Re: [hrpc] HRPC recharter

Thanks for sending this. I have some comments below.

At a higher level, prior to rechartering, I think it would be good to
perhaps take stock of how well the RG has achieved its existing
charter and what that says about future direction.  I have not done
that analysis in detail, but moreso than WGs, RGs are experiments and
we should periodically check to see if they are succeeding.

> ## Background
>
> The research group takes as its starting point the problem statement
> that human-rights-enabling characteristics of the Internet might be
> degraded if they are not properly defined, described and sufficiently
> taken into account in protocol and standarization development. Not

"standardization"

> protecting these characteristics could result in (partial) loss of
> functionality and connectivity.
>
> Moreover it is widely accepted that technical design decisions about
> the Internet are not value neutral and can have lasting impacts on
> public policy and individual human rights.

I agree that these design decisions are not value-neutral, but
given that S 4 of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-hrpc-political-07
is all about whether these decisions are value-neutral, this
statement seems a bit conclusory.

> The Internet aims to be the global network of networks that provides
> unfettered connectivity to all users at all times and for any
> content.

I'm not sure what this sentence means, as the "Internet" is a technical
artifact that doesn't have any objectives -- at least until we have
AGI. And if we're talking about some set of stakeholders in the
Internet, I think it's clear that many do not think this is a good
objective.

> Open, secure and reliable connectivity is essential for
> rights such as freedom of expression and freedom of association. Since
> the Internet’s objective of connectivity intersects with human rights,
> its architectural design considerations converge with the human rights
> framework.

I'm not sure what "converge" means here.

This whole paragraph also feels quite thin and conclusory. I would
make several points:

1. There isn't universal consensus around any definition of human
rights, so I think at least minimally you need to cite whatever
definition of HR you are relying on here, as well as below.

2. Assuming for the moment you are relying on the UDHR, ISTM that
there are real tensions between some of those rights and unfettered
connectivity. For instance, Article 27 seems like it's in
conflict with "any content" above.

It seems to me that one of the things this RG could do is to
to actually help illuminate tensions between different HR
values when applied to protocol design, but I think that
requires clearly acknowledging that they exist.

> ## Research question
>
> How are human rights and public interest policy considered in the
> development of the Internet?
>
> 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 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].

I'm not sure what this is trying to say, in part because "to research
of" is ungrammatical. Can you rephrase this, so I can tell if I agree
or not.

> ## Objectives
>
>  * To expose the relations between protocols and values, with a focus
>    on the human rights framework, such as the policy implications of
>    technology choices and the technical implications of policy
>    choices.
>
>  * To suggest guidelines to protect the Internet as a
>    human-rights-enabling environment and a global public good in
>    future protocol development.

I'm having trouble parsing this because I am not sure what
"future protocol development attaches to". Do you mean?

     To suggest guidelines for future protocol development that
     protect the Internet as a human-rights-enabling environment and a
     global public good.

In any case, I think "public good" is a bad term here in that
it's a technical term in economics where it has a specific
meaning [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good_(economics)]
that doesn't match what you mean here. I'm not saying that this
is the only definition, of course, but just that it would
be less confusing to use a different term. Maybe "public resource",
which is the word the Mozilla Manifesto uses.

>  * To increase the awareness in both the human rights community and
>    the technical community on the importance of the technical workings

"of the importance"

>    of the Internet and its impact on human rights and the public
>    interest.
>
> * To create a place for discussions and analysis on the relationship

"analysis of"

>   between protocol development, and their human rights and policy
>   implications by, among other mechanisms, serving as a bridge between
>   the human rights community and the protocols-development one.

"protocol development"

> ## Outputs
>
> The research group plans on using a variety of research methods to
> create different outputs including, but not limited to:
>
>  * Internet drafts, some of which may be put in IRTF RFC stream. These
>    will concern progress of the project, methodology, and will define
>    any possible protocol considerations.
>
>  * Research papers concerning both policy and academic topics which
>    can include in-depth analysis, discussions and review of the values
>    embedded in the Internet architecture, for publication elsewhere.
>
>  * Protocol analysis. Data analysis and visualization of (existing)
>    protocols to research their concrete impact on human rights and the
>    public interest.

This section feels a bit weird because it's partly about publication
venue and partly about topic. For instance, is there a reason that
IDs couldn't "concern[ing] both policy and academic topics..."?

>  HRPC research group does not set policy for the IETF.

I'd like to see this be clearer. E.g.,

"The output of this research group is not normative for the IETF".

