Subject: [hrpc] I-D Action: draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2016 14:52:02 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Human Rights Protocol Considerations of the IETF.

        Title           : Research into Human Rights Protocol Considerations
        Authors         : Niels ten Oever
                          Corinne Cath
	Filename        : draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05.txt
	Pages           : 69
	Date            : 2016-08-27

Abstract:
   The proliferating convolution of Internet and society increases the
   impact of the Internet on the lives of individuals.  Because of this,
   the design and development of the architecture of the Internet also
   has a growing impact on society.  This has led to an broad
   recognition that human rights [UDHR] [ICCPR] [ICESCR] have a role in
   the development and management of the Internet [HRC2012] [UNGA2013]
   [NETmundial].  It has also been argued that the Internet should be
   strengthened as a human rights enabling environment [Brown].

   This document provides a proposal for a vocabulary to discuss the
   relation between human rights and Internet protocols, an overview of
   the discussion in technical and academic literature and communities,
   a proposal for the mapping of the relation between human rights and
   technical concepts, and a proposal for guidelines for human rights
   considerations, similar to the work done on the guidelines for
   privacy considerations [RFC6973].

   Discussion of this draft at: [email-masked] //
   https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-research/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: avri doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2016 18:46:12 -0400

Hi,

Thanks for the updated draft Niels.

At the meeting in Berlin I understand that there was a sense of the room
that this draft would soon be ready for a RG last call.  Before starting
that, I want to check on two things:

- does draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05.txt respond to all the open
issues people brought up to date?  I will read the latest in the next
few days to try and determine if I think it might, but it would be most
helpful to see if others think so.

- does anyone object to starting a last call on this draft?  Is so, why
and what needs to be done before you think it is ready?

Thanks

avri

On 27-Aug-16 17:52, [email-masked] wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> [email-masked]

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

---

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 12:22:46 -0400

I suspect the answer to the following is "unclear" but what does RGLC
mean at IRTF? That those of us having participated in the RG believe
it's ready for eyeballs beyond our RG?

-- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
Chief Technologist, Center for Democracy & Technology [https://www.cdt.org]
1401 K ST NW STE 200, Washington DC 20005-3497
e: [email-masked], p: 202.407.8825, pgp: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key
Fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10  1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871

---

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 21:16:05 +0200

Hi Joe,

In the IRTF RGs we can choose any process we want for the publications
of documents (as long as we document it in the ID / RFC). We decided it
would be most transparent if we chose the IETF WG process, which
includes a WG last call before the document is forwarded to the IRSG.

So the RG last call is to ensure that we have consensus in the RG on a
document, before we forward it to the IRSG for review, after which the
document will be forwarded to the RFC editor.

Hope this helps!

More info here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2014

Cheers,

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: avri doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 15:43:13 -0400

Hi,

Right, so this is a review of the degree to which the HRPC, you all,
think it is ready to become an RFC.

avri

---

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 16:08:49 -0400

Thanks! I'm ashamed to admit I didn't know there is an IRSG, but that
makes sense.

So, it sounds like RGLC would last some amount of time, and we'd all
want to make sure we give the document a good review and post those
here for discussion?

Sounds good. Sorry if I'm being dense! best, Joe

---

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 00:03:07 +0200

> Thanks! I'm ashamed to admit I didn't know there is an IRSG, but that

No problem!

> want to make sure we give the document a good review and post those

Exactly!

Cheers,

Niels

---

From: avri doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 11:32:13 -0400

Hi,

Normally it is a 2 week period, but we can make it longer if needs be.

But if we think we need much longer, perhaps we are not quite ready yet.

avri

---

---

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 12:11:09 -0400

Great, two weeks sounds fine.

(We've had a number of full reviews, so it should be in good shape for that.)

best, Joe