Subject: [hrpc] Continuing discussion and questions on Corinne's thesis - A Case Study of Coding Rights

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 18:47:13 +0100

Hi all,

We had to cut off the questions and discussion on Corinne's thesis - A
Case Study of Coding Rights [0] in Yokohama. I wanted to create one
more opportunity to discuss the thesis. Mostly because I think the
thesis is a great piece of work and very constructive overview of
different issues we're working on and because it could also lead us
forward. Also because I still have a few questions left. Of course
other peoples questions and comments are also very much encouraged.

1.
You define 'openness' as 'the absence of centralised points of
control' (p17). Do you think this is the mainly used definition of
openness? Or are there others? If this is the main one, should we
perhaps add it to the glossary? Openess is currently defined in the
glossary as:
 The quality of the unfiltered Internet that allows for free
      access to other hosts
Which is quite a different definition. Could you please elaborate on
your rationale / choice for this definitions

2.
You connect 'content agnosticism' with 'all packets are equal'. I am
not sure if that is correct. I think content agnosticism means:
packets are not treated differently based on their content. Would you
agree?
Glossary definition:
	Treating network traffic identically regardless of content.

3. On p.20 you seem to use distributed and decentralized
interchangeably, is this intentional?

4. I like the conclusion on page 23, this quote from RFC3935 could
make it even stronger:
   The Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither is the IETF.  We want
   the Internet to be useful for communities that share our commitment
   to openness and fairness.  We embrace technical concepts such as
   decentralized control, edge-user empowerment and sharing of
   resources, because those concepts resonate with the core values of
   the IETF community.  These concepts have little to do with the
   technology that's possible, and much to do with the technology that
   we choose to create.

5. You use different ways of describing the relationship between
protocol developers and human rights. Sometimes you talk about
encoding human rights (which you put on the same level with
'protecting human rights') p.42, sometimes you also talk about
'instantiating human rights in protocols p.47, sometimes also
'directly instantiating the right ....' p.53
Later on you make the clear difference between 'protocol development
[that is] guided by human rights principles' and 'instantiating [human
rights] in protocols' p. 53. Could you give definitions of the
different processes or explain the differences among them?

6. Sometimes you seem to argue there is a relative homogeneous
normative conceptualization of the Internet among engineers at the
IETF and sometimes you seem to argue that there is much diversity
(which stimulates a tussle). Could you elaborate on this?

7. Which parts of your paper do you think could / would fit well in
the methodology draft [1], glossary draft [2] and/or report draft [3]?

Greatly looking forward to your response.

Best,

Niels

[0] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/attach/hrpc/pdfbyB1Dp.pdf
[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-varon-hrpc-methodology-02
[2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dkg-hrpc-glossary-01
[3] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-doria-hrpc-report-00
- -- 
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
                   678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9