From nobody Tue Jan 4 20:46:02 2022 Return-Path: X-Original-To: txauth@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: txauth@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9FFB3A253B for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 20:45:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.237 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.237 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10=0.26, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=wyman.us Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fa8GInbs-Ke5 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 20:45:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ua1-x932.google.com (mail-ua1-x932.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::932]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23CB33A2539 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 20:45:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ua1-x932.google.com with SMTP id y4so10160237uad.1 for ; Tue, 04 Jan 2022 20:45:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=wyman.us; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=+afeUWCsCAStLGPv7p+DjZrFa3EkC6PnOj8sWFqfKM8=; b=QKCfCgZGFQViMOd0WE5QO24wAALhbKXFu/1TXmoxA4auBI25v99trNgmitrB91cxVg wIVFEAgxUuIWsqWQjJpV5ij7/68sAcYDGhx54m5rPa8Rmt/pro0kLvu4X/G5IASZzlnA UCLqoUUiEuShM/qBxS6Ih5dwNWs03znS/QRtU= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+afeUWCsCAStLGPv7p+DjZrFa3EkC6PnOj8sWFqfKM8=; b=c9i/xpgJuxr9g2yXLYD0HjdnoFfHdbTgQZjdqHp3Jo01OiwXuw2GDT9aoBpFk/6XEe wa8Q30XWFE2UrHwjVsohXv3oQ0PfyldBm9AXnfYAzkEYxYMoaEtgX8CQWbGBaQ66Q6EX Xc+K4S6HDClV73yZ1bGoYHYYjuAW27NWtV8nN5Ku8AU9+kidpSKODVgwjIMbQ72mGcjY mJFicL4YJcC5Q/fYS5Kunuu9qUfKY5I941pqpEJe44gIE9QET2R02wToebDwNajYsZ69 qmlj5pZT6IoX4jt3GxjMWmsfToizAiAvLj5vhyFCtCtZwTUC1GajbFISFf3bbKVTnQT2 1BAw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5319vKtqG4hwNFtnrjkcIebHxkMG/irINKFfjo9c6txGCeZRW+wi feedKj2l93UAhiCPTWAbRXunobS31DP3/fxbQrc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzMRKGyPzwFY1h1dx46Qs3AT+cTA5k2caRwkMKseGtR6imQr4lnTN5MMvXWfjd7s2l+Guzb1sQ358TPT9M13J0= X-Received: by 2002:a67:d019:: with SMTP id r25mr16027256vsi.84.1641357953414; Tue, 04 Jan 2022 20:45:53 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Bob Wyman Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2022 23:45:42 -0500 Message-ID: To: Adrian Gropper Cc: GNAP Mailing List , W3C Credentials Community Group Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c338ed05d4ce6d9f" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [GNAP] Human rights perspective on W3C and IETF protocol interaction X-BeenThere: txauth@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: GNAP List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2022 04:46:00 -0000 --000000000000c338ed05d4ce6d9f Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Adrian, Given that you're starting a new thread, I would appreciate it if you could do some context setting and clarifying: - *What do you mean by "Human Rights?" *Hopefully, you won't consider that a foolish question. The issue is, of course, that since Internet standards are developed in a multicultural, multinational context, it is= n't obvious, without reference to some external authority, what a standards group should classify as a human right. Different cultures and governments tend to differ on this subject... As far as I know, the "bes= t" source of what might be considered a broad consensus definition of human rights is found in the UN's 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). - Does the UDHR contain the full set of rights that you think should be addressed by standards groups? If not, are there additional rights that you think should be considered? - In his document, Human Rights Are Not a Bug , Niels ten Oever refers to the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights , which adds to the rights enumerated in the UDHR a number of additiona= l rights described in the International Labour Organization=E2=80=99s D= eclaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work . Given that you appear to endorse ten Oever's report, do you also propose the same combined set of rights? (ie. UDHR + ILO DFPRW?) - Some have argued that the Internet introduces a need to recognize rights that have not yet been enumerated either in the UDHR or in any other broadly accepted documents. If this is the case, how is a standards g= roup to determine what set of rights they must respect? - *What specific aspects of the issues being addressed by this community group give rise to human rights issues?* Also, if you accept that one or some number of documents contain a useful list of such rights, can you identify which specific, enumerated rights are at risk? (e.g. if the UDH= R is the foundation text, then I assume privacy issues would probably be considered in the context of the UDHR's Article 12 .) - *Are you suggesting that this group should formally address the issue of rights*, with some sort of process, or just that we should be aware of the issues? - ten Oever suggests that "Those who design, standardize, and maintain the infrastructure on which we run our information societies= , should assess their actions, processes, and technologies on their societal impact." You apparently agree. Can you say how this should be done? - The UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights describe a number of procedural steps that should be taken by either governments= or corporations. Are you aware of a similar procedural description that would apply to standards groups? - I think it was in the video that it was suggested that, in Internet standards documents, "a section on human rights consideratio= ns should become as normal as one on security considerations." Do you ag= ree? If so, can you suggest how such a section would be written? bob wyman On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 9:05 PM Adrian Gropper wrote: > This is a new thread for a new year to inspire deeper cooperation between > W3C and IETF. This is relevant to our formal objection issues in W3C DID = as > well as the harmonization of IETF SECEVENT DIDs and GNAP with ongoing > protocol work in W3C and DIF. > > The Ford Foundation paper attached provides the references. However, this > thread should not be about governance philosophy but rather a focus on > human rights as a design principle as we all work on protocols that will > drive adoption of W3C VCs and DIDs at Internet scale. > > https://redecentralize.org/redigest/2021/08/ says: > > *Human rights are not a bug* >> Decisions made by engineers in internet standards bodies (such as IETF >> and W3C ) have a large >> influence on internet technology, which in turn influences people=E2=80= =99s lives =E2=80=94 >> people whose needs may or may not have been taken into account. In the >> report Human Rights Are Not a Bug >> >> (see also its launch event >> ), >> Niels ten Oever asks *=E2=80=9Chow internet governance processes could b= e >> updated to deeply embed the public interest in governance decisions and = in >> decision-making culture=E2=80=9D*. >> =E2=80=9CInternet governance organizations maintain a distinct governanc= e >> philosophy: to be consensus-driven and resistant to centralized >> institutional authority over the internet. But these fundamental values >> have limitations that leave the public interest dangerously neglected in >> governance processes. In this consensus culture, the lack of institution= al >> authority grants disproportionate power to the dominant corporate >> participants. While the governance bodies are open to non-industry membe= rs, >> they are essentially forums for voluntary industry self-regulation. Voic= es >> advocating for the public interest are at best limited and at worst abse= nt.=E2=80=9D >> The report describes how standards bodies, IETF in particular, focus >> narrowly on facilitating interconnection between systems, so that *=E2= =80=9Cmany >> rights-related topics such as privacy, free expression or exclusion are >> deemed =E2=80=9Ctoo political=E2=80=9D=E2=80=9D*; this came hand in hand= with the culture of >> techno-optimism: >> =E2=80=9CThere was a deeply entrenched assumption that the internet is a= n engine >> for good=E2=80=94that interconnection and rough consensus naturally prom= ote >> democratization and that the open, distributed design of the network can= by >> itself limit the concentration of power into oligopolies. >> This has not proved to be the case.=E2=80=9D >> To improve internet governance, the report recommends involving all >> stakeholders in decision procedures, and adopting human rights impact >> assessments (a section on *human rights considerations* should become as >> normal as one on *security considerations*). >> The report only briefly touches what seems an important point: that >> existing governance bodies may become altogether irrelevant as both tech >> giants and governments move on without them: >> =E2=80=9CTransnational corporations and governments have the power to dr= ive >> internet infrastructure without the existing governance bodies, through = new >> technologies that set de facto standards and laws that govern =E2=80=9Ca= t=E2=80=9D the >> internet not =E2=80=9Cwith=E2=80=9D it.=E2=80=9D >> How much would having more diverse stakeholders around the table help, >> when ultimately Google decides whether and how a standard will be >> implemented, or founds a =E2=80=98more effective=E2=80=99 standardisatio= n body instead? > > > Our work over the next few months is unbelievably important, > > - Adrian > --000000000000c338ed05d4ce6d9f Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Adr= ian,
Given that= you're starting a new thread, I would appreciate it if you could do so= me context setting and clarifying:
  • What do you mean by "Human Rights?&quo= t; Hopefully, you won't consider that a foolish question. The issue= is, of course, that since Internet standards are developed in a multicultu= ral, multinational context, it isn't obvious, without reference to some= external authority, what a standards=C2=A0group should classify as a human= right. Different cultures and governments tend to differ on this subject..= . As far as I know, the "best" source of what might be considered= a broad consensus definition of human rights is found in the UN's 1948= =C2=A0Universal Declaration of Human Rights=C2=A0(UDHR).=C2=A0
    • Does the UDHR contain the full set of rights that you think shoul= d be addressed by standards groups? If not, are there additional rights tha= t you think should be considered?=C2=A0
    • In his document, Human Right= s Are Not a Bug, Niels ten Oever refers to the=C2=A0UN= Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights, which adds to the ri= ghts enumerated in the UDHR a number of additional rights described in the = International Labour Organization=E2=80=99s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and R= ights at Work. Given that you appear to endorse ten Oever's=C2=A0re= port, do you also propose the=C2=A0same combined set of rights? (ie. UDHR= =C2=A0+ ILO DFPRW?)
    • Some have argued that the Internet introduces a= need to recognize rights that have not yet been enumerated either in the U= DHR or in any other broadly accepted documents. If this is the case, how is= a standards group to determine what=C2=A0set of rights they must respect?<= /li>
  • What specific aspects of the issues being addressed by this= community group give rise to human rights issues?=C2=A0Also, if you ac= cept that one or some number of documents contain a useful list of such rig= hts, can you identify which specific, enumerated rights are at risk? (e.g. = if the UDHR is the foundation text, then I assume privacy issues would prob= ably be considered in the context of the UDHR's=C2=A0Article 12.)
  • Are you= suggesting that this group should formally address the issue of rights= , with some sort of process, or just that we should be aware of the issues?=
    • ten Oever suggests that "Those who design, standardize, a= nd maintain the infrastructure on which we run our information societies, s= hould assess their actions, processes, and technologies on their societal i= mpact." You apparently agree. Can you say how this should be done?
    • The UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights describe a num= ber of procedural steps that should be taken by either governments or corpo= rations. Are you aware of a similar procedural description that would apply= to standards groups?
    • I think it was in the video that it was sugge= sted that, in Internet=C2=A0standards=C2=A0documents, "a section on hu= man rights considerations should become as normal as one on security consid= erations." Do you agree? If so, can you suggest how such a section wou= ld be written?
bob wyman


