Subject: Re: [hrpc] Value system in the achitecture

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 10:48:19 -0700

Hi Niels,
At 00:33 17-07-2016, Niels ten Oever wrote:
>I suspect that you are referring to:

Yes.

>That is exactly the question of the draft.
>
> > Once a value system is embedded in the
> > architecture it is difficult to remove it or not use it.
>
>Depends how it's done. Also: Brown et al argue that currently already
>values are embedded in the architecture.
>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-03#section-4

I'll comment about the SDO first.  There isn't any agreement in the 
IETF about what is human rights.  The UDHR reference was only 
mentioned during a controversy about a very controversial IETF 
issue.  I don't know whether that was discussed in the IRTF (the IRTF 
is not part of the IETF).  Some of the terms in your draft have been 
discussed on an IETF mailing list from a specification perspective, 
e.g. protocol, standards.

In response to your comment about the Brown et all paper, are you 
referring to the design choices which have "give users considerable 
autonomy"?  That could be viewed in terms of bypassing communication 
networks which were set within a country.

>One can use different implementations of DNS:
>https://yeti-dns.org/
>http://dns.dot-bit.org/

I was referring to the unique public name space instead of 
implementations of DNS.

>The word 'ideology' is mentioned in the draft at all.

Ok.

>The aim is: (1) to bring forth which values are being used while
>designing the protocols and (2) understand their (enabeling or adverse)
>impacts on human rights, as per the charter of hrpc:

In your opinion, isn't the values a matter of ideology [1]?

I recall commenting about Section 8.3 of what became the 
specification for the Forwarded HTTP Extension.  If I had to provide 
an explanation fro my preference, I would say that I prefer to tell 
the user what is correct instead of what is not incorrect if there 
might be an impact on the user.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. A system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis 
of economic or political theory and policy

---

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 10:15:50 +0200

Dear S. Moonesamy,

Thanks for this, reply inline:

On 07/17/2016 07:48 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> I'll comment about the SDO first.  There isn't any agreement in the IETF
> about what is human rights.  

I think there is quite a strong global consensus on what human rights
are, and there are documents in which these are documented, like the
UDHR, ICCPR and ICESCR. I do not think it's useful to redefine what
human rights are in the IETF or IRTF.

> The UDHR reference was only mentioned
> during a controversy about a very controversial IETF issue.  

Link?

> I don't
> know whether that was discussed in the IRTF (the IRTF is not part of the
> IETF). 

It has been extensively on this list.

> Some of the terms in your draft have been discussed on an IETF
> mailing list from a specification perspective, e.g. protocol, standards.
> 

Which have been studies, as you can find in the methdology paragraph of
the draft.

> networks which were set within a country.

Not sure I understand.

> In your opinion, isn't the values a matter of ideology [1]?

One doesn't need to agree on ideology in order to be able to agree on
values.

> I recall commenting about Section 8.3 of what became the specification
> for the Forwarded HTTP Extension.  If I had to provide an explanation
> fro my preference, I would say that I prefer to tell the user what is
> correct instead of what is not incorrect if there might be an impact on
> the user.
> 

Not sure if I understand.

Best,

Niels

> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
> 
> 1. A system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of
> economic or political theory and policy

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 06:18:02 -0700

Hi Niels,

Yes.

>Link?

Please see the thread which starts at 
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg98613.html

>One doesn't need to agree on ideology in order to be able to agree on

A person follows the laws of his/her country.  For example, there 
aren't laws in every country about anonymity as a right [1].  Some 
countries do not have data protection laws.  I commented about 
Cybersecurity previously [2].  There has been standards-related 
discussions about encryption.  Should anonymity be built into the standards?

Sorry if any of teh above is not clear.  Please feel free to ask me to explain.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Opinion/Communications/Article19.pdf
2. http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-January/000647.html