Subject: [hrpc] last call charter

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 19:36:31 +0100

Hello everyone,

The charter [0] has been up for discussion since November 3 and I
haven't seen any concrete comments, questions or suggestions, so I
would like to call for last comments, closing on Monday November 23-
23:59 UTC.

Looking forward to your questions, comments or suggestions.

Best,

Niels

[0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/rg/hrpc/charter/
- -- 
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

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

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 18:41:33 +0000

I think that's good to go.

One tweak if you want it: you could move the "raising
awareness" bullet from the outputs section to the
objectives section, but that's almost a nit.

Cheers,
S.

On 17/11/15 18:36, Niels ten Oever wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>

---

From: Corinne Cath <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 18:51:05 +0000

second on the ready to go remark!

-- 

'The management of normality is hard work'

---

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:22:17 +0100

Hi Stephen,

On 11/17/2015 07:41 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:> you could move the
"raising
> awareness" bullet from the outputs section to the objectives
> section

Thanks for this. Not sure whether awareness raising is an objective
though, it's more of a means to an end then an end in itself, right?

Best,

Niels

Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 19:41:19 +0000

> though, it's more of a means to an end then an end in itself, right?

It's not a big deal and your text is fine as-is, but personally I
do think raising awareness (in both directions) is a fine objective.
(And not an output.)

S.

---

From: Seda <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 15:07:28 -0500

Hi everyone,

I have mainly been a lurker who hasn’t done her homework, so I apologize if my last minute suggestion here has already been discussed.

Since this is about networks and protocols, it also makes sense to do
- Data analysis and visualization
of (existing) protocols in the wild.

One could argue that this is part of the
- Policy and academic papers
but, it may nevertheless be useful to include it explicitly.
After all, just looking at protocols on paper/in ascii may not have the teeth it requires to show what is at stake when the protocols are making their way in the wild.
For new protocols, one could make use of existing protocols that qualify as acceptable proxies.

I apologize if you already discussed these matters and I congratulate all of you on all the hard work. Wonderful to have a charter finally.
Seda

---

From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 15:22:20 -0500

Hi all--

I also think the charter is good as it stands.

I'm fine with Stephen's suggestion of moving "raising awareness" to an
"Objective" instead of an "Output" but don't think it's a big deal
either way.

One of the other outputs already listed is:

>> To research and visualize the language used in current and historic
>> RFCs and mailinglist discussions to expose core architectural
>> principles, language and deliberations on human rights of those
>> affected by the network.

If you are saying that this should include not just analysis of the
language of the protocols, but also analysis and visualization of the
*use* of the protocols, i would agree with that augmentation.

For example, an analysis that shows censorship/blocking based on the
presence or absence of certain protocol metadata would be a useful and
in-scope.

      --dkg

---

From: Seda <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 15:26:05 -0500

> presence or absence of certain protocol metadata would be a useful and

that is correct. the above description looks like research would be limited to text analysis applied to rfcs and mailing lists.
cheers,
s.

---

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 16:28:16 -0500

This is a neat line of thought... Seda, do you have a feeling for what
might be particularly important or useful in this sense? For example,
there were a series of presentations at the SAAG (the security folks
at IETF) meeting in Prague this past summer that did different
analyses of the uptake of certain secure protocols/applications,
notably TLS and email protocols [1], and HTTPS from the serving and
browsing angles [2] [3].

I suspect that's not exactly what you were getting at though.

We'll need to (eventually, probably not now!) identify what need or
analytical angle this serves, what the output might look like, and
who's interested in doing it (both data collection and viz).

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-saag-2.pdf
[2]: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-saag-4.pdf
[3]: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-saag-3.pdf

-- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
Chief Technologist
Center for Democracy & Technology
1634 I ST NW STE 1100
Washington DC 20006-4011
(p) 202-407-8825
(f) 202-637-0968
[email-masked]
PGP: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key
fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10  1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871