Subject: [Hrpc] new version draft charter

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 00:01:29 +0200

== Sorry for sending an earlier version of this to the old list,
reposting it here. Please reply on this list, thanks Joe for pointing
this out. ==

Dear all,

Thank you all very much for your thoughtful comments. I have tried to
incorporate them all in the text underneath. I thought it would make
most sense to create a new thread with the new text to ensure everyone
can follow where we are now.

This brings me to a questions where I would really like to profit from
the wisdom of the experienced crowd here: what is the best way to do
version control and manage ID / charter / RFC development?
Is it done mostly on the list (and then subsequently edited by the
main editors, like we're doing now), or do people use git, etherpads
and/or Google Docs to do collaborative editing and commenting?

It would be great to hear what the best practices are for this, or
simply your preferred methods. I am still learning in this space, so
all advise and corrections are very welcome.

Please find the next iteration of the proposed text here, looking
forward to your comments and suggestions:

Background
The Human Rights Protocol Consideration Proposed Research Group is
chartered to research whether standards and protocols can enable,
strengthen or threaten human rights, as defined in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) [0], specifically the right to
freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.

The research group takes as its starting point the problem statement
that decisive and human rights enabling characteristics of the
Internet might be degraded if they're not properly defined, described
and sufficiently taken into account in protocol development. Not
protecting these characteristics could result in (partial) loss of
functionality and connectivity.

As stated in RFC 1958, 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, as defined in the UDHR. Therefore, considering
connectivity as the ultimate objective of the network, the Internet is
not only an enabler of human rights, but that there is a strong
overlap between the architecture of the network and human rights.

Concerns for freedom of expression and association were a strong part
of the world-view of the community involved in developing the first
Internet protocols. The Internet was designed with freedom and
openness of communications as core values. But as the scale and the
industrialization of the Internet has grown greatly, the influence of
such world-views started to compete with other values. This research
group aims to expose the relations between human rights and protocols
and provide guidelines to ensure informed future protocol development
and decision making where protocols might influence the right to
freedom of expression or association.

Objective
This research aims to expose the relation between protocols and human
rights, specifically the right to freedom of expression and freedom of
assembly and propose guidelines to protect the Internet as rights
enabling environment in future protocol development in a manner
similar to the work done for RFC 6973 on Privacy Consideration
Guidelines,

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 on IRSG RFC track)
These would concern tracking of the project, methodology, and would
define any possible protocol considerations.

- - Policy and academic papers
For in depth analysis and discussion on the relationship between human
rights and the Internet architecture and protocols.

- - Film and paper based on interviews with members of the community
To give an accessible insight into the variety of opinions on this
topic represented in the community.

- - Data analysis and visualization
To research and visualize the language used in current and historic
RFCs and mailinglist discussions to expose core architectural
principles and language and deliberations on end-user and human rights.

- - Raising awareness
Improving the awareness in both the human rights community and the
technical community on the importance of the technical workings of the
Internet and how that may impact human rights.

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

[0] http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Best,

Niels

- -- 
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
                   678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

---

From: Corinne Cath <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 13:41:55 +0100

Hi Niels and others,

Great work! I just wanted to suggest we strengthen the justification for
taking the UDHR as the basis for defining human rights. Although it seems
obvious (closest thing we have to universal set of guidelines on human
rights etc) the universality of these principles is more contested than we
(in the Global North) like to admit. I think it strengthens our point of
view to acknowledge this, as it is a point that was raised both during the
meeting in Dallas and in the interviews.

Best,

Corinne

On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2
>
> iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVSo85AAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpvroH/jVLijRL33R/opagC9TQ/qU3
> wOiX69b7n7TDZ0Xrv1vOP2bAYlpFrz5V0Kmuf3bBBrE/XpoCWOFCzP1MuECJgc7A
> xfSPJHrf9tCXzqvFwUXQswUcJqxkWDEMCdAfWrMxozXi84FspCrdk3Rux4geSudB
> xX3WZT80TIdgbe6vj3q5xhyOGTsTAHdD7fcFoJyNP1DLH8+IDj3eSKfARCTt8fxp
> JQhrcl2mETT7FzWh+xuR6SlsCgnFpot9yjmq9tWoBx2QsSeGmchxwrBylZ8InWk7
> 856MkMBZ02/+Yrn6rHRrRAe2QD1dKO0uiByg73JQ6ojFwtKif+oc4GycL+QYyi8=
> =UMRM
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Hrpc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>

-- 

'The management of normality is hard work'

---

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 23:07:31 +0100

Hi Corinne,

Good point, would you have a text suggestion for this?

Best,

Niels

Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

On 05/07/2015 01:41 PM, Corinne Cath wrote:
> Hi Niels and others,
> 
> Great work! I just wanted to suggest we strengthen the
> justification for taking the UDHR as the basis for defining human
> rights. Although it seems obvious (closest thing we have to
> universal set of guidelines on human rights etc) the universality
> of these principles is more contested than we (in the Global North)
> like to admit. I think it strengthens our point of view to
> acknowledge this, as it is a point that was raised both during the
> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Niels ten Oever
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
> reposting it here. Please reply on this list, thanks Joe for
> pointing this out. ==
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> Thank you all very much for your thoughtful comments. I have tried
> to incorporate them all in the text underneath. I thought it would
> make most sense to create a new thread with the new text to ensure
> everyone can follow where we are now.
> 
> This brings me to a questions where I would really like to profit
> from the wisdom of the experienced crowd here: what is the best way
> to do version control and manage ID / charter / RFC development? Is
> it done mostly on the list (and then subsequently edited by the 
> main editors, like we're doing now), or do people use git,
> etherpads and/or Google Docs to do collaborative editing and
> commenting?
> 
> simply your preferred methods. I am still learning in this space,
> so all advise and corrections are very welcome.
> 
> Background The Human Rights Protocol Consideration Proposed
> Research Group is chartered to research whether standards and
> protocols can enable, strengthen or threaten human rights, as
> defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) [0],
> specifically the right to freedom of expression and freedom of
> assembly.
> 
> The research group takes as its starting point the problem
> statement that decisive and human rights enabling characteristics
> of the Internet might be degraded if they're not properly defined,
> described and sufficiently taken into account in protocol
> development. Not protecting these characteristics could result in
> (partial) loss of functionality and connectivity.
> 
> As stated in RFC 1958, 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, as defined in the UDHR. Therefore,
> considering connectivity as the ultimate objective of the network,
> the Internet is not only an enabler of human rights, but that there
> is a strong overlap between the architecture of the network and
> human rights.
> 
> Concerns for freedom of expression and association were a strong
> part of the world-view of the community involved in developing the
> first Internet protocols. The Internet was designed with freedom
> and openness of communications as core values. But as the scale and
> the industrialization of the Internet has grown greatly, the
> influence of such world-views started to compete with other values.
> This research group aims to expose the relations between human
> rights and protocols and provide guidelines to ensure informed
> future protocol development and decision making where protocols
> might influence the right to freedom of expression or association.
> 
> Objective This research aims to expose the relation between
> protocols and human rights, specifically the right to freedom of
> expression and freedom of assembly and propose guidelines to
> protect the Internet as rights enabling environment in future
> protocol development in a manner similar to the work done for RFC
> 6973 on Privacy Consideration Guidelines,
> 
> 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 on IRSG RFC track) 
> These would concern tracking of the project, methodology, and
> would define any possible protocol considerations.
> 
> - Policy and academic papers For in depth analysis and discussion
> on the relationship between human rights and the Internet
> architecture and protocols.
> 
> - Film and paper based on interviews with members of the community 
> - Data analysis and visualization To research and visualize the
> language used in current and historic RFCs and mailinglist
> discussions to expose core architectural principles and language
> and deliberations on end-user and human rights.
> 
> - Raising awareness Improving the awareness in both the human
> rights community and the technical community on the importance of
> the technical workings of the Internet and how that may impact
> human rights.
> 
> Membership Membership is open to any interested parties who intend
> to remain current with the published documents and mailing list
> issues.
> 
> _______________________________________________ Hrpc mailing list 
> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Corinne Cath <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 23:11:55 +0100

yes. I can get you some text over the weekend!

