economic.
>
> You also seem to ignore the history of what you seem to be dealing with
> here - the specs for what was known for years as the DARPA internet (and
> before that, the host-to-host protocol network).  See
> https://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall08/cos561/papers/cerf74.pdf.
> See also, https://www.darpa.mil/about-us/timeline/tcp-ip
>
> The IETF was created in 1986 (not 1994).  Moreover, the tcp/ip platform
> for the first 20 years was hardly open or voluntary.   It ran on DOD and
> then additional NSF links - with NSA bit level security for the first
> ten years.  Every user, host, address, port, service and network was
> well-known and allocated by the NIC.  Every packet was monitored.  That
> didn't begin to change until the mid-90s.  As a member of the USG's
> InterNIC oversight panel as well as Sprint's internet director, I can
> speak to every detail.  Most of the information is publicly available,
> so I suggest for references, using actual sources rather than someone's
> views citing someone's views citing someone's views...
>
> Your treatment of relevant international treaty provisions in clause 5.1
> is without citations or much credibility .   For example, the commentary
> about the WTO's used of "standards" has no citations whatsoever.   The
> WTO has many diverse treaty instruments.  The most relevant are the GATS
> provisions - which were developed in the early 1990s  as a companion to
> the ITU 1988 Melbourne treaty provisions to legalize public internets
> internationally.  Prior to that, only government sponsored internets
> were allowed across borders pursuant to CCITT Rec. D.1.  The GATS
> provisions refer to only two standards bodies - the ITU and the ISO - to
> prevent anticompetitive assertion of national security constraints.  I
> know, because I was the ITU representative to the negotiations and
> inserted them!
>
> You also completely ignore the ITU - whose treaty provisions tracing
> back to 1850 constitute the foundation for how nation states allow
> traffic to enter their national jurisdictions, services to be provided,
> radio emissions protected, and communication satellites placed in
> orbit.  They have lots of network protocol standards!  The first one in
> 1850 even had a major protocol political component - they adopted Mr.
> Morse's standards!
>
> I'd also encourage a rather more open conceptualisation of human
> rights.  See, e.g., draft-rutkowski-hrpc-hraas-00.  (Unless, of course,
> there is no interest in the full breadth of international human rights -
> which are of considerable concern today.)
>
> Hopefully this helps with the improvement of this draft.
>
> --tony
>
> On 18-Aug-18 9:45 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
>> Hi chairs,
>>
>> Small reminder for this e-mail.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Niels
>>
>> On 07/27/2018 11:09 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
>>> Hi chairs,
>>>
>>> With unanimous support for 'Notes on networking standards and politics'
>>> on the list as a title for draft-political, it seems like the final
>>> hurdle for RG adoption of the document (as discussed in Montreal) has
>>> been passed, right?
>>>
>>> Can I publish it as RG document with the new title?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Niels
>>>
>>> On 07/20/2018 08:00 PM, Amelia Andersdotter wrote:
>>>> On 2018-07-20 10:33, Corinne Cath wrote:
>>>>> I like a.) Notes on networking standards and politics part of this
>>>>> whole process imho is to get people to read the doc to begin with,
>>>>> which seems most likely with a clear and recognizable title. my 2
>>>>> cents, corinne
>>>>>
>>>> yeah, a)
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 1:19 AM, Mark Perkins
>>>>> <marknoumea=[e-mail]
>>>>> <mailto:marknoumea=[e-mail]..org>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>     'Notes on networking standards and politics'
>>>>>
>>>>>     get my vote!
>>>>>
>>>>>     Mark Perkins
>>>>>
>>>>>     On Friday, July 20, 2018, 10:10:27 AM GMT+11, Niels ten Oever
>>>>>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     Off-list discussion with Stephen resulted in a new option:
>>>>>
>>>>>     'Notes on networking standards and politics'
>>>>>
>>>>>     That gives us a few options:
>>>>>
>>>>>     a) Notes on networking standards and politics
>>>>>     b) On Value Neutrality and the Politics of Standards
>>>>>     c) Notes on Value Neutrality and the Politics of Standards
>>>>>     d) ?
>>>>>
>>>>>     Curious to hear what the RG thinks sounds best, new suggestions
>>>>>     ofc also
>>>>>     welcome.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Best,
>>>>>
>>>>>     Niels
>>>>>
>>>>>     On 07/20/2018 12:43 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     > On 07/20/2018 12:38 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >> Hiya,
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >> On 19/07/18 23:33, Niels ten Oever wrote:
>>>>>     >>> Hi all,
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>> Thank you all very much for the spirited discussion at the
>>>>>     session. To
>>>>>     >>> resolve the issue with draft political and remove the last
>>>>>     issue mention
>>>>>     >>> blocking adoption I would like to propose to rename the draft:
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>> On Value Neutrality and the Politics of Standards
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >> Meh:-)
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >> How'd something more like "Some background on networking standards
>>>>>     >> and politics" work? That seems to describe the content of the draft
>>>>>     >> better to me, (modulo not having carefully read the latest rev,
>>>>>     as I
>>>>>     >> admitted at the mic, so don't take me too seriously.)
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >> My reason for suggesting that is to try end up with something that
>>>>>     >> would be less surprising for an IETF (or IEEE 802 or W3C...)
>>>>>     reader.
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     > Exactly that audience is saying time and again that 'technology is
>>>>>     > neutral' / 'protocols are neutral' / 'standards are neutral'.
>>>>>     That is I
>>>>>     > would like to address that in the title (and the draft).
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     > Following work can then address how we could come up with
>>>>>     approaches to
>>>>>     > address that.
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     >> Cheers,
>>>>>     >> S.
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>> Would that work for you all? I also added a few mentions of value
>>>>>     >>> neutrality (and the lack thereof) for consistency in the abstract,
>>>>>     >>> introduction, conclusion and the way forward.
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>> Changes can be seen here:
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     https://github.com/nllz/IRTF-HRPC/commit/03826cd73959e692bb1f7aa305f9fbdee325dbd2#diff-fb9d617868a367dd946ef225cc5e6de1
>>>>>     <https://github.com/nllz/IRTF-HRPC/commit/03826cd73959e692bb1f7aa305f9fbdee325dbd2#diff-fb9d617868a367dd946ef225cc5e6de1>
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>> Happy to discuss.
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>> Best,
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>> Niels
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >
>>>>>
>>>>>     --
>>>>>     Niels ten Oever
>>>>>     Researcher and PhD Candidate
>>>>>     Datactive Research Group
>>>>>     University of Amsterdam
>>>>>
>>>>>     PGP fingerprint      2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488
>>>>>                       643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3
>>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>>     hrpc mailing list
>>>>>     [e-mail] <mailto:hrpc@irtf..org>
>>>>>     https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>>>>>     <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc>
>>>>>
>>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>>     hrpc mailing list
>>>>>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>     https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>>>>>     <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Corinne Cath
>>>>> Ph.D. Candidate, Oxford Internet Institute & Alan Turing Institute
>>>>>
>>>>> Web: www.oii..ox.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath
>>>>> <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath>
>>>>> Email: [e-mail] <mailto:ccath@turing..ac.uk> &
>>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>> Twitter: @C_Cath
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> hrpc mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>>>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc