Subject: Re: [Hrpc] [hrpc] Some Thoughts

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 22:43:34 +0200

Hi Roland,

Sorry I have been slow to respond.

On 03/30/2015 06:05 PM, Bless, Roland (TM) wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I think that the work is important and this proposed research
> group needs input from different disciplines: IETF participants
> representing the technical side, but also people from social
> sciences and legal sciences.
> 
> * Larry Masinter made a comment that there is also a need for 
> balancing rights. He is correct in the sense that different 
> stakeholders may have different objectives, because they focus also
> on different values or assets. This typically leads to _conflicts_,
> maybe even somewhere in the network as nicely described in [1].
> Usually we use institutions like (social) norms, laws and courts in
> order to resolve such conflicts, but also technical systems, either
> implicitly or explicitly [2]. Since the Universal declaration of
> human rights defines some of the highest values that we know, it's
> probably a good starting point. Very often different societies have
> different preferences for certain values.

Thanks for this, in this light, how do you see the proposal made by
Mark Nottingham to make end-users rights the highest priorities?
Perhaps that would provide an extra tool/axis to balance rights?

> 
> * There was some discussion about protocol definition and intended
> use. I guess that the IETF always has a motivation and usage
> scenario while defining protocols, but the IETF usually doesn't do
> anything if the protocol is used in a different manner as
> originally intended. I think the main point here is that IETF
> participants could try to think about alternative protocol designs
> that may result in different implications for human rights etc. It
> may be beneficial to find a methodology how certain rights/values
> could be realized in a better way (e.g., data minimization for 
> better privacy etc.).
> 
> * Comments on slide 13 of the presentation. Some more concepts came
> to my mind: - Accessibility (you need unfettered access to the 
> Internet/resources/information) - Openness (eases participation) -
> Autonomy (e.g., Autonomous System approach) - Federations of
> independent domains (ASes, Mail, XMPP servers etc.) Probably the
> latter two are sub-principles or closely related to the distributed
> nature of solutions. One could also view parts of the list from
> slide 13 hierarchically like: Reliability -> Robustness ->
> Stateless, Graceful failures/degradation, partial healing, etc.
> 

Thanks! Adding these concepts to the working draft of the ID.

> * On slide 15: the lower terms from "interoperable protocols ... 
> resilience" are concepts that can be used to achieve good/robust 
> connectivity. However, if I have no access to that robust and well
> connected network, I'm limited in participation and maybe freedom
> of association. Therefore, accessibility may be also important.

Connectivity is already there under freedom of expression, do you
think that would suffice?

> Regards, Roland

Best,

Niels
> 
> [1] http://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2002/papers/tussle.pdf 
> [2] https://harvardmagazine.com/2000/01/code-is-law-html
> 
> _______________________________________________ hrpc mailing list 
> [email-masked] https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>