Subject: [hrpc] I-D Action: draft-irtf-hrpc-political-07.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2019 06:01:48 -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 RG of the IRTF.

        Title           : Notes on networking standards and politics
        Author          : Niels ten Oever
	Filename        : draft-irtf-hrpc-political-07.txt
	Pages           : 14
	Date            : 2019-09-28

Abstract:
   The IETF cannot ordain what standards or protocols are to be used on
   networks, but the standards development process in the IETF does have
   an impact on society through its normative standards setting process.
   This document aims to bring about a better understanding on the
   political nature of standards and protocols.  Among other things, the
   IETF's work affects what is perceived as technologically possible and
   useful where networking technologies are being deployed, and its
   standards reflect what is considered by the technical community to be
   feasible and good practice.  Whereas there might not be agreement
   among the Internet protocol community on the specific political
   nature of the technological development process and its outputs, it
   is generally agreed that standards and protocols are both products of
   a political process, and they can also be used for political means.

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

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-hrpc-political-07
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-hrpc-political-07

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-irtf-hrpc-political-07

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: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2019 15:05:50 +0200

Hi all,

Change log:

- further qualified the conclusion and the discussion to reflect the differences in opinion, 
- integrated the suggestions made by Stephane.

Hope this helps!

Best,

Niels 

On 9/28/19 3:01 PM, [email-masked] wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
> 

-- 
Niels ten Oever
Researcher and PhD Candidate
DATACTIVE Research Group
University of Amsterdam

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

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2019 14:09:05 -0700

Niels,

Thanks for posting this.

I don't however, think that it addresses my primary concerns. It seems to
me that the major change is that you now make explicit claims about the
consensus of Science and Technology scholars and then some softer set of
claims about what the IETF thinks. Neither of these claims of consensus
seems to be supported by any real evidence, however, and reading S 4, it
seems like that describes some perspectives that don't match the claims of
general agreement in S 1.

It seems to me that this document has fallen into the not uncommon
situation where people object that fundamental changes are needed but
instead you try to make minor textual changes in order to address some
specific comments. ISTM that what's needed here is to go back to the
beginning and state what the intended purpose of this document is and then
we can discuss whether (1) that is a useful purpose and (2) whether it
achieves it. Until then, I don';t think new revisions or textual changes
are helpful.

-Ekr

-Ekr

---

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2019 00:48:03 +0200

Dear Eric,

On 9/28/19 11:09 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> Niels,
> 
> Thanks for posting this.
> 
> I don't however, think that it addresses my primary concerns. It seems to me that the major change is that you now make explicit claims about the consensus of Science and Technology scholars and then some softer set of claims about what the IETF thinks.

Exactly, this follows my discussion with you and Eliot in which you both mentioned that these conclusions seemed obvious. 

> Neither of these claims of consensus seems to be supported by any real evidence, 

I think we have different ideas of what constitutes evidence. This work resulted, as stated in the doc, from participant observation, interviews and exchanges on mailinglist and during research group sessions.  The work is further structured by contextualizing it with a the literature review. You don't seem to appreciate this, or see this as valid research methods, which is fine of course, but then it will be hard for us to agree.

Furthermore, it is also not stated that this documents provides evidence. But again, if you want to give an historical account to illustrate a specific point, I would be more than happy to integrate it into the document.

> however, and reading S 4, it seems like that describes some perspectives that don't match the claims of general agreement in S 1.

I agree that abstract and the intro should be made more consistent with the discussion and conclusion. If we can agree on the latter, I will be more than happy to do that.

Best,

Niels

> 
> It seems to me that this document has fallen into the not uncommon situation where people object that fundamental changes are needed but instead you try to make minor textual changes in order to address some specific comments. ISTM that what's needed here is to go back to the beginning and state what the intended purpose of this document is and then we can discuss whether (1) that is a useful purpose and (2) whether it achieves it. Until then, I don';t think new revisions or textual changes are helpful.
> 

> -Ekr
> 
> 
> -Ekr
> 
> 
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 6:06 AM Niels ten Oever <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi all,
> 
>     Change log:
> 
>     On 9/28/19 3:01 PM, [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> wrote:
>     >
>     > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org <http://tools.ietf.org>.
>     >
>     > [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2019 16:19:43 -0700

First, let me say that I think that this discussion of consensus is a
distraction. The fundamental problem with this document is that it's not
clear why it exists at all. That is what needs to be resolved.

With that said, my specific objection to this new text is the claims of
what is consensus in the STS community or in the IETF, because this
document doesn't present any evidence that would suffice to support a claim
of "consensus" or "general agreement".

More detailed response below:

On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 3:48 PM Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> > I don't however, think that it addresses my primary concerns. It seems
> to me that the major change is that you now make explicit claims about the
> claims about what the IETF thinks.
>
> Exactly, this follows my discussion with you and Eliot in which you both
> mentioned that these conclusions seemed obvious.
>

I agree that they are obvious, but what does that have to do with consensus
or lack thereof?

> I think we have different ideas of what constitutes evidence. This work
> resulted, as stated in the doc, from participant observation, interviews
> and exchanges on mailinglist and during research group sessions.  The work
> is further structured by contextualizing it with a the literature review.
> You don't seem to appreciate this, or see this as valid research methods,
> which is fine of course, but then it will be hard for us to agree.
>

You seem to be putting words in my mouth here because I never said anything
about not seeing this as valid research methods.

Consensus and general agreement are properties of a group and particular of
some large fraction of a group holding a particular opinion. I don't see
you presenting any evidence along those lines at all. Note that it's not
impossible to do this (see, for instance surveys of the scientific or
economic community on specific points, or large-scale literature reviews
that count up the papers with a certain view). However, this document does
not seem to contain any of that.

> Furthermore, it is also not stated that this documents provides evidence.

Well, then it shouldn't make claims like this.

-Ekr