Human Rights Protocol Considerations (hrpc)
https://github.com/nllz/IRTF-HRPC 
9:30, November 17 2017


Video Record: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQ-wsafViMI&list=PLC86T-6ZTP5g_hEODKiZDeZTpr2Vxd2B3


Chairs:
Avri Doria 
Niels ten Oever 


Note Taker: Jaime
These notes are an edited version of Etherpad notes found in http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org/p/notes-ietf-100-hrpc?useMonospaceFont=true 


Jabber: 


Status of research group & documents was done.


Chairs introduced the WG on the topic.




1. Presentation + Q&A - Human Rights and Civil Liberties in the Internet


RFCs, 1969-1979 and On 
- Discussion of draft-tenoever-hrpc-association-02


Slides: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/100/materials/slides-100-hrpc-human-rights-and-civil-liberties-in-the-internet-rfcs-1969-1979-and-on/


Sandra Braman presenting.
- Conflict between geopolitical and "network political" citizenship.


Jabber: that is inductive reading?
Sandra: deductive implies starting from an hypothesis and discarding. Inductive means that you have concepts from the text up, rather than having preconception. 


(Note https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction)


Sandra: There is a need for courses, and contact with institutions, no institution has come forward to take ownership of this.
...: Preference of daemon over human. Other system emerging with its own desires that is more dynamic, tussle between two cultural things, between needs of daemons and the needs of humans. Worry about robots, however they are not there yet. 
Sandra: that's what I mean by "social technical rights" vs human rights. What I mean by "species change" and thinking about technologies as human extensions. 


Jabber: Biggest threat to Human Rights are Google, Facebook, etc. What can this group do about it?
Sandra: When it comes to corporations, the law would engage.




2. Discussion of draft-tenoever-hrpc-association


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


Gisela Perez de Acha presenting draft.


..: How many have read the draft? (8 hands up)
...: Freedom of Assembly vs Freedom of association. 
...: Concern that laws of nature are ignored, right of association...  
...: Conceptual problem with interpretation of what the internet is and the definition of obligations.


Gisela: thank you, defining what the internet is could be a research paper in itself. 
Followed by Discussion on SHOULD, MUST and normative text.
Chair: Discussion to the list.


3. Discussion of draft-tenoever-hrpc-political-02


Slides: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/100/materials/slides-100-hrpc-presentation-draft-tenoever-hrpc-political/
draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-political/


Amelia presenting. 


IETF RFC3935 "IETF prefers decentralized open architectures"
RFC7231 and RFC2616
IETF cases that apply only to specific legislations and contexts.


Chair: how many have read it? (9 roughly). WGA to the list.
David: internet enables to bipass legislation, continue being interested.
D Lawerence: EU way of thinking about things. Western bias. No clear target but how to expand.
... : Policy step and meaning. Terminology discussion.


chair: Basis for defining civil and political rights already discussed at length. UN Declaration of Human Rights... as best authoritative reference of rights accepted by nations.


4. Discussion of draft-tenoever-hrpc-anonymity-01


Slides: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/100/materials/slides-100-hrpc-presentation-draft-tenoever-hrpc-anonymity/
draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-anonymity/


Stephane presenting. 
Internet improves surveillance. 
Not a lot of anonymity work in IETF.


5. Discussion of draft-tenoever-hrpc-unrequested-00


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


Niels presenting. DDOS attacks from the Human Right perspective. Adding info on SPAM and unsolicited comments. 


6. Discussion of draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines-00
Slides: 
draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines/


RFC8280 discussions lead to the creation of this document.
A working document for furthering the research work on RFC8280


7. Errata to RFC 7725 + draft-new-protocol-elements-451+ HR considerations
Slides: 
draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-451-new-protocol-elements/


Shivan presenting on feedback from hackathon and HTTPbis group.
Geographical Scope, MUST vs SHOULD, Censorship, Sections of legality.


..: technically it is not possible to have a MUST on the requirements, info could be in header but it would be more work.
...: 
Shivan: Research on it but most of the responses could be on country level.
... : Not worried about country-subcountry level.
Shivan: Example of Spain.
... : not taking it as a must.
... : country code. Geocoding within the header, was proposed. Against pushing anything beyond sub-country code.
Shivan: different discussion. disagree.
... : I don't know a government in the world, they tell why they are stopping you from doing something. From the user perspective it is interesting because it could be used by individuals. MUST should be mandatory if we are moving towards legislative usage. Distinction between who is doing the blocking and the jurisdiction. Subnational level.
Shivan: if we go with country code. 
...: add Who/juisdiction/country code.


8. Update on progress on human rights considerations


Sunil remote presentation. Presenting work done.


David R: standard vs framework is just terminology, not relevant distinction.
.. : possible misunderstanding crypto. ACE has done profiles for low bandwidth and IoT.


chair: oauth would need a session of its own, so we could maybe skip this part if OK with author.
Sunil: Ok
Chair: content to be reflected on the draft. 


Discussion on way forward


9. Presentation + Q&A - Chainiac: end-to-end software supply chain security and transparency