idnits 2.17.1 draft-irtf-hrpc-political-01.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 93 has weird spacing: '...enerate novel...' -- The document date (February 27, 2019) is 1883 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 818 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '2' on line 820 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '3' on line 822 == Unused Reference: 'RFC2804' is defined on line 746, 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: August 31, 2019 ARTICLE 19 6 February 27, 2019 8 Notes on networking standards and politics 9 draft-irtf-hrpc-political-01 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. If the technical community refuses to take 24 up this responsibility, it should accept that others, such as 25 governments, will take up this role. 27 Status of This Memo 29 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 30 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 32 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 33 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 34 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 35 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 37 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 38 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 39 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 40 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 42 This Internet-Draft will expire on August 31, 2019. 44 Copyright Notice 46 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 47 document authors. All rights reserved. 49 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 50 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 51 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 52 publication of this document. Please review these documents 53 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 54 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 55 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 56 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 57 described in the Simplified BSD License. 59 Table of Contents 61 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 62 2. Vocabulary Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 63 3. Research Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 4. Technology and Politics: a review of literature and community 65 positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 4.1. Technology is value neutral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 4.2. Some protocols are political some times . . . . . . . . . 5 68 4.3. All protocols are political sometimes . . . . . . . . . . 5 69 4.4. The network has its own logic and values . . . . . . . . 5 70 4.5. Protocols are inherently political . . . . . . . . . . . 6 71 5. IETF: Protocols as Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 72 5.1. Competition and collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 73 5.2. IETF standards setting externalities . . . . . . . . . . 9 74 5.2.1. Finance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 75 5.2.2. Interoperability and backward compatability . . . . . 9 76 5.2.3. Competition between layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 77 5.3. How voluntary are open standards? . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 78 6. The need for a positioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 79 7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 80 8. The way forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 81 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 82 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 83 11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 84 12. Research Group Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 85 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 86 13.1. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 87 13.2. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 88 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 90 1. Introduction 91 "Science and technology lie at the heart of social asymmetry. 92 Thus technology both creates systems which close off other 93 options and generate novel, unpredictable and indeed 94 previously unthinkable, option. The game of technology is 95 never finished, and its ramifications are endless." 97 - Michel Callon 99 "The Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither is the IETF." 101 -{{RFC3935}} 103 The design of the Internet through protocols and standards is a 104 technical issue with great political and economic impacts [RFC0613]. 105 The early Internet community already realized that it needed to make 106 decisions on political issues such as Intellectual Property, 107 Internationalization [BramanI], diversity, access [RFC0101] privacy 108 and security [RFC0049], and the military [RFC0164] [RFC0316], 109 governmental [RFC0144] [RFC0286] [RFC0313] [RFC0542] [RFC0549] and 110 non-governmental [RFC0196] uses, which has been clearly pointed out 111 by Braman [BramanII]. 113 Recently there has been an increased discussion on the relation 114 between Internet protocols and human rights [RFC8280] which spurred 115 the discussion on the the value neutrality and political nature of 116 standards. The network infrastructure is on the one hand designed, 117 described, developed, standardized and implemented by the Internet 118 community, but the Internet community and Internet users are also 119 shaped by the affordances of the technology. Companies, citizens, 120 governments, standards developing bodies, public opinion and public 121 interest groups all play a part in these discussions. In this 122 document we aim to outline different views on the relation between 123 standards and politics and seek to answer the question whether 124 standards are political, and if so, how. 126 2. Vocabulary Used 128 Politics (from Greek: Politika: Politika, definition "affairs of the 129 commons") is the process of making decisions applying to all 130 members of a diverse group with conflicting interests. More 131 narrowly, it refers to achieving and exercising positions of 132 governance or organized control over a community. Furthermore, 133 politics is the study or practice of the distribution of power and 134 resources within a given community as well as the 135 interrelationship(s) between communities. (adapted from 136 [HagueHarrop]) 138 Affordances The possibilities that are provided to an actors through 139 the ordering of an environment by a technology. 141 Protocols 'Protocols are rules governing communication between 142 devices or applications, and the creation or manipulation of any 143 logical or communicative artifacts concomitant with such 144 communication.' [Sisson] 146 Standards 'An Internet Standard is a specification that is stable 147 and well-understood, is technically competent, has multiple, 148 independent, and interoperable implementations with substantial 149 operational experience, enjoys significant public support, and is 150 recognizably useful in some or all parts of the Internet.' 151 [RFC2026] 153 3. Research Question 155 Are protocols political? If so, should the politics of protocols 156 need to be taken into account in their development process? 158 4. Technology and Politics: a review of literature and community 159 positions 161 In 1993 the Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility stated 162 that 'the Internet should meet public interest objectives', similarly 163 [RFC3935] states that 'The Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither 164 is the IETF.'. Ethics and the Internet was already a topic of an RFC 165 by the IAB in 1989 [RFC1097]. Nonetheless there has been a recent 166 uptick in discussions around the impact of Internet protocols on 167 human rights [RFC8280] in the IETF and more general about the impact 168 of technology on society in the public debate. 170 This document aims to provide an overview of the spectrum of 171 different positions that have been observed in the IETF and IRTF 172 community, during participatory observation, through 39 interviews 173 with members of the community, the Human Rights Protocol 174 Considerations Research Group mailinglist and during and after the 175 Technical Plenary on Protocols and Human Rights during IETF98. 176 Without judging them on their internal or external consistency they 177 are represented here, where possible we sought to engage with 178 academic literature on this topic. 180 4.1. Technology is value neutral 182 This position starts from the premise that the technical and 183 political are differentiated fields and that technology is 'value 184 free'. This is also put more explicitly by Carey: "electronics is 185 neither the arrival of apocalypse nor the dispensation of grace. 187 Technology is technology; it is a means for communication and 188 transportation over space, and nothing more." [Carey]. In this view 189 protocols only become political when it is actually being used by 190 humans. So the technology itself is not political, the use of the 191 technology is. This view sees technology as instrument; 192 "technologies are 'tools' standing ready to serve the purposes of 193 their users. Technology is deemed 'neutral,' without valuative 194 content of its own.'" [Feenberg]. Feenberg continues: "technology is 195 not inherently good or bad, and can be used to whatever political or 196 social ends desired by the person or institution in control. 197 Technology is a 'rational entity' and universally applicable. One 198 may make exceptions on moral grounds, but one must also understand 199 that the "price for the achievement of environmental, ethical, or 200 religious goals...is reduced efficiency." [Feenberg]. 202 4.2. Some protocols are political some times 204 This stance is a pragmatic approach to the problem. It states that 205 some protocols under certain conditions can themselves have a 206 political dimension. This is different from the claim that a 207 protocol might sometimes be used in a political way; that view is 208 consistent with the idea of the technology being neutral (for the 209 human action using the technology is where the politics lies). 210 Instead, this position requires that each protocol and use be 211 evaluated for its political dimension, in order to understand the 212 extent to which it is political. 214 4.3. All protocols are political sometimes 216 While not an absolutist standpoint it recognizes that all design 217 decisions are subject to the law of unintended consequences. The 218 system consisting of the Internet and its users is vastly too complex 219 to be predictable; it is chaotic in nature; its emergent properties 220 cannot be predicted. This concept strongly hinges on the general 221 purpose aspect of information technology and its malleability. 222 Whereas not all (potential) behaviours, affordances and impacts of 223 protocols can possible be predicted, one could at least consider the 224 impact of proposed implementations. 226 4.4. The network has its own logic and values 228 While humans create technologies, this does not mean that they are 229 forever under human control. A technology, once created, has its own 230 logic that is independent of the human actors that either create or 231 use the technology. 233 From this perspective, technologies can shape the world. As Martin 234 Heidegger says, "The hydroelectric plant is not built into the Rhine 235 River as was the old wooden bridge that joined bank with bank for 236 hundreds of years. Rather the river is dammed up into the power 237 plant. What the river is now, namely, a water power supplier, 238 derives from out of the essence of the power station." [Heidegger] 239 (p 16) The dam in the river changes the world in a way the bridge 240 does not, because the dam alters the nature of the river. 242 In the same way -in another and more recent example- the very 243 existence automobiles impose physical forms on the world different 244 from those that come from the electric tram or the horse-cart. The 245 logic of the automobile means speed and the rapid covering of 246 distance, which encourages suburban development and a tendency toward 247 conurbation. But even if that did not happen, widespread automobile 248 use requires paved roads, and parking lots and structures. These are 249 pressures that come from the automotive technology itself, and would 250 not arise without that technology. 252 In much same way, then, networking technology, such as protocols, 253 creates its own demands. One of the most important conditions for 254 protocol success is its incremental deployability [RFC5218]. This 255 means that the network already contains constraints on what can be 256 deployed into it. In this sense the network creates its own paths, 257 but also has its own objective. According to this view the goal of 258 the network is interconnection and connectivity; more connectivity is 259 good for the network. Proponents of this positions also often 260 describe the Internet as an organism with its own unique ecosystem. 262 In this position it is not necessarily clear where the 'social' ends 263 and the 'technical' begins, and it could be argued that the 264 distinction itself is a social construction [BijkerLaw] or that a 265 real-life distinction between the two is hard to be made [Bloor]. 267 4.5. Protocols are inherently political 269 This position argues the opposite of 'technological neutrality'. 270 This position can be illustrated with Postman where he writes: 'the 271 uses made of technology are largely determined by the structure of 272 the technology itself' [Postman]. He states that the medium itself 273 'contains an ideological bias'. He continues to argue that 274 technology is non-neutral: 276 (1) because of the symbolic forms in which information is encoded, 277 different media have different intellectual and emotional biases; (2) 278 because of the accessibility and speed of their information, 279 different media have different political biases; (3) because of their 280 physical form, different media have different sensory biases; (4) 281 because of the conditions in which we attend to them, different media 282 have different social biases; (5) because of their technical and 283 economic structure, different media have different content biases. 285 Recent scholars of Internet infrastructure and governance have also 286 pointed out that Internet processes and standards have become part 287 and parcel of political processes and public policies. Several 288 concrete examples are found within this approach, for instance, the 289 IANA transition or global innovation policy [DeNardis]. The Raven 290 process in which the IETF refused to standardize wiretapping -which 291 resulted in [RFC2804]- was an instance where an international 292 governance body took a position that was largely political, although 293 driven by a technical argument. The process that led to [RFC6973] is 294 similar: the Snowden disclosures which occured in the political 295 space, engendered the IETF to act. This is summarized in [Abbate] 296 who says: "protocols are politics by other means", emphasizing the 297 interests that are at play in the process of designing standards. 299 This position further holds that protocols can never be understood 300 without their contextual embeddedness: protocols do not exist solely 301 by themselves but always are to be understood in a more complex 302 context - the stack, hardware, or nation-state interests and their 303 impact on civil rights. Finally, this view is that that protocols 304 are political because they affect or sometimes effect the socio- 305 technical ordering of reality. The latter observation leads Winner 306 to conclude that the reality of technological progress has too often 307 been a scenario where the innovation has dictated change for society. 308 Those who had the power to introduce a new technology also had the 309 power to create a consumer class to use the technology 'with new 310 practices, relationships, and identities supplanting the old, --and 311 those who had the wherewithal to implement new technologies often 312 molded society to match the needs of emerging technologies and 313 organizations.' [Winner]. 315 5. IETF: Protocols as Standards 317 In the previous section we gave an overview of the different existing 318 positions of the impact of Internet protocols in the Internet 319 community. In the following section we will consider the standards 320 setting process and its consequences for the politics of protocols. 322 Standards enabling interoperating networks, what we think of today as 323 the Internet, were created as open, formal and voluntary standards. 324 A platform for internet standardisation, the Internet Engineering 325 Task Force (IETF), was created in 1986 to enable the continuation of 326 such standardisation work. The IETF has sought to make the standards 327 process transparent (by ensuring everyone can access standards, 328 mailing-lists and meetings), predictable (by having clear procedures 329 and reviews) and of high quality (by having draft documents reviewed 330 by members from its own epistemic community). This is all aimed at 331 increasing the accountability of the process and the quality of the 332 standard. 334 The IETF implements what has been referred to as an "informal ex ante 335 disclosure policy" for patents [Contreras], which includes the 336 possibility for participants to disclose the existence of a patent 337 relevant for the standard, royalty-terms which would apply to the 338 implementors of that standard should it enter into effect, as well as 339 other licensing terms that may be interesting for implementors to 340 know. The community ethos in the IETF seems to lead to 100% royalty- 341 free disclosures of prior patents which is a record number, even 342 among other comparable standard organisations [Contreras]. In the 343 following paragraph we will describe inherent tensions in the 344 standards process. 346 5.1. Competition and collaboration 348 Standards exist for nearly everything: processes, technologies, 349 safety, hiring, elections, and training. Standards provide blue- 350 prints for how to accomplish a particular task in a similar way for 351 others that are trying to accomplish the same thing, while reducing 352 overhead and inefficiencies. Although there are different types and 353 configurations of standards, they all enhance competition by allowing 354 different entities to work from a commonly accepted baseline. 356 On the first types of standards than can be found are "informal" ones 357 -agreed upon normal ways of interacting within a specific community. 358 For example, the process through which greetings to a new 359 acquaintance are expressed through a bow, a handshake or a kiss. On 360 the other hand "formal" standards, are normally codified in writing. 361 The next subsection will --- 363 Within economy studies, _de facto_ standards arise in market 364 situations where one entity is particularly dominant; downstream 365 competitors are therefore tied to the dominant entity's technological 366 solutions [Ahlborn]. Under EU anti-trust law, de facto standards 367 have been found to restrict competition for downstream services in PC 368 software products [CJEU2007], as well as downstream services 369 dependent on health information [CJEU2004]. 371 Even in international law, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) uses 372 standards, although it recognises a difference between standards and 373 technical regulations. The former are voluntary formal codes to 374 which products or services may conform, while technical regulations 375 are mandatory requirements to be fullfilled for a product to be 376 accessible on one of the WTO country markets. These rules have 377 implications for how nation states bounded by the WTO agreements can 378 impose specific technical requirements on companies. Nonetheles, 379 there are many standardisation groups that were originally launched 380 by nation states or groups of nation states. ISO, BIS, CNIS, NIST, 381 ABNT and ETSI are examples of institutions that are, wholly or 382 partially, sponsored by public money in order to ensure smooth 383 development of formal standards. Even if under WTO rules these 384 organisations cannot create the equivalent of a technical regulation, 385 they have important normative functions in their respective 386 countries. No matter what form, all standards enhance competition 387 and collaboration because they define a common approach to a problem. 388 This potentially allows different instances to interoperate or be 389 evaluated according to the same indicators. 391 The development of formal standards faces a number of economic and 392 organisational challenges. Mainly, the cost and difficulty of 393 organising many entities around a mutual goal, as well as the cost of 394 research and development leading up to a mutually beneficial 395 technological platform. In addition, deciding what the mutual goal 396 is can also be a problem. These challenges may be described as 397 inter-organisational costs. Even after a goal is decided upon, 398 coordination of multiple entities requires time and money. One needs 399 communication platforms, processes and a commitment to mutual 400 investment in a higher good. They are not simple tasks, and the more 401 different communities are affected by a particular standardisation 402 process, the more difficult the organisational challenges become. 404 5.2. IETF standards setting externalities 406 In the specific case of the IETF there is a strong community ethos 407 and transparent procedures, which are documented in RFCs. 408 Nonetheless, the IETF is not immune to externalities. We will 409 describe several of these externalities underneath. 411 5.2.1. Finance 413 Sponsorship to the IETF is varied, but is also of the nature that 414 ongoing projects that are in the specific interest of one or some 415 group of corporations may be given more funding than other projects 416 (see [draft-finance-thoughts]). The IETF has faced three periods of 417 decreased commitment from participants in funding its meetings in the 418 past ten years, leading, naturally, to self-scrutiny, see for 419 instance [IAOC69], [IAOC77], [IAOC99]. 421 5.2.2. Interoperability and backward compatability 423 The need for interoperability, and backward compatability makes 424 engineering work harder. And once a standard is designed, it does 425 not automatically mean it will be broadly adopted at a fast pace. 427 Examples of this are IPv6, DNSSEC, DKIM, etc. The need for 428 interoperability means that a new protocol needs to take into account 429 a much more diverse environment than early protocols, and also be 430 amendable to different needs: protocols needs to relate and negotiate 431 in a busy agora, as do the protocol developers. This means that some 432 might get priority, whereas others get dropped. 434 5.2.3. Competition between layers 436 There is a competition between layers, and even contestation about 437 what the borders of different layers are. This leads to competition 438 between layers and different solutions for similar problems on 439 different layers, which in its turn leads to further ossification, 440 which leads to more contestation. 442 5.3. How voluntary are open standards? 444 Coordinating transnational stakeholders in a process of negotiation 445 and agreement through the development of common rules is a form of 446 global governance [Nadvi]. Standards are among the mechanisms by 447 which this governance is achieved. Conformance to certain standards 448 is often a basic condition of participation in international trade 449 and communication, so there are strong economic and political 450 incentives to conform, even in the absence of legal requirements 451 [Russell]. [RogersEden] argue: 453 "As unequal participants compete to define standards, technological 454 compromises emerge, which add complexity to standards. For instance, 455 when working group participants propose competing solutions, it may 456 be easier for them to agree on a standard that combines all the 457 proposals rather than choosing any single proposal. This shifts the 458 responsibility for selecting a solution onto those who implement the 459 standard, which can lead to complex implementations that may not be 460 interoperable. On its face this appears to be a failure of the 461 standardization process, but this outcome may benefit certain 462 participants-- for example, by allowing an implementer with large 463 market share to establish a de facto standard within the scope of the 464 documented standard." 466 6. The need for a positioning 468 It is indisputable that the Internet plays an increasingly important 469 role in the lives of individuals. The community that produces 470 standards for the Internet therefore also has an impact on society, 471 which it itself has recognised in a number of previously adopted 472 documents [RFC1958]. 474 The IETF cannot ordain which standards are to be used on the 475 networks, and it specifically does not determine the laws of regions 476 or countries where networks are being used, but it does set open 477 standards for interoperability on the Internet, and has done so since 478 the inception of the Internet. Because a standard is the blue-print 479 for how to accomplish a particular task in a similar way to others, 480 the standards adopted have a normative effect. The standardisation 481 work at the IETF will have implications on what is perceived as 482 technologically possible and useful where networking technologies are 483 being deployed, and its standards output reflect was is considered by 484 the technical community as feasible and good practice. 486 This calls for providing a methodology in the IETF community to 487 evaluate which routes forward should indeed be feasible, what 488 constitutes the "good" in "good practice" and what trade-offs between 489 different feasible features of technologies are useful and should 490 therefore be made possible. Such an analysis should take societal 491 implication into account. 493 The risk of not doing this is threefold: (1) the IETF might make 494 decisions which have a political impact that was not intended by the 495 community, (2) other bodies or entities might make the decisions for 496 the IETF because the IETF does not have an explicit stance, (3) other 497 bodies that do take these issues into account might increase in 498 importance to the detriment of the influence of the IETF. 500 This does not mean the IETF does not have a position on particular 501 political issues. The policies for open and diverse participation 502 [RFC7704], the anti-harassment policy [RFC7776], as well as the 503 Guidelines for Privacy Considerations [RFC6973] are proof of this. 504 Nonetheless, these are all examples of positions about the IETF's 505 work processes or product. What is absent is a way for IETF 506 participants to evaluate their role with respect to the wider 507 implications of that IETF work. 509 7. Conclusion 511 Economics, competition, collaboration, openness, and political impact 512 have been an inherent part of the work of the IETF since its early 513 beginnings, by its nature as standards developing organization, 514 through the contributions of the members of the Internet community, 515 and because the ordering effect the Internet has on society. Whereas 516 there might not be agreement in the Internet community on what the 517 specific political nature is of technological development, it is 518 undisputed that standards and protocols are both product of a 519 political process, and they can also be used for political means. 