Subject: [hrpc] Call for RG Adoption draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-02

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 12:11:51 +0200

Dear RG,

This email serves as a call for RG adoption of
draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-02 [0] as a RG document. The call for
adoption will run for 2 weeks ending 5/30/2016.

Several of your might have thought this document was already an RG
document, but since it was never formally adopted we thought it might be
a good idea to do that now (even though this is not strictly a
requirement for this in the IRTF, but for the sake of clarity and
transparency we'll follow the IETF procedure as decribed in RFC7221).

Please note that this is a call for adoption, and not a last call for
content of the document. Adopting a RG document simply means that the RG
will focus its efforts on that particular draft going forward, and use
that document for resolving open issues and documenting the RG’s decisions.

Please indicate whether you support adoption or not, and if not why.
Issues you have with the current document itself can also be raised, but
they should be raised in the context of what should be changed in the
document going forward, rather than a pre-condition for adoption.

Looking forward to hear your opinions.

All the best,

Niels

[0] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-02

-- 
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, 16 May 2016 07:30:27 -0400

Hi,

I personally think it might be premature for this call, but since it has
been made, would like to know of people who read this draft and think
that it is something that is ready to become a RG draft.

Is anyone willing to review this with a light to making a recommendation
on whether it should be a RG work item?  Would like to get some deeper
opinion on the draft and its contents, especially from an engineering
perspective.

I would also like to hear about others who are interested in working on
this draft, as becoming an RG draft means moving it more into the main
work stream of the RG and getting greater input that just the authors
and a few commenters.

I have not had a chance to read it yet, but will do so as soon as I can.

avri

On 16-May-16 06:11, Niels ten Oever wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc

---

From: Nex <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 15:58:13 +0200

Needless to say, having helped directly on it ;), I wanted to express my
support for the adoption of the document.
All the best,
Claudio Guarnieri

---

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 12:58:17 -0400

Hmm, I'm not sure why this would be premature, Avri. It seems like a
core document this group would work on in addition to methodology and
glossary.

We have a large quantity of comments on this draft (working with our
fellow, Scott Craig) that we'll be sharing in coming weeks.

We support adoption. best, Joe

-- 
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: Collin Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 00:53:25 +0000

Hi avri,

> work stream of the RG and getting greater input that just the authors

I might not be your ideal base for this request since I have solely lurked on this list from early on, out of professional interest as a network researcher, and since I have not previously been involved in the IRTF process. However, I would be willing to provide sustained feedback and comment from that position of independence from the process thus far, and have a meaningful history of research and publication on the underlying mechanisms associated with the proposal – although I suspect that anything that Mr. Bortzmeyer is involved in will be quite technically solid in that respect. If anything, from my current read, the draft requires a bit of copyediting and some further degree of interrogation in order ensure clarity and to extend the premise in certain areas, but I think those are a product of the document's ambition and not a sign of immaturity. 

So, I would be happy to provide outside assistance and critiques based on my professional and research involvements for the document proposed for adoption as RG draft. 

Cordially,
Collin Anderson

cda.io

________________________________________
From: hrpc [[email-masked]] on behalf of Joseph Lorenzo Hall [[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 12:58 PM
To: Avri Doria
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [hrpc] Call for RG Adoption draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-02

---

From: avri doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 22:31:52 -0400

Hi,

Thanks I appreciate it. 

avri

> So, I would be happy to provide outside assistance and critiques based on my professional and research involvements for the document proposed for adoption as RG draft. 

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

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 19:15:33 +0200

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 12:11:51PM +0200,
 Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]> wrote 

> adoption will run for 2 weeks ending 5/30/2016.

I followed the group from the start (even if I did not participate)
and I've read this draft (seriousy, I believe).

I support the adoption by the RG. It is both useful and well-written
(frankly, because of the novelty and difficulty of the project, I was
skeptical at the beginning). I hope I will be able to act as a
reviewer/etc.

I do not say I fully agree with the current version. For instance,
what is written about mobility and multicasting is [censored by myself
because my son, looking over my shoulder, tells me I'm too harsh].

Some details:

* is it really useful to mention Netmundial? Is it something else than
one of the many diplomatic meetings of the governance circus?

* there are still some self-contradiction in the draft. For instance,
5.2.4 starts by saying that, unlike ccTLD, .com does not impose limits
on free speech and, later on, 5.2.4.1 rightly notes that .com is NOT
floating above governments and states, it is a USA ccTLD.

---

From: avri doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 09:30:09 -0400

Hi,

> work stream of the RG and getting greater input that just the authors

The period ended yesterday.  We have had reviews and we have had
commitments to work on it further.  I would like to see more reviews and
more commitments to read and work on it, but at this point am satisfied
that it is more than just a couple of people who have done some serious
reading and thinking on the draft.

From the email I have seen on the list, including from those who read
and reviewed I would say that we have RG support for making this an RG
document.  I have seen several people indicate that it should be an RG
doc and did not see  anyone say it shouldn't be.

If anyone disagrees with this assessment, please let the list know in
the very near future.

Personally, I finished reading it yesterday and while I have not written
up any notes yet - will real soon now, I think it is now a strong draft
and while I think it will benefit from further work, think it is a an
I-D that serves the HRPC RG effort and ongoing work well.

My suggestion would be that comments on the current draft  continue for
another couple of weeks and that the authors plan on putting out the RG
draft in time for the Berlin meeting.  I also suggest that the two
current authors remain the co-authors for the RG draft.

Thanks to those who participated in this call.

avri