> ## Membership
>
> Membership is open to any interested parties who intend to remain
> current with the published documents and mailing list issues.

I see this was in the original charter, but it's kind of a weird
statement as there doesn't seem to be any formal membership
list, just people on the list. Maybe

"Membership is open"

-Ekr

On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 9:46 AM Mallory Knodel <mknodel@cdt.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Thanks very much for everyone's comments on the list and in the recent
> meetings. We have also had some productive discussion with Colin and the
> IAB to get this right from a whole-community perspective.
>
> Below is a paste of the current proposed text. And here is a link to the
> diff:
>
>
> https://github.com/IRTF-HRPC/IRTF-HRPC/compare/01ba8fcd3b2648ac9d4d5ee89d5a56f124d2481c...fc1e36d1b64c4d31d08d34f82ae25e63f9abb68f
>
> Please send comments, suggestions, notes of approval, etc.
>
> Best,
>
> -Mallory
>
> ===
>
> # Human Rights and Policy Considerations
>
> This research group aims to explore the relationship between Internet architecture and human rights for a wide audience. It aims to inform the technical community of how the design of protocols impacts, and can be informed by, policies that serve the public interest and protect human rights. It also aims to inform policy makers and civil society groups of technical constraints that might impact policy choices. The role of the research group is to promote understanding of the issues so those making decisions can do so in an informed manner.
>
> ## Background
>
> The research group takes as its starting point the problem statement that human-rights-enabling characteristics of the Internet might be degraded if they are not properly defined, described and sufficiently taken into account in protocol and standarization development. Not protecting these characteristics could result in (partial) loss of functionality and connectivity.
>
> Moreover it is widely accepted that technical design decisions about the Internet are not value neutral and can have lasting impacts on public policy and individual human rights.
>
> The Internet aims to be the global network of networks that provides unfettered connectivity to all users at all times and for any content. Open, secure and reliable connectivity is essential for rights such as freedom of expression and freedom of association. Since the Internet’s objective of connectivity intersects with human rights, its architectural design considerations converge with the human rights framework.
>
> ## Research question
>
> How are human rights and public interest policy considered in the development of the Internet?
>
> 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 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].
>
> Furthermore HRPC researches how protocols can influence policy concerns that intersect with human rights, and vice versa. This research group is a discursive resource for the community to support the development process in recognizing these potential public policy impacts as well assist to address those impacts adequately. The Global Data Protection Regulation [3], principles of necessity and proportionality of surveillance [4], are examples of policy developments that have led to rich areas of work for the IETF through the Privacy Enhancements and Assessments research group (PEARG) and more such regulatory actions are expected as the digital age progresses.
>
> HRPC collaborates with other research groups: PEARG and privacy as a human right, Global Access to the Internet for All on second-generation equity rights, and with RASPRG on analysing how discussion of core architectural principles make value judgements.
>
> ## Objectives
>
>  * To expose the relations between protocols and values, with a focus on the human rights framework, such as the policy implications of technology choices and the technical implications of policy choices.
>  * To suggest guidelines to protect the Internet as a human-rights-enabling environment and a global public good in future protocol development.
>  * To increase the awareness in both the human rights community and the technical community on the importance of the technical workings of the Internet and its impact on human rights and the public interest.
> * To create a place for discussions and analysis on the relationship between protocol development, and their human rights and policy implications by, among other mechanisms, serving as a bridge between the human rights community and the protocols-development one.
>
> ## Outputs
>
> The research group plans on using a variety of research methods to create different outputs including, but not limited to:
>
>  * Internet drafts, some of which may be put in IRTF RFC stream. These will concern progress of the project, methodology, and will define any possible protocol considerations.
>  * Research papers concerning both policy and academic topics which can include in-depth analysis, discussions and review of the values embedded in the Internet architecture, for publication elsewhere.
>  * Protocol analysis. Data analysis and visualization of (existing) protocols to research their concrete impact on human rights and the public interest.
>
> HRPC research group does not set policy for the IETF.
>
> ## Membership
>
> Membership is open to any interested parties who intend to remain current with the published documents and mailing list issues.
>
> [1] http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr
>
> [2] http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx
>
> [3] https://gdpr-info.eu
>
> [4] https://necessaryandproportionate.org/principles
>
> ===
>
> On 12/22/22 12:30 PM, 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
>
>
> --
> Mallory Knodel
> CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
> gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780
>
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> hrpc@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>