Subject: [hrpc] On the Politics of Standards

From: avri doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:16:05 -0500

Re: draft-tenoever-hrpc-political-02
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-political/> 

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-political/

Questions:

- Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc?

- Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for the
group consensus for inclusion at the moment? Please be specific.

- Who is interested in working on it?

- Are the authors willing to give up change control?

- What remains to be be done on this?

---

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:56:09 +0100

Hi all,

> - Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc?

I think so, especially because it consists of the mapping of different positions in the RG during the development of RFC8280
 
> group consensus for inclusion at the moment? Please be specific.

I think we would have all opinions covered and it is in-line with current position (and the tech plenary of two meetings ago). So I think it is.

> - Who is interested in working on it?

Me.

> - Are the authors willing to give up change control?

Yes

> - What remains to be be done on this?

More clean up and streamlining. See where we go with economic analysis.

Best,

Niels

> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc

-- 

Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint	   2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488  
                   643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3

---

From: Amelia Andersdotter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 13:19:33 +0100

Inline responses:

> - Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc?

No.

> group consensus for inclusion at the moment? Please be specific.

With the current research question, the conclusion seems foregone and
also is, by itself, controversial.

Me.

> - What remains to be be done on this?

Quite much, yes.

best regards,

Amelia

-- 
Amelia Andersdotter
Technical Consultant, Digital Programme

ARTICLE19
www.article19.org

PGP: 3D5D B6CA B852 B988 055A 6A6F FEF1 C294 B4E8 0B55

---

From: Mallory Knodel <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 09:45:59 +0300

>> - Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc?

I take the lead from the authors :)

> also is, by itself, controversial.

Issues are controversial but I don't think "too controversial" in the
sense that the point of the document seems to be to build consensus
around a pretty important foundational principle of the group. So I
think it's exactly the kind of thing the RG should be working on. When
the doc is ready for RG adoption.

>> - Who is interested in working on it?

Me, too.

>> - What remains to be be done on this?

Seems to me that framing is really important. There is not much of an
introduction, which would set the tone for the various chapters that
follow. I think that the case being made is that code/protocols/tech is
a regulator, much like law. And that while law is a tool and meant to be
impartial it obviously has political implications. So, too, protocols.
And then the various aspects of that framework follow in each section.

-Mallory

-- 
Mallory Knodel
Head of Digital :: article19.org
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9  B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780