Re: [hrpc] Politics, representation, and the charter (was Re: HRPC recharter)

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Top posting:

My primary point was that most of us are not adroit at communicating 
with policy makers, and so we have to make it easier to avoid that.  I 
accept Andrew's experience that there has been confusion.

Let's accept that there is a tussle going on between the importance of 
doing HR / policy research.

So..... what could be done?  This is just a suggestion on how to move 
the discussion forward.  Take it, leave it, or modify it as you or 
others see fit.

This seems to call for care in all assertions that are made.  In fact 
almost no assertions need be made in the charter.  The focus should be 
on research and questions that *perhaps* have policy implications.

There are many cases where the charter text could be evolved along those 
lines.  For example:

OLD:

> 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 [...]

Presuming conflict among rights, how about:

> The Human Rights and Policy Considerations Research Group is chartered 
> to research the human rights implications of protocol 
> development.[1,2]  Which rights are strengthened by design decisions 
> and which are weakened?  Which design choices require external policy 
> or value systems/ethical models to facilitate those decisions?
>
Note the questions.  I am sure there are more, and the best are the ones 
that I haven't considered.

Drop the next paragraph and then ask the question in turn;

> What are those external or ethical models and how do they apply to 
> standards development?

Going this route obviates the need for "policy" to be in the title, btw, 
but allows for some policy discussion.

Anyway, that's my attempt at a Solomonesque split.

Eliot


On 18.04.23 18:07, Niels ten Oever wrote:
> Hi Eliot,
>
> On 18-04-2023 17:53, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> Hi Niels,
>>
>> On 18.04.23 17:10, Niels ten Oever wrote:
>>> Dear Andrew,
>>>
>>> You argue that there (still) is a lack of understanding among 
>>> governments about the work of the IETF, isn't that exactly 
>>> illustrating why an RG charter change is needed?
>>
>> I don't think that follows.  An RG charter change cannot solve 
>> confusion between the IETF and IRTF, nor can it commit the IETF to 
>> anything> 
>
> I fully agree! But work in an RG can help elucidate it.
>
>>>
>>> Apparently the work of other organizations to increase understanding 
>>> about the workings of the IETF haven't sufficiently succeeded.
>>
>> I am not sure that the IETF inner workings should need to be visible 
>> to those who don't wish to involve themselves, and I think Andrew's 
>> point is that making the distinction is hopeless *anyway*. And this 
>> is where it gets tricky.  I wouldn't fault anyone in the least for 
>> eliding the IETF and IRTF when talking to policy makers.  Our 
>> structure and “branding” simply doesn't make that easy for others to 
>> comprehend.
>>
>> But that means we have to be quite precise as to what We (for our 
>> aggregated definition of "We") say we are doing.  And that isn't easy.
>>
>
> I fully agree - and that is why I think it is exactly useful to have 
> an RG doing this work and helping explain it - because this is clearly 
> not sufficiently communicated through existing channels.
>
> Best,
>
> Niels
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc