idnits 2.17.1 draft-doria-hrpc-proposal-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (October 27, 2014) is 3466 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'HRC2011' is defined on line 272, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'HRC2013' is defined on line 282, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'ICCPR' is defined on line 294, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2014' is defined on line 307, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2369' is defined on line 310, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2629' is defined on line 314, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3552' is defined on line 321, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3869' is defined on line 325, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4440' is defined on line 329, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5226' is defined on line 336, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5564' is defined on line 340, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC7233' is defined on line 377, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2629 (Obsoleted by RFC 7749) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 7230 (Obsoleted by RFC 9110, RFC 9112) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 7231 (Obsoleted by RFC 9110) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 7232 (Obsoleted by RFC 9110) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 7233 (Obsoleted by RFC 9110) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 7234 (Obsoleted by RFC 9111) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 7235 (Obsoleted by RFC 9110) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 13 warnings (==), 9 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group A. Doria 3 Internet-Draft dotgay LLC 4 Intended status: Informational N. ten Oever 5 Expires: April 30, 2015 Article 19 6 J. Varon 8 October 27, 2014 10 Proposal for research on human rights protocol considerations 11 draft-doria-hrpc-proposal-00 13 Abstract 15 Work has been done on privacy issues that should be considered when 16 creating an Internet protocol. This draft suggests that similar 17 considerations may apply for other human rights such as freedom of 18 expression or freedom of association. A proposal is made for 19 initiating IRTF work researching the possible connections between 20 human rights and Internet standards and protocols. The goal would be 21 to create an informational RFC concerning human rights protocol 22 considerations. 24 Discussion on this draft at: hrpc@article19.io 26 Status of This Memo 28 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 29 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 31 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 32 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 33 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 34 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 36 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 37 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 38 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 39 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 41 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 30, 2015. 43 Copyright Notice 45 Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 46 document authors. All rights reserved. 48 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 49 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 50 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 51 publication of this document. Please review these documents 52 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 53 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 54 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 55 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 56 described in the Simplified BSD License. 58 Table of Contents 60 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 61 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 62 2. Research topic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 63 2.1. Protocol and Standard Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 2.1.1. Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 2.1.2. Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 2.1.3. HTML . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 2.1.4. Mailing lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 68 2.1.5. IDNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 69 3. Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 70 4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 71 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 72 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 73 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 74 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 75 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 76 Appendix A. Additional Stuff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 77 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 79 1. Introduction 81 The recognition that human rights have a role in Internet policies is 82 slowly becoming part of the general discourse. Several reports from 83 former United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on the promotion and 84 protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank 85 La Rue, have made such relation explicit, which lead to the approval 86 of the landmark resolution "on the promotion, protection and 87 enjoyment of human rights on the Internet" [HRC2012] at the UN Human 88 Rights Council (HRC). And, more recently, to the resolution "The 89 right to privacy in the digital age" [UNGA2013] at the UN General 90 Assembly. The NETmundial outcome document [NETmundial] affirms that 91 human rights, as reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human 92 Rights [UDHR], should underpin Internet governance principles. 93 Nevertheless, the direct relation between Internet Standards and 94 human rights is still something to be explored and more clearly 95 evidenced. 97 Concerns for freedom of expression and association were a strong part 98 of the world-view of the community involved in developing the first 99 Internet protocols. Apparently, by intention or by coincidence, the 100 Internet was designed with freedom and openness of communications as 101 core values. But as the scale and the industrialization of the 102 Internet has grown greatly, the influence of such world-views started 103 to compete with other values. The belief of the authors is that as 104 the Internet continues to grow, the linkage of Internet protocols to 105 human rights needs to become both structured and intentional. 107 Standards and protocols form the basis of the human rights enabling 108 infrastructure of the Internet. It needs to be determined whether 109 there is a causal relationship between Internet protocols and 110 standards, and human rights such as freedom of expression. To study 111 the relationship between the two one would need to carefully consider 112 structural and architectural considerations, as well as specific 113 protocols. The Internet Society paper "Human Rights and Internet 114 Protocols" [HRIP] 'explores human rights and Internet protocols 115 comparing the processes for their making and the principles by which 116 they operate and concludes that there are some shared principles 117 between the two.' Though that paper does not go into possible 118 reasons, dependencies or guidelines, it initiates the discussion. 119 More research is needed to map human rights concerns to protocol 120 elements and to frame possible approaches towards protocols that 121 satisfy the implications of human rights standards. 123 To move this debate further, a list has been created for discussion 124 of this draft: hrpc@article19.io and related ideas - information or 125 subscriptions at: https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/hrpc 127 1.1. Requirements Language 129 As this is an informational document recommending a research effort, 130 it will not make use of requirements language as defined in RFC 2119 131 [RFC2119]. 133 2. Research topic 135 In a manner similar to the work done for RFC 6973 [RFC6973] on 136 Privacy Consideration Guidelines, the premise of this research is 137 that some standards and protocols can solidify, enable or threaten 138 human rights, such as freedom of expression and the right to 139 association and assembly online. To start addressing the issue, a 140 mapping exercise analyzing Internet architecture and protocols 141 features, vis-a-vis possible impact on human rights needs to be 142 undertaken. The list below represents the first examples of this 143 exercise. 145 2.1. Protocol and Standard Examples 147 Some initial topics that need exploration are indicated in this 148 section. Most of this work has yet to move beyond speculation and 149 casual conversation. The next release of the draft will develop 150 these discussion further, based on discussion to be held on the 151 hrpc@article19.io email list. 153 2.1.1. Architecture 155 RFC 1958 [RFC1958] mentions 'the community believes that the goal 156 [of the Internet] is connectivity, the tool is the Internet 157 Protocol'. It continues a bit further: 'The current exponential 158 growth of the network seems to show that connectivity is its own 159 reward, and is more valuable than any individual application such as 160 mail or the World-Wide Web.' This marks the intrinsic value of 161 connectivity which is facilitated by the Internet, both in its 162 principle, and in practice. This shows that the underlying 163 principles of the Internet aim to preserve connectivity, which is 164 fundamental and similar to the part of article 19 of the Universal 165 Declaration of Human Rights [UDHR], which defines a right to receive 166 and to impart information. 168 2.1.2. Transparency 170 Another part of article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human 171 Rights UDHR [UDHR] mentions that one has the right to hold opinions 172 _without interference_ (emphasis added). This same sentiment can be 173 found in IAB RFC4924 [RFC4924] - Reflection on Internet Transparency 174 where it states: 'A network that does not filter or transform the 175 data that it carries may be said to be transparent" or "oblivious" to 176 the content of packets. Networks that provide oblivious transport 177 enable the deployment of new services without requiring changes to 178 the core. It is this flexibility that is perhaps both the Internet's 179 most essential characteristic as well as one of the most important 180 contributors to its success.' 182 2.1.3. HTML 184 Websites made it extremely easy for individuals to publish their 185 ideas, opinions and thoughts. Never before has the world seen an 186 infrastructure that made it this easy to share your brainchild with 187 such a large group of other people. The HTTP architecture and 188 standards, including RFC 7230 [RFC7230], RFC 7231 [RFC7231], RFC 7232 189 [RFC7232], RFC 7234 [RFC7234], RFC 7235 [RFC7235], RFC 7236 190 [RFC7236], and RFC 7327 [RFC7237], are essential for the publishing 191 of information. The HTTP protocol, therefore, forms an crucial 192 instrument for freedom of expression, but also to the right to freely 193 participate in the culture life of the community, to enjoy the arts 194 and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. 196 2.1.4. Mailing lists 198 Collaboration and cooperation have been part of the Internet since 199 its early beginning, one of the instruments of facilitating working 200 together in groups are mailing lists (as described in RFC 2369 201 [RFC2919], RFC 2919 [RFC2919], and RFC 6783 [RFC6783]. Mailing lists 202 are critical instruments and enablers for group communication and 203 organization, and therefore form early artefacts of the 204 (standardized) ability of Internet standards to enable the right to 205 freedom of assembly and association. 207 2.1.5. IDNs 209 English has been the lingua franca of the Internet, but for many 210 Internet user English is not their first language. To have a true 211 global Internet, one that serves the whole world, it would need to 212 reflect the languages of these different communities. The 213 Internationalized Domain Names IDNA2008 (RFC 5890 [RFC5890], RFC 5891 214 [RFC5891], RFC 5892 [RFC5892], and RFC 5893 [RFC5893]), describes 215 standards for the use of a broad range of strings and characters 216 (some also written from right to left). This enables users who use 217 other characters than the standard LDH ascii typeset to have their 218 own URLs. This shows the ambition of the Internet community to 219 reflect the diversity of users and to be in line with Article 2 of 220 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which clearly stipulates 221 that 'everyone is entitles to all rights and freedoms [..], without 222 distinction of any kind, such as [..] language [..]. 224 3. Proposal 226 Mapping the relation between human rights and protocols and 227 architectures is a new research challenge, which will require a good 228 amount of cross organizational cooperation to develop a consistent 229 methodology. While the authors of this first draft are involved in 230 both human rights advocacy and research on Internet technologies - we 231 believe that bringing this work into the IRTF would facilitate and 232 improve this work by bringing human rights experts together with the 233 community of researchers and developers of Internet standards and 234 technologies. 236 At this point we have created a mailing list where we would like to 237 encourage discussion of the issue and capture interest of the IRTF 238 community. A second step would be to create a charter and ask the 239 IRTF for a Research group to further develop methodology and 240 investigate Human rights Protocol considerations. 242 Assuming that the research produces useful results, the objective 243 would evolve into the creation of a set of recommended considerations 244 for the protection of applicable human rights. 246 4. Acknowledgements 248 This builds on work done by RFC 6973 [RFC6973]. 250 Thanks go to those who have discussed and edited the ideas in this 251 draft. Special thanks go to Joy Liddicoat as the co-author of 252 Human Rights and Internet Protocols [HRIP] 254 5. IANA Considerations 256 This memo includes no request to IANA. 258 6. Security Considerations 260 As this draft concerns a research proposal, there are no security 261 considerations. 263 7. References 265 7.1. Normative References 267 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 268 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 270 7.2. Informative References 272 [HRC2011] Human Rights Council, , "Report of the Special Rapporteur 273 on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of 274 opinion and expression, Human Rights Council, May 2011", 275 2011. 277 [HRC2012] General Assembly, UN., "Human Rights Council Resolution on 278 the promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on 279 the Internet", 2011, 280 . 282 [HRC2013] General Assembly, UN., "Report of the Special Rapporteur 283 on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of 284 opinion and expression, Human Rights Council, April 2013", 285 2013. 287 [HRIP] Joy Liddicoat, JL. and AD. Avri Doria, "Human Rights and 288 Internet Protocols: Comparing Processes and Principles", 289 2012, 290 . 294 [ICCPR] General Assembly, UN., "International Covenant on Civil 295 and Political Rights", 1966, 296 . 299 [NETmundial] 300 NetMundial, , "NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement", 301 2014, . 304 [RFC1958] Carpenter, B., "Architectural Principles of the Internet", 305 RFC 1958, June 1996. 307 [RFC2014] Weinrib, A. and J. Postel, "IRTF Research Group Guidelines 308 and Procedures", BCP 8, RFC 2014, October 1996. 310 [RFC2369] Neufeld, G. and J. Baer, "The Use of URLs as Meta-Syntax 311 for Core Mail List Commands and their Transport through 312 Message Header Fields", RFC 2369, July 1998. 314 [RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629, 315 June 1999. 317 [RFC2919] Chandhok, R. and G. Wenger, "List-Id: A Structured Field 318 and Namespace for the Identification of Mailing Lists", 319 RFC 2919, March 2001. 321 [RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC 322 Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552, July 323 2003. 325 [RFC3869] Atkinson, R., Floyd, S., and Internet Architecture Board, 326 "IAB Concerns and Recommendations Regarding Internet 327 Research and Evolution", RFC 3869, August 2004. 329 [RFC4440] Floyd, S., Paxson, V., Falk, A., and IAB, "IAB Thoughts on 330 the Role of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)", RFC 331 4440, March 2006. 333 [RFC4924] Aboba, B. and E. Davies, "Reflections on Internet 334 Transparency", RFC 4924, July 2007. 336 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 337 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 338 May 2008. 340 [RFC5564] El-Sherbiny, A., Farah, M., Oueichek, I., and A. Al-Zoman, 341 "Linguistic Guidelines for the Use of the Arabic Language 342 in Internet Domains", RFC 5564, February 2010. 344 [RFC5890] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for 345 Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework", 346 RFC 5890, August 2010. 348 [RFC5891] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names in 349 Applications (IDNA): Protocol", RFC 5891, August 2010. 351 [RFC5892] Faltstrom, P., "The Unicode Code Points and 352 Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA)", 353 RFC 5892, August 2010. 355 [RFC5893] Alvestrand, H. and C. Karp, "Right-to-Left Scripts for 356 Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA)", 357 RFC 5893, August 2010. 359 [RFC6783] Levine, J. and R. Gellens, "Mailing Lists and Non-ASCII 360 Addresses", RFC 6783, November 2012. 362 [RFC6973] Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J., 363 Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy 364 Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973, July 365 2013. 367 [RFC7230] Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol 368 (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", RFC 7230, June 369 2014. 371 [RFC7231] Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol 372 (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231, June 2014. 374 [RFC7232] Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol 375 (HTTP/1.1): Conditional Requests", RFC 7232, June 2014. 377 [RFC7233] Fielding, R., Lafon, Y., and J. Reschke, "Hypertext 378 Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Range Requests", RFC 7233, 379 June 2014. 381 [RFC7234] Fielding, R., Nottingham, M., and J. Reschke, "Hypertext 382 Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching", RFC 7234, June 383 2014. 385 [RFC7235] Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol 386 (HTTP/1.1): Authentication", RFC 7235, June 2014. 388 [RFC7236] Reschke, J., "Initial Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) 389 Authentication Scheme Registrations", RFC 7236, June 2014. 391 [RFC7237] Reschke, J., "Initial Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) 392 Method Registrations", RFC 7237, June 2014. 394 [UDHR] General Assembly, UN., "Universal Declaration of Human 395 Rights", 1948, 396 . 398 [UNGA2013] 399 General Assembly, UN., "UN General Assembly Resolution 400 "The right to privacy in the digital age" (A/C.3/68/ 401 L.45)", 2013, 402 . 404 Appendix A. Additional Stuff 406 This is a place holder for an Appendix if it is needed. 408 Authors' Addresses 410 Avri Doria 411 dotgay LLC 412 Providence 413 USA 415 Email: avri@acm.org 417 Niels ten Oever 418 Article 19 419 Netherlands 421 Email: niels@article19.org 423 Joana Varon 424 Brazil 426 Email: joana@varonferraz.com