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:07 PM, Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVS+IjAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjp8tAH/iyafsGZemtL94fn2LqgBdbT
> mK6fbN5364kaDke9l3R06IrObX4P5fMbhmrgE3gThGydAQ4OrYkWMNEKsxcUl211
> RM5TF2sN/RnC/yPgo8SzpUFG8zpz61OtulKIS+CY1PCUlxkA0udFrp2y3Lc85vW2
> SjNJGmbAY5Y8TIAhP8makM3Jjw8siQp2Y4HsCtqXeTJ/tYL7yXX2lTR0J9h578yl
> 66rrF/0TW0jXZ9GRB8UhjtIQH2WEbT/gdss6ZsmcBak11ZQhnkL7TpPphOuF8ExA
> 7OHyxV3ai9wq0Z1ynJegHX6lDKBP2opanUFc685tQRfzrdp9/MNH+cvNnDaYsnc=
> =yX5C

--

---

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 14:41:13 +0100

Integration of the comments made by Adamantia:

Background
The Human Rights Protocol Consideration Proposed Research Group is
chartered to research whether standards and protocols can enable,
strengthen or threaten human rights, as defined in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) [0] and the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) [1], specifically the right to
freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.

and decision making where protocols impact the effective excercise of
the rights to freedom of expression or association.

Objective

Outputs

- - Raising awareness

Membership

[0] http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
[1] http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx

Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

---

From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 10:49:54 -0400

Hi Niels and other hrpc'ers --

Looking good!  a few grammar/language nit-picks below, and a bit more
pushback against limiting ourselves to the freedoms of expression and
assembly.

> freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.

You've got singular/pluralmaybe change "the right to" to "the rights
to", since these are two freedoms.  Do we really want to leave privacy
(article 12 of UDHR) out of this list?  what about other rights that may
be impacted as society moves more online, like taking part in government
(article 21 of UDHR) in this age of twitter-moderated public service?
Maybe we could say "specifically, but not limited to" ?

> that decisive and human rights enabling characteristics of the

I feel like this compound modifier needs some hyphenation, but i'm not
sure what the right thing to do is.  maybe:

  decisive and human-rights-enabling characteristics 

??

I know it's not much of a style guide, but:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyphen#Compound_modifiers

> Open, secure and reliable connectivity is essential for rights such as
> freedom of expression and freedom of association, as defined in the
> UDHR.

why mention UDHR again here?  can we just drop "as defined in the UDHR"?

> Therefore, considering connectivity as the ultimate objective of the
> network, the Internet is not only an enabler of human rights, but that
> there is a strong overlap between the architecture of the network and
> human rights.

This whole sentence is a bit awkward: the parallels aren't quite
parallel, and it tries to connecti things together that don't quite
match up aesthetically.  how about:

   Since the Internet's objective of connectivity makes it an enabler of
   human rights, its architectural design overlaps with the frameworks
   we use to define and discuss human rights.

> and provide guidelines

should be "and to provide guidelines"

> to ensure informed future protocol development and decision making

how about "to inform future protocol development and decision making" here ?

> similar to the work done for RFC 6973 on Privacy Consideration

this kind of trailed off here -- is that last comma intended to be a
period?  And again, we're limiting ourselves to just the expression and
assembly, though i think other factors may be relevant too.  The
constructions here are a little awkward too.  Maybe we could break this
out into two bullets to make the section clearer?

   This research has two major aims:

    - to expose the relation between protocols and human rights, with a
      focus on the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of
      assembly, and

    - to propose guidelines to protect the Internet as a rights-enabling
      environment in future protocol development, in a manner similar to
      the work done for Privacy Considerations in RFC 6973

> topic represented in the community.

"Film and paper based on interviews" should be "Film and textual
interviews"

I'd replace the last "in the community" with "within the IETF" to avoid
repetition.

>  - Data analysis and visualization

we're sneaking "end-user rights" back in here at the very end.  do we
ant that?  how about "...deliberations on human rights of those affected
by the network."

>  - Raising awareness

This last bit should be "and its impact on human rights."

Regards,

        --dkg

---

From: Corinne Cath <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 20:34:04 +0100

Hi all,

Great comments so far!

I wrote i small bit to counter the criticism we have been getting for using
the UDHR.

looking forward to your feedback on the content of the text, or if it
should be added at all.

The authors are aware that although the UDHR is the closest statement of a
global set of universal values, these values are not necessarily absolute
as they are open to interpretation within different national jurisdictions.
In full recognition of the fact that the debate on these values continues,
that their interpretation is context dependent and often contentious, the
group holds that, at this point in time, they are an appropriate departure
point as they are the most complete overarching human rights framework and
most legitimate set of globally shared human rights principles.

--

---

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 May 2015 17:18:28 +0200

Hi Corinne,

Thanks for this. I think this is a bit too long, especially for the
charter. I also have some specific comments inline:

On 05/08/2015 09:34 PM, Corinne Cath wrote:
<<snip>>

> The authors are aware that although the UDHR is the closest
> statement of a global set of universal values, these values are not
> necessarily absolute as they are open to interpretation within
> different national jurisdictions.

I wouldn't use about 'the authors', but rather 'the research group'

Furthermore I think we're confusing 'universal' and 'absolute'.
Historically human rights are exactly the instrument invented to
counter absolutism, human rights are there to limit the power of
states and to defend the rights of individuals.

The concept of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is that these
rights are universal. And since the overwhelming majority of countries
is a member of the main human rights treaties, I think it is not hard
to defend the universality of these principals.

> In full recognition of the fact that the debate on these values
> continues, that their interpretation is context dependent and often
> contentious,

My main problem is that this paragraph implies that human rights are
more contentious than they in fact are in terms of national and
international law. This is not only a matter of states, it is an
obligation of every state to uphold human rights, but all human beings
and entities should respect human rights (hence the UN Guiding
Principles on Business to Respect Human Rights).

> the group holds that, at this point in time, they are an
> appropriate departure point as they are the most complete
> overarching human rights framework and most legitimate set of
> globally shared human rights principles.
> 

The largest criticism of specific member states is that there are
traditional values that might not be in line with human rights. There
are quite some arguments to be made against that, for instance that:

1. Traditional values’ go against the mandate of the UN Human Rights
Council (UN HRC) to promote universal respect for the protection of
all human rights for all people, without distinction of any kind and
in a fair and equal manner.

2. There is no agreed definition of ‘traditional values’

3. None of the resolutions of Traditional Values brought before the UN
HRC acknowledge the abuse of ‘traditional values’ and practices by
States to legitimize discrimination, silence dissent, and justify
human rights violations. While many cultural practices have a positive
role for implementing universal human rights protections, others are
harmful and incompatible with human rights protection

And elaboration of these and more arguments about this can be found
here:
http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/37236/en/human-rights-council:-states-must-reject-traditional-values

Could I propose that we add: internationally accepted, in front of
'Universal Declaration of Human Rights', so that it reads:

The Human Rights Protocol Consideration Proposed Research Group is
chartered to research whether standards and protocols can enable,
strengthen or threaten human rights, as defined in the internationally
accepted Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) [0],
specifically the right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.

Happy to discuss!

Best,

Niels

PS Perhaps we could elaborate this more in the ID ?

