idnits 2.17.1 draft-irtf-hrpc-political-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 == Line 91 has weird spacing: '...enerate novel...' -- The document date (September 05, 2018) is 2059 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 805 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '2' on line 807 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '3' on line 809 == Unused Reference: 'RFC2804' is defined on line 733, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 196 (Obsoleted by RFC 221) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 542 (Obsoleted by RFC 765) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 6 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Human Rights Protocol Considerations Research Group N. ten Oever 3 Internet-Draft University of Amsterdam 4 Intended status: Informational A. Andersdotter 5 Expires: March 9, 2019 ARTICLE 19 6 September 05, 2018 8 Notes on networking standards and politics 9 draft-irtf-hrpc-political-00 11 Abstract 13 The IETF cannot ordain which standards or protocols are to be used on 14 network, but the standards developing process in the IETF has a 15 normative effect. Among other things the standardisation work at the 16 IETF has implications on what is perceived as technologically 17 possible and useful where networking technologies are being deployed, 18 and its standards output reflect was is considered by the technical 19 community as feasible and good practice. Because it mediates many 20 aspects of modern life, and therefore contributes to the ordering of 21 societies and communities, the consideration of the politics and 22 (potential) impact of protocols should be part of the standardization 23 and development process. 25 Status of This Memo 27 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 28 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 30 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 31 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 32 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 33 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 35 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 36 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 37 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 38 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 40 This Internet-Draft will expire on March 9, 2019. 42 Copyright Notice 44 Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 45 document authors. All rights reserved. 47 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 48 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 49 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 50 publication of this document. Please review these documents 51 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 52 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 53 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 54 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 55 described in the Simplified BSD License. 57 Table of Contents 59 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 60 2. Vocabulary Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 3. Research Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 4. Technology and Politics: a review of literature and community 63 positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 4.1. Technology is value neutral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 4.2. Some protocols are political some times . . . . . . . . . 5 66 4.3. All protocols are political sometimes . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 4.4. The network has its own logic and values . . . . . . . . 5 68 4.5. Protocols are inherently political . . . . . . . . . . . 6 69 5. IETF: Protocols as Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 70 5.1. Competition and collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 71 5.2. IETF standards setting externalities . . . . . . . . . . 9 72 5.2.1. Finance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 73 5.2.2. Interoperability and backward compatability . . . . . 9 74 5.2.3. Competition between layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 75 5.3. How voluntary are open standards? . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 76 6. The need for a positioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 77 7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 78 8. The way forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 79 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 80 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 81 11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 82 12. Research Group Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 83 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 84 13.1. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 85 13.2. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 86 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 88 1. Introduction 89 "Science and technology lie at the heart of social asymmetry. 90 Thus technology both creates systems which close off other 91 options and generate novel, unpredictable and indeed 92 previously unthinkable, option. The game of technology is 93 never finished, and its ramifications are endless." 95 - Michel Callon 97 "The Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither is the IETF." 99 -{{RFC3935}} 101 The design of the Internet through protocols and standards is a 102 technical issue with great political and economic impacts [RFC0613]. 103 The early Internet community already realized that it needed to make 104 decisions on political issues such as Intellectual Property, 105 Internationalization [BramanI], diversity, access [RFC0101] privacy 106 and security [RFC0049], and the military [RFC0164] [RFC0316], 107 governmental [RFC0144] [RFC0286] [RFC0313] [RFC0542] [RFC0549] and 108 non-governmental [RFC0196] uses, which has been clearly pointed out 109 by Braman [BramanII]. 111 Recently there has been an increased discussion on the relation 112 between Internet protocols and human rights [RFC8280] which spurred 113 the discussion on the the value neutrality and political nature of 114 standards. The network infrastructure is on the one hand designed, 115 described, developed, standardized and implemented by the Internet 116 community, but the Internet community and Internet users are also 117 shaped by the affordances of the technology. Companies, citizens, 118 governments, standards developing bodies, public opinion and public 119 interest groups all play a part in these discussions. In this 120 document we aim to outline different views on the relation between 121 standards and politics and seek to answer the question whether 122 standards are political, and if so, how. 124 2. Vocabulary Used 126 Politics (from Greek: Politika: Politika, definition "affairs of the 127 commons") is the process of making decisions applying to all 128 members of a diverse group with conflicting interests. More 129 narrowly, it refers to achieving and exercising positions of 130 governance or organized control over a community. Furthermore, 131 politics is the study or practice of the distribution of power and 132 resources within a given community as well as the 133 interrelationship(s) between communities. (adapted from 134 [HagueHarrop]) 136 Affordances The possibilities that are provided to an actors through 137 the ordering of an environment by a technology. 139 Protocols 'Protocols are rules governing communication between 140 devices or applications, and the creation or manipulation of any 141 logical or communicative artifacts concomitant with such 142 communication.' [Sisson] 144 Standards 'An Internet Standard is a specification that is stable 145 and well-understood, is technically competent, has multiple, 146 independent, and interoperable implementations with substantial 147 operational experience, enjoys significant public support, and is 148 recognizably useful in some or all parts of the Internet.' 149 [RFC2026] 151 3. Research Question 153 Are protocols political? If so, should the politics of protocols 154 need to be taken into account in their development process? 156 4. Technology and Politics: a review of literature and community 157 positions 159 In 1993 the Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility stated 160 that 'the Internet should meet public interest objectives', similarly 161 [RFC3935] states that 'The Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither 162 is the IETF.'. Ethics and the Internet was already a topic of an RFC 163 by the IAB in 1989 [RFC1097]. Nonetheless there has been a recent 164 uptick in discussions around the impact of Internet protocols on 165 human rights [RFC8280] in the IETF and more general about the impact 166 of technology on society in the public debate. 168 This document aims to provide an overview of the spectrum of 169 different positions that have been observed in the IETF and IRTF 170 community, during participatory observation, through 39 interviews 171 with members of the community, the Human Rights Protocol 172 Considerations Research Group mailinglist and during and after the 173 Technical Plenary on Protocols and Human Rights during IETF98. 174 Without judging them on their internal or external consistency they 175 are represented here, where possible we sought to engage with 176 academic literature on this topic. 178 4.1. Technology is value neutral 180 This position starts from the premise that the technical and 181 political are differentiated fields and that technology is 'value 182 free'. This is also put more explicitly by Carey: "electronics is 183 neither the arrival of apocalypse nor the dispensation of grace. 185 Technology is technology; it is a means for communication and 186 transportation over space, and nothing more." [Carey]. In this view 187 protocols only become political when it is actually being used by 188 humans. So the technology itself is not political, the use of the 189 technology is. This view sees technology as instrument; 190 "technologies are 'tools' standing ready to serve the purposes of 191 their users. Technology is deemed 'neutral,' without valuative 192 content of its own.'" [Feenberg]. Feenberg continues: "technology is 193 not inherently good or bad, and can be used to whatever political or 194 social ends desired by the person or institution in control. 195 Technology is a 'rational entity' and universally applicable. One 196 may make exceptions on moral grounds, but one must also understand 197 that the "price for the achievement of environmental, ethical, or 198 religious goals...is reduced efficiency." [Feenberg]. 200 4.2. Some protocols are political some times 202 This stance is a pragmatic approach to the problem. It states that 203 some protocols under certain conditions can themselves have a 204 political dimension. This is different from the claim that a 205 protocol might sometimes be used in a political way; that view is 206 consistent with the idea of the technology being neutral (for the 207 human action using the technology is where the politics lies). 208 Instead, this position requires that each protocol and use be 209 evaluated for its political dimension, in order to understand the 210 extent to which it is political. 212 4.3. All protocols are political sometimes 214 While not an absolutist standpoint it recognizes that all design 215 decisions are subject to the law of unintended consequences. The 216 system consisting of the Internet and its users is vastly too complex 217 to be predictable; it is chaotic in nature; its emergent properties 218 cannot be predicted. This concept strongly hinges on the general 219 purpose aspect of information technology and its malleability. 220 Whereas not all (potential) behaviours, affordances and impacts of 221 protocols can possible be predicted, one could at least consider the 222 impact of proposed implementations. 224 4.4. The network has its own logic and values 226 While humans create technologies, this does not mean that they are 227 forever under human control. A technology, once created, has its own 228 logic that is independent of the human actors that either create or 229 use the technology. 231 From this perspective, technologies can shape the world. As Martin 232 Heidegger says, "The hydroelectric plant is not built into the Rhine 233 River as was the old wooden bridge that joined bank with bank for 234 hundreds of years. Rather the river is dammed up into the power 235 plant. What the river is now, namely, a water power supplier, 236 derives from out of the essence of the power station." [Heidegger] 237 (p 16) The dam in the river changes the world in a way the bridge 238 does not, because the dam alters the nature of the river. 240 In the same way -in another and more recent example- the very 241 existence automobiles impose physical forms on the world different 242 from those that come from the electric tram or the horse-cart. The 243 logic of the automobile means speed and the rapid covering of 244 distance, which encourages suburban development and a tendency toward 245 conurbation. But even if that did not happen, widespread automobile 246 use requires paved roads, and parking lots and structures. These are 247 pressures that come from the automotive technology itself, and would 248 not arise without that technology. 250 In much same way, then, networking technology, such as protocols, 251 creates its own demands. One of the most important conditions for 252 protocol success is its incremental deployability [RFC5218]. This 253 means that the network already contains constraints on what can be 254 deployed into it. In this sense the network creates its own paths, 255 but also has its own objective. According to this view the goal of 256 the network is interconnection and connectivity; more connectivity is 257 good for the network. Proponents of this positions also often 258 describe the Internet as an organism with its own unique ecosystem. 260 In this position it is not necessarily clear where the 'social' ends 261 and the 'technical' begins, and it could be argued that the 262 distinction itself is a social construction [BijkerLaw] or that a 263 real-life distinction between the two is hard to be made [Bloor]. 265 4.5. Protocols are inherently political 267 This position argues the opposite of 'technological neutrality'. 268 This position can be illustrated with Postman where he writes: 'the 269 uses made of technology are largely determined by the structure of 270 the technology itself' [Postman]. He states that the medium itself 271 'contains an ideological bias'. He continues to argue that 272 technology is non-neutral: 274 (1) because of the symbolic forms in which information is encoded, 275 different media have different intellectual and emotional biases; (2) 276 because of the accessibility and speed of their information, 277 different media have different political biases; (3) because of their 278 physical form, different media have different sensory biases; (4) 279 because of the conditions in which we attend to them, different media 280 have different social biases; (5) because of their technical and 281 economic structure, different media have different content biases. 283 Recent scholars of Internet infrastructure and governance have also 284 pointed out that Internet processes and standards have become part 285 and parcel of political processes and public policies. Several 286 concrete examples are found within this approach, for instance, the 287 IANA transition or global innovation policy [DeNardis]. The Raven 288 process in which the IETF refused to standardize wiretapping -which 289 resulted in [RFC2804]- was an instance where an international 290 governance body took a position that was largely political, although 291 driven by a technical argument. The process that led to [RFC6973] is 292 similar: the Snowden disclosures which occured in the political 293 space, engendered the IETF to act. This is summarized in [Abbate] 294 who says: "protocols are politics by other means", emphasizing the 295 interests that are at play in the process of designing standards. 297 This position further holds that protocols can never be understood 298 without their contextual embeddedness: protocols do not exist solely 299 by themselves but always are to be understood in a more complex 300 context - the stack, hardware, or nation-state interests and their 301 impact on civil rights. Finally, this view is that that protocols 302 are political because they affect or sometimes effect the socio- 303 technical ordering of reality. The latter observation leads Winner 304 to conclude that the reality of technological progress has too often 305 been a scenario where the innovation has dictated change for society. 306 Those who had the power to introduce a new technology also had the 307 power to create a consumer class to use the technology 'with new 308 practices, relationships, and identities supplanting the old, --and 309 those who had the wherewithal to implement new technologies often 310 molded society to match the needs of emerging technologies and 311 organizations.' [Winner]. 313 5. IETF: Protocols as Standards 315 In the previous section we gave an overview of the different existing 316 positions of the impact of Internet protocols in the Internet 317 community. In the following section we will consider the standards 318 setting process and its consequences for the politics of protocols. 320 Standards enabling interoperating networks, what we think of today as 321 the Internet, were created as open, formal and voluntary standards. 322 A platform for internet standardisation, the Internet Engineering 323 Task Force (IETF), was created in 1986 to enable the continuation of 324 such standardisation work. The IETF has sought to make the standards 325 process transparent (by ensuring everyone can access standards, 326 mailing-lists and meetings), predictable (by having clear procedures 327 and reviews) and of high quality (by having draft documents reviewed 328 by members from its own epistemic community). This is all aimed at 329 increasing the accountability of the process and the quality of the 330 standard. 332 The IETF implements what has been referred to as an "informal ex ante 333 disclosure policy" for patents [Contreras], which includes the 334 possibility for participants to disclose the existence of a patent 335 relevant for the standard, royalty-terms which would apply to the 336 implementors of that standard should it enter into effect, as well as 337 other licensing terms that may be interesting for implementors to 338 know. The community ethos in the IETF seems to lead to 100% royalty- 339 free disclosures of prior patents which is a record number, even 340 among other comparable standard organisations [Contreras]. 342 5.1. Competition and collaboration 344 Standards exist for nearly everything: processes, technologies, 345 safety, hiring, elections, and training. Standards provide blue- 346 prints for how to accomplish a particular task in a similar way for 347 others that are trying to accomplish the same thing, while reducing 348 overhead and inefficiencies. Although there are different types and 349 configurations of standards, they all enhance competition by allowing 350 different entities to work from a commonly accepted baseline. 352 On the first types of standards than can be found are "informal" ones 353 -agreed upon normal ways of interacting within a specific community. 354 For example, the process through which greetings to a new 355 acquaintance are expressed through a bow, a handshake or a kiss. On 356 the other hand "formal" standards, are normally codified in writing. 357 The next subsection will --- 359 Within economy studies, _de facto_ standards arise in market 360 situations where one entity is particularly dominant; downstream 361 competitors are therefore tied to the dominant entity's technological 362 solutions [Ahlborn]. Under EU anti-trust law, de facto standards 363 have been found to restrict competition for downstream services in PC 364 software products [CJEU2007], as well as downstream services 365 dependent on health information [CJEU2004]. 367 Even in international law, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) uses 368 standards, although it recognises a difference between standards and 369 technical regulations. The former are voluntary formal codes to 370 which products or services may conform, while technical regulations 371 are mandatory requirements to be fullfilled for a product to be 372 accessible on one of the WTO country markets. These rules have 373 implications for how nation states bounded by the WTO agreements can 374 impose specific technical requirements on companies. Nonetheles, 375 there are many standardisation groups that were originally launched 376 by nation states or groups of nation states. ISO, BIS, CNIS, NIST, 377 ABNT and ETSI are examples of institutions that are, wholly or 378 partially, sponsored by public money in order to ensure smooth 379 development of formal standards. Even if under WTO rules these 380 organisations cannot create the equivalent of a technical regulation, 381 they have important normative functions in their respective 382 countries. No matter what form, all standards enhance competition 383 and collaboration because they define a common approach to a problem. 384 This potentially allows different instances to interoperate or be 385 evaluated according to the same indicators. 387 The development of formal standards faces a number of economic and 388 organisational challenges. Mainly, the cost and difficulty of 389 organising many entities around a mutual goal, as well as the cost of 390 research and development leading up to a mutually beneficial 391 technological platform. In addition, deciding what the mutual goal 392 is can also be a problem. These challenges may be described as 393 inter-organisational costs. Even after a goal is decided upon, 394 coordination of multiple entities requires time and money. One needs 395 communication platforms, processes and a commitment to mutual 396 investment in a higher good. They are not simple tasks, and the more 397 different communities are affected by a particular standardisation 398 process, the more difficult the organisational challenges become. 400 5.2. IETF standards setting externalities 402 In spite of a strong community ethos and transparent procedures, the 403 IETF is not immune to externalities. 405 5.2.1. Finance 407 Sponsorship to the IETF is varied, but is also of the nature that 408 ongoing projects that are in the specific interest of one or some 409 group of corporations may be given more funding than other projects 410 (see [draft-finance-thoughts]). The IETF has faced three periods of 411 decreased commitment from participants in funding its meetings in the 412 past ten years, leading, naturally, to self-scrutiny, see for 413 instance [IAOC69], [IAOC77], [IAOC99]. 415 5.2.2. Interoperability and backward compatability 417 The need for interoperability, and backward compatability makes 418 engineering work harder. And once a standard is designed, it does 419 not automatically mean it will be broadly adopted at a fast pace. 420 Examples of this are IPv6, DNSSEC, DKIM, etc. The need for 421 interoperability means that a new protocol needs to take into account 422 a much more diverse environment than early protocols, and also be 423 amendable to different needs: protocols needs to relate and negotiate 424 in a busy agora, as do the protocol developers. This means that some 425 might get priority, whereas others get dropped. 427 5.2.3. Competition between layers 429 There is a competition between layers, and even contestation about 430 what the borders of different layers are. This leads to competition 431 between layers and different solutions for similar problems on 432 different layers, which in its turn leads to further ossification, 433 which leads to more contestation. 435 5.3. How voluntary are open standards? 437 Coordinating transnational stakeholders in a process of negotiation 438 and agreement through the development of common rules is a form of 439 global governance [Nadvi]. Standards are among the mechanisms by 440 which this governance is achieved. Conformance to certain standards 441 is often a basic condition of participation in international trade 442 and communication, so there are strong economic and political 443 incentives to conform, even in the absence of legal requirements 444 [Russell]. [RogersEden] argue: 446 "As unequal participants compete to define standards, technological 447 compromises emerge, which add complexity to standards. For instance, 448 when working group participants propose competing solutions, it may 449 be easier for them to agree on a standard that combines all the 450 proposals rather than choosing any single proposal. This shifts the 451 responsibility for selecting a solution onto those who implement the 452 standard, which can lead to complex implementations that may not be 453 interoperable. On its face this appears to be a failure of the 454 standardization process, but this outcome may benefit certain 455 participants-- for example, by allowing an implementer with large 456 market share to establish a de facto standard within the scope of the 457 documented standard." 459 6. The need for a positioning 461 It is indisputable that the Internet plays an increasingly important 462 role in the lives of individuals. The community that produces 463 standards for the Internet therefore also has an impact on society, 464 which it itself has recognised in a number of previously adopted 465 documents [RFC1958]. 467 The IETF cannot ordain which standards are to be used on the 468 networks, and it specifically does not determine the laws of regions 469 or countries where networks are being used, but it does set open 470 standards for interoperability on the Internet, and has done so since 471 the inception of the Internet. Because a standard is the blue-print 472 for how to accomplish a particular task in a similar way to others, 473 the standards adopted have a normative effect. The standardisation 474 work at the IETF will have implications on what is perceived as 475 technologically possible and useful where networking technologies are 476 being deployed, and its standards output reflect was is considered by 477 the technical community as feasible and good practice. 479 This calls for providing a methodology in the IETF community to 480 evaluate which routes forward should indeed be feasible, what 481 constitutes the "good" in "good practice" and what trade-offs between 482 different feasible features of technologies are useful and should 483 therefore be made possible. Such an analysis should take societal 484 implication into account. 486 The risk of not doing this is threefold: (1) the IETF might make 487 decisions which have a political impact that was not intended by the 488 community, (2) other bodies or entities might make the decisions for 489 the IETF because the IETF does not have an explicit stance, (3) other 490 bodies that do take these issues into account might increase in 491 importance to the detriment of the influence of the IETF. 493 This does not mean the IETF does not have a position on particular 494 political issues. The policies for open and diverse participation 495 [RFC7704], the anti-harassment policy [RFC7776], as well as the 496 Guidelines for Privacy Considerations [RFC6973] are proof of this. 497 Nonetheless, these are all examples of positions about the IETF's 498 work processes or product. What is absent is a way for IETF 499 participants to evaluate their role with respect to the wider 500 implications of that IETF work. 502 7. Conclusion 504 Economics, competition, collaboration, openness, and political impact 505 have been an inherent part of the work of the IETF since its early 506 beginnings, by its nature as standards developing organization, 507 through the contributions of the members of the Internet community, 508 and because the ordering effect the Internet has on society. Whereas 509 there might not be agreement in the Internet community on what the 510 specific political nature is of technological development, it is 511 undisputed that standards and protocols are both product of a 512 political process, and they can also be used for political means. 513 Therefore protocols and standards are not value neutral. Whereas 514 there is no need for a unified philosophy of Internet protocols, it 515 is in the benefit of the IETF, the Internet and arguably society at 516 large to take this into account in the standards development process. 518 8. The way forward 520 There are instruments that can help the IETF develop an approach to 521 address the politics of standards. Part of this can be found in 522 [RFC8280] as well as the United National Guiding Principles for 523 Business and Human Rights [UNGP]. But there is not a one-size-fits- 524 all solution. The IETF is a particular organization, with a 525 particular mandate, and even if a policy is in place, its success 526 depends on the implementation of the policy by the community. 528 Since 'de facto standardization is reliant on market forces' 529 [Hanseth] we need to live with the fact standards bodies have a 530 political nature [Webster] and are not value neutral. This does not 531 need to be problematic as long as there are sufficient accountability 532 and transparency mechanisms in place. The importance of these 533 mechanisms increases with the importance of the standards and their 534 implementations. The complexity of the work inscribes a requirement 535 of competence in the work in the IETF, which forms an inherent 536 barrier for end-user involvement. Even though this might not be 537 intentional, it is a result of the interplay between the 538 characteristics of the epistemic community in the IETF and the nature 539 of the standard setting process. 541 Instead of splitting hairs about whether 'standards are political' 542 [Winner] [Woolgar] we argue that we need to look at the politics of 543 individual standards and invite document authors and reviewers to 544 take these dynamics into account. 546 9. Security Considerations 548 As this draft concerns a research document, there are no security 549 considerations as described in [RFC3552], which does not mean that 550 not addressing the issues brought up in this draft will not impact 551 the security of end-users or operators. 553 10. IANA Considerations 555 This document has no actions for IANA. 557 11. Acknowledgements 559 Thanks to Andrew Sullivan, Brian Carpenter, Mark Perkins and all 560 contributors and reviewers on the hrpc mailinglist. Special thanks 561 to Gisela Perez de Acha for some thorough editing rounds. 563 12. Research Group Information 565 The discussion list for the IRTF Human Rights Protocol Considerations 566 working group is located at the e-mail address hrpc@ietf.org [1]. 567 Information on the group and information on how to subscribe to the 568 list is at: https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc [2] 570 Archives of the list can be found at: https://www.irtf.org/mail- 571 archive/web/hrpc/current/index.html [3] 573 13. References 575 13.1. Informative References 577 [Abbate] Abbate, J., "Inventing the Internet", MIT Press , 2000, 578 . 580 [Ahlborn] Ahlborn, C., Denicolo, V., Geradin, D., and A. Padilla, 581 "Implications of the Proposed Framework and Antitrust 582 Rules for Dynamically Competitive Industries", DG Comp's 583 Discussion Paper on Article 82, DG COMP, European 584 Commission , 2006, 585 . 587 [BijkerLaw] 588 Bijker, W. and J. Law, "Shaping Technology/ Building 589 Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change", Cambridge, MA: 590 MIT Press , 1992. 592 [Bloor] Bloor, D., "Knowledge and Social Imagery", London: 593 Routeledge & Kegan Paul , 1976. 595 [BramanI] Braman, S., "Internationalization of the Internet by 596 design: The first decade", Global Media and Communication, 597 Vol 8, Issue 1, pp. 27 - 45 , 2012, . 600 [BramanII] 601 Braman, S., "The Framing Years: Policy Fundamentals in the 602 Internet Design Process, 1969-1979", The Information 603 Society Vol. 27, Issue 5, 2011 , 2010, . 606 [Carey] Carey, J., "Communication As Culture", p. 139 , 1992. 608 [CJEU2004] 609 Court of Justice of the European Union, ., 610 "ECLI:EU:C:2004:257, C-418/01 IMS Health", Cambridge, UK: 611 Cambridge University Press , 2004, 612 . 614 [CJEU2007] 615 Court of Justice of the European Union, ., 616 "ECLI:EU:T:2007:289, T-201/04 Microsoft Corp.", Cambridge, 617 UK: Cambridge University Press , 2007, 618 . 620 [Contreras] 621 Contreras, J., "Technical Standards and Ex Ante 622 Disclosure: Results and Analysis of an Empirical Study", 623 Jurimetrics: The Journal of Law, Science & Technology, 624 vol. 53, p. 163-211 , 2013. 626 [DeNardis] 627 Denardis, L., "The Internet Design Tension between 628 Surveillance and Security", IEEE Annals of the History of 629 Computing (volume 37-2) , 2015, . 631 [draft-finance-thoughts] 632 Arkko, J., "Thoughts on IETF Finance Arrangements", 2017, 633 . 636 [Feenberg] 637 Feenberg, A., "Critical Theory of Technology", p.5-6 , 638 1991. 640 [HagueHarrop] 641 Hague, R. and M. Harrop, "Comparative Government and 642 Politics: An Introduction", Macmillan International Higher 643 Education. pp. 1-. ISBN 978-1-137-31786-5. , 2013. 645 [Hanseth] Hanseth, O. and E. Monteiro, "Insribing Behaviour in 646 Information Infrastructure Standards", Accounting, 647 Management and Infomation Technology 7 (14) p.183-211 , 648 1997. 650 [Heidegger] 651 Heidegger, M., "The Question Concerning Technology and 652 Other Essays", Garland: New York, 1977 , 1977, 653 . 656 [IAOC69] IAOC, ., "IAOC Report Chicago", 2007, 657 . 660 [IAOC77] IAOC, ., "IAOC Report Anaheim", 2010, 661 . 664 [IAOC99] IAOC, ., "IAOC Report Prague", 2017, 665 . 668 [Nadvi] Nadvi, K. and F. Waeltring, "Making sense of global 669 standards", In: H. Schmitz (Ed.), Local enterprises in the 670 global economy (pp. 53-94). Cheltenham, UK: Edward 671 Elgar. , 2004. 673 [Postman] Postman, N., "Technopoly: the Surrender of Culture to 674 Technology", Vintage: New York. pp. 3-20. , 1992. 676 [RFC0049] Meyer, E., "Conversations with S. Crocker (UCLA)", RFC 49, 677 DOI 10.17487/RFC0049, April 1970, 678 . 680 [RFC0101] Watson, R., "Notes on the Network Working Group meeting, 681 Urbana, Illinois, February 17, 1971", RFC 101, 682 DOI 10.17487/RFC0101, February 1971, 683 . 685 [RFC0144] Shoshani, A., "Data sharing on computer networks", 686 RFC 144, DOI 10.17487/RFC0144, April 1971, 687 . 689 [RFC0164] Heafner, J., "Minutes of Network Working Group meeting, 690 5/16 through 5/19/71", RFC 164, DOI 10.17487/RFC0164, May 691 1971, . 693 [RFC0196] Watson, R., "Mail Box Protocol", RFC 196, 694 DOI 10.17487/RFC0196, July 1971, 695 . 697 [RFC0286] Forman, E., "Network Library Information System", RFC 286, 698 DOI 10.17487/RFC0286, December 1971, 699 . 701 [RFC0313] O'Sullivan, T., "Computer based instruction", RFC 313, 702 DOI 10.17487/RFC0313, March 1972, 703 . 705 [RFC0316] McKay, D. and A. Mullery, "ARPA Network Data Management 706 Working Group", RFC 316, DOI 10.17487/RFC0316, February 707 1972, . 709 [RFC0542] Neigus, N., "File Transfer Protocol", RFC 542, 710 DOI 10.17487/RFC0542, August 1973, 711 . 713 [RFC0549] Michener, J., "Minutes of Network Graphics Group meeting, 714 15-17 July 1973", RFC 549, DOI 10.17487/RFC0549, July 715 1973, . 717 [RFC0613] McKenzie, A., "Network connectivity: A response to RFC 718 603", RFC 613, DOI 10.17487/RFC0613, January 1974, 719 . 721 [RFC1097] Miller, B., "Telnet subliminal-message option", RFC 1097, 722 DOI 10.17487/RFC1097, April 1989, 723 . 725 [RFC1958] Carpenter, B., Ed., "Architectural Principles of the 726 Internet", RFC 1958, DOI 10.17487/RFC1958, June 1996, 727 . 729 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 730 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996, 731 . 733 [RFC2804] IAB and IESG, "IETF Policy on Wiretapping", RFC 2804, 734 DOI 10.17487/RFC2804, May 2000, 735 . 737 [RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC 738 Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552, 739 DOI 10.17487/RFC3552, July 2003, 740 . 742 [RFC3935] Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF", 743 BCP 95, RFC 3935, DOI 10.17487/RFC3935, October 2004, 744 . 746 [RFC5218] Thaler, D. and B. Aboba, "What Makes for a Successful 747 Protocol?", RFC 5218, DOI 10.17487/RFC5218, July 2008, 748 . 750 [RFC6973] Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J., 751 Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy 752 Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973, 753 DOI 10.17487/RFC6973, July 2013, 754 . 756 [RFC7704] Crocker, D. and N. Clark, "An IETF with Much Diversity and 757 Professional Conduct", RFC 7704, DOI 10.17487/RFC7704, 758 November 2015, . 760 [RFC7776] Resnick, P. and A. Farrel, "IETF Anti-Harassment 761 Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 7776, DOI 10.17487/RFC7776, March 762 2016, . 764 [RFC8280] ten Oever, N. and C. Cath, "Research into Human Rights 765 Protocol Considerations", RFC 8280, DOI 10.17487/RFC8280, 766 October 2017, . 768 [RogersEden] 769 Rogers, M. and G. Eden, "The Snowden Disclosures, 770 Technical Standards, and the Making of Surveillance 771 Infrastructures", International Journal of Communication 772 11(2017), 802-823 , 2017, 773 . 775 [Russell] Russell, A., "Open standards and the digital age: History, 776 ideology, and networks", Cambridge, UK: Cambridge 777 University Press , 2014. 779 [Sisson] Sisson, D., "Standards and Protocols", 2000, 780 . 782 [UNGP] Ruggie, J. and United Nations, "United Nations Guiding 783 Principles for Business and Human Rights", 2011, 784 . 787 [Webster] Webster, J., "Networks of Collaboration or Conflict? The 788 Development of EDI", The social shaping of inter- 789 organizational IT systems and data interchange, eds: I. 790 McLougling & D. Mason, European Commission PICT/COST A4 , 791 1995. 793 [Winner] Winner, L., "Upon openig the black box and finding it 794 empty: Social constructivism and the philosophy of 795 technology", Science, Technology, and Human Values 18 (3) 796 p. 362-378 , 1993. 798 [Woolgar] Woolgar, S., "Configuring the user: the case of usability 799 trials", A sociology of monsters. Essays on power, 800 technology and dominatior, ed: J. Law, Routeledge p. 801 57-102. , 1991. 803 13.2. URIs 805 [1] mailto:hrpc@ietf.org 807 [2] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc 809 [3] https://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/hrpc/current/index.html 811 Authors' Addresses 813 Niels ten Oever 814 University of Amsterdam 816 EMail: mail@nielstenoever.net 818 Amelia Andersdotter 819 ARTICLE 19 821 EMail: amelia@article19.org