Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs

["John Levine" <[e-mail]>]

In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>In the discussion that followed it was remarked that in RFCs terms like
>Master/Slave, blacklist/whitelist, man-in-middle, and other terminology
>that is offensive to some people and groups is quite common.

If this is really the best that HRPC can do, I would suggest that it's
time for the IRTF to consider whether to shut it down.

When I've gone to HRPC sessions, I have heard endless papers about
more or less plausible threats to freedom of expression or to
anonymous speech (which is not the same thing.)  More than once I have
stood up at HRPC sessions and noted that the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights has thirty articles, and none of the discussion deals
with more than two of them.  The chairs have assured me that they are
equally interested in the other rights, but the evidence of that is
pretty thin.

What about article 12, protection agaisnt attacks on honor and
repuation?  What is HRPC doing about trolling and other online
attacks?

Or article 17, nobody shall be arbitrariy deprived of his property?
What is HRPC doing to keep our protocols from being used to enable
phishing and other online theft?

Or article 23, the right to rest and leisure?  What is HRPC doing to
keep our protocols from being used to put people on a 24 hour
electronic leash?

Instead, we get this stuff.  Even if you think that the language in
our RFCs is problematic, which for the most part I don't, I am
confident that no RFC has ever enslaved anyone, nor put anyone on a
secret list that kept them from working (the actual meaning of
blacklist for people who know their history.)

There are real human rights problems that HRPC could engage with, but
don't.  They need to make up their mind whether they're serious.

R's,
John