> 
> 
> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor 
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
> Looking good!  a few grammar/language nit-picks below, and a bit
> more pushback against limiting ourselves to the freedoms of
> expression and assembly.
> 
>> on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) [1], specifically the right
>> to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.
> 
> You've got singular/pluralmaybe change "the right to" to "the
> rights to", since these are two freedoms.  Do we really want to
> leave privacy (article 12 of UDHR) out of this list?  what about
> other rights that may be impacted as society moves more online,
> like taking part in government (article 21 of UDHR) in this age of
> twitter-moderated public service? Maybe we could say "specifically,
> but not limited to" ?
> 
>> of the
> I feel like this compound modifier needs some hyphenation, but i'm
> not sure what the right thing to do is.  maybe:
> 
>> Open, secure and reliable connectivity is essential for rights
>> such as freedom of expression and freedom of association, as
>> defined in the UDHR.
> 
>> Therefore, considering connectivity as the ultimate objective of
>> the network, the Internet is not only an enabler of human rights,
>> but that there is a strong overlap between the architecture of
>> the network and human rights.
> 
> parallel, and it tries to connecti things together that don't
> quite match up aesthetically.  how about:
> 
> Since the Internet's objective of connectivity makes it an enabler
> of human rights, its architectural design overlaps with the
> frameworks we use to define and discuss human rights.
> 
> 
>> part of the world-view of the community involved in developing
>> the first Internet protocols. The Internet was designed with
>> freedom and openness of communications as core values. But as the
>> scale and the industrialization of the Internet has grown
>> greatly, the influence of such world-views started to compete
>> with other values. This research group aims to expose the
>> relations between human rights and protocols and provide
>> guidelines
> 
>> This research aims to expose the relation between protocols and
>> human rights, specifically the right to freedom of expression and
>> freedom of assembly and propose guidelines to protect the
>> Internet as rights enabling environment in future protocol
>> development in a manner similar to the work done for RFC 6973 on
>> Privacy Consideration Guidelines,
> 
> this kind of trailed off here -- is that last comma intended to be
> a period?  And again, we're limiting ourselves to just the
> expression and assembly, though i think other factors may be
> relevant too.  The constructions here are a little awkward too.
> Maybe we could break this out into two bullets to make the section
> clearer?
> 
> - to expose the relation between protocols and human rights, with
> a focus on the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of 
> assembly, and
> 
> - to propose guidelines to protect the Internet as a
> rights-enabling environment in future protocol development, in a
> manner similar to the work done for Privacy Considerations in RFC
> 6973
> 
> 
>> - Film and paper based on interviews with members of the
>> community To give an accessible insight into the variety of
>> opinions on this topic represented in the community.
> 
> I'd replace the last "in the community" with "within the IETF" to
> avoid repetition.
> 
> 
> we're sneaking "end-user rights" back in here at the very end.  do
> we ant that?  how about "...deliberations on human rights of those
> affected by the network."
>

---

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 May 2015 17:55:46 +0200

Hi dkg,

Thanks a lot for your great suggestions! Comments inline:

On 05/08/2015 04:49 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> rights to", since these are two freedoms.

To ensure clarity I would suggest making this: 'specifically the right
to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of assembly'

So that it is clear that these are two distinct rights in the UDHR and
ICCPR.

> Do we really want to leave privacy (article 12 of UDHR) out of this
> list?  what about other rights that may be impacted as society
> moves more online, like taking part in government (article 21 of
> UDHR) in this age of twitter-moderated public service? Maybe we
> could say "specifically, but not limited to" ?
> 

I think we should first focus on freedom of expression and freedom of
assembly because [a] the guidelines of privacy are already really
elaborate in RFC6973 [2] to make some progress it would probably help
to limit ourselves to some rights.

But at the same I would agree that the guidelines for privacy
considerations are not rooted in a human rights understanding of
privacy. RFC 6973 explicitly states:

[quote]
The guidance provided in this document is generic and can be used to
inform the design of any protocol to be used anywhere in the world,
without reference to specific legal frameworks.
[/quote]

I think this RFC would benefit from adding a reference to the right to
privacy in the UDHR and ICCPR. Perhaps the outcome of this research
could be a suggestion of adding such language to this RFC.

So I am completely OK with: "specifically, but not limited to".

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyphen#Compound_modifiers

Following your suggestion, adding this to the draft.

> why mention UDHR again here?  can we just drop "as defined in the

Agreed.

> frameworks we use to define and discuss human rights.

Perhaps we can make it even shorter:

	Since the Internet's objective of connectivity makes it
	an enabler of human rights, its architectural design overlaps
	with the human rights framework.

> should be "and to provide guidelines"

Agreed

> how about "to inform future protocol development and decision

Agreed

> manner similar to the work done for Privacy Considerations in RFC

Agreed. Don't you think 'with a focus on' not give us enough space to
also elaborate on other rights where needed or necessary?

> "Film and paper based on interviews" should be "Film and textual 

Agreed

> I'd replace the last "in the community" with "within the IETF" to

Agreed

> affected by the network."

Excellent. Agreed.

Best,

Niels