On Tu= e, Jan 4, 2022 at 9:05 PM Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com> wrote:
This is a new threa= d for a new year to inspire deeper cooperation between W3C and IETF. This i= s relevant to our formal objection issues in W3C DID as well as the harmoni= zation of IETF SECEVENT DIDs and GNAP with ongoing protocol work in W3C and= DIF.

The Ford Foundation paper attached provides = the references. However, this thread should not be about governance philoso= phy but rather a focus on human rights as a design principle as we all work= on protocols that will drive adoption of W3C VCs and DIDs at Internet scal= e.

https://redecentralize.org/redigest/2021/08/ say= s:

Human rights are not a bug
Decisions made by engineers in intern= et standards bodies (such as=C2=A0IETF=C2=A0and=C2=A0W3C) have a large influence on internet technology, whi= ch in turn influences people=E2=80=99s lives =E2=80=94 people whose needs m= ay or may not have been taken into account. In the report=C2=A0Human Rights Are Not a Bug=C2=A0(see also= its=C2=A0launch event), Niels ten Oever asks=C2=A0=E2=80=9Chow internet governance processe= s could be updated to deeply embed the public interest in governance decisi= ons and in decision-making culture=E2=80=9D.
=E2=80=9CInternet gove= rnance organizations maintain a distinct governance philosophy: to be conse= nsus-driven and resistant to centralized institutional authority over the i= nternet. But these fundamental values have limitations that leave the publi= c interest dangerously neglected in governance processes. In this consensus= culture, the lack of institutional authority grants disproportionate power= to the dominant corporate participants. While the governance bodies are op= en to non-industry members, they are essentially forums for voluntary indus= try self-regulation. Voices advocating for the public interest are at best = limited and at worst absent.=E2=80=9D
The report describes how standards= bodies, IETF in particular, focus narrowly on facilitating interconnection= between systems, so that=C2=A0=E2=80=9Cmany rights-related topics such as privacy, free expression o= r exclusion are deemed =E2=80=9Ctoo political=E2=80=9D=E2=80=9D; this = came hand in hand with the culture of techno-optimism:
=E2=80=9CThere wa= s a deeply entrenched assumption that the internet is an engine for good=E2= =80=94that interconnection and rough consensus naturally promote democratiz= ation and that the open, distributed design of the network can by itself li= mit the concentration of power into oligopolies.
This has not proved to = be the case.=E2=80=9D
To improve internet governance, the report recomme= nds involving all stakeholders in decision procedures, and adopting human r= ights impact assessments (a section on=C2=A0human rights considerations=C2=A0should= become as normal as one on=C2=A0security considerations).
The report only briefly touches wh= at seems an important point: that existing governance bodies may become alt= ogether irrelevant as both tech giants and governments move on without them= :
=E2=80=9CTransnational corporations and governments have the power to = drive internet infrastructure without the existing governance bodies, throu= gh new technologies that set de facto standards and laws that govern =E2=80= =9Cat=E2=80=9D the internet not =E2=80=9Cwith=E2=80=9D it.=E2=80=9D
How = much would having more diverse stakeholders around the table help, when ult= imately Google decides whether and how a standard will be implemented, or f= ounds a =E2=80=98more effective=E2=80=99 standardisation body instead?


=

Our work= over the next few months is unbelievably important,

- Adrian

--000000000000c338ed05d4ce6d9f--