520 Therefore protocols and standards are not value neutral. Whereas 521 there is no need for a unified philosophy of Internet protocols, it 522 is in the benefit of the IETF, the Internet and arguably society at 523 large to take this into account in the standards development process. 524 It can be expected that if the IETF will not take these issues into 525 account, this might lead to interventions in the form of policies and 526 regulations for instance through governmental or intergovernmental 527 bodies, which could hamper the work of the IETF. 529 8. The way forward 531 There are instruments that can help the IETF develop an approach to 532 address the politics of standards. Part of this can be found in 533 [RFC8280] as well as the United National Guiding Principles for 534 Business and Human Rights [UNGP]. But there is not a one-size-fits- 535 all solution. The IETF is a particular organization, with a 536 particular mandate, and even if a policy is in place, its success 537 depends on the implementation of the policy by the community. 539 Since 'de facto standardization is reliant on market forces' 540 [Hanseth] we need to live with the fact standards bodies have a 541 political nature [Webster] and are not value neutral. This does not 542 need to be problematic as long as there are sufficient accountability 543 and transparency mechanisms in place. The importance of these 544 mechanisms increases with the importance of the standards and their 545 implementations. The complexity of the work inscribes a requirement 546 of competence in the work in the IETF, which forms an inherent 547 barrier for end-user involvement. Even though this might not be 548 intentional, it is a result of the interplay between the 549 characteristics of the epistemic community in the IETF and the nature 550 of the standard setting process. 552 Instead of splitting hairs about whether 'standards are political' 553 [Winner] [Woolgar] we argue that we need to look at the politics of 554 individual standards and invite document authors and reviewers to 555 take these dynamics into account. If the Internet community fails to 556 do so, this could undermine the current regime of Internet governance 557 and standard setting. 559 9. Security Considerations 561 As this draft concerns a research document, there are no security 562 considerations as described in [RFC3552], which does not mean that 563 not addressing the issues brought up in this draft will not impact 564 the security of end-users or operators. 566 10. IANA Considerations 568 This document has no actions for IANA. 570 11. Acknowledgements 572 Thanks to Andrew Sullivan, Brian Carpenter, Mark Perkins and all 573 contributors and reviewers on the hrpc mailinglist. Special thanks 574 to Gisela Perez de Acha for some thorough editing rounds. 576 12. Research Group Information 578 The discussion list for the IRTF Human Rights Protocol Considerations 579 working group is located at the e-mail address hrpc@ietf.org [1]. 580 Information on the group and information on how to subscribe to the 581 list is at: https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc [2] 583 Archives of the list can be found at: https://www.irtf.org/mail- 584 archive/web/hrpc/current/index.html [3] 586 13. References 588 13.1. Informative References 590 [Abbate] Abbate, J., "Inventing the Internet", MIT Press , 2000, 591 . 593 [Ahlborn] Ahlborn, C., Denicolo, V., Geradin, D., and A. Padilla, 594 "Implications of the Proposed Framework and Antitrust 595 Rules for Dynamically Competitive Industries", DG Comp's 596 Discussion Paper on Article 82, DG COMP, European 597 Commission , 2006, 598 . 600 [BijkerLaw] 601 Bijker, W. and J. Law, "Shaping Technology/ Building 602 Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change", Cambridge, MA: 603 MIT Press , 1992. 605 [Bloor] Bloor, D., "Knowledge and Social Imagery", London: 606 Routeledge & Kegan Paul , 1976. 608 [BramanI] Braman, S., "Internationalization of the Internet by 609 design: The first decade", Global Media and Communication, 610 Vol 8, Issue 1, pp. 27 - 45 , 2012, . 613 [BramanII] 614 Braman, S., "The Framing Years: Policy Fundamentals in the 615 Internet Design Process, 1969-1979", The Information 616 Society Vol. 27, Issue 5, 2011 , 2010, . 619 [Carey] Carey, J., "Communication As Culture", p. 139 , 1992. 621 [CJEU2004] 622 Court of Justice of the European Union, ., 623 "ECLI:EU:C:2004:257, C-418/01 IMS Health", Cambridge, UK: 624 Cambridge University Press , 2004, 625 . 627 [CJEU2007] 628 Court of Justice of the European Union, ., 629 "ECLI:EU:T:2007:289, T-201/04 Microsoft Corp.", Cambridge, 630 UK: Cambridge University Press , 2007, 631 . 633 [Contreras] 634 Contreras, J., "Technical Standards and Ex Ante 635 Disclosure: Results and Analysis of an Empirical Study", 636 Jurimetrics: The Journal of Law, Science & Technology, 637 vol. 53, p. 163-211 , 2013. 639 [DeNardis] 640 Denardis, L., "The Internet Design Tension between 641 Surveillance and Security", IEEE Annals of the History of 642 Computing (volume 37-2) , 2015, . 644 [draft-finance-thoughts] 645 Arkko, J., "Thoughts on IETF Finance Arrangements", 2017, 646 . 649 [Feenberg] 650 Feenberg, A., "Critical Theory of Technology", p.5-6 , 651 1991. 653 [HagueHarrop] 654 Hague, R. and M. Harrop, "Comparative Government and 655 Politics: An Introduction", Macmillan International Higher 656 Education. pp. 1-. ISBN 978-1-137-31786-5. , 2013. 658 [Hanseth] Hanseth, O. and E. Monteiro, "Insribing Behaviour in 659 Information Infrastructure Standards", Accounting, 660 Management and Infomation Technology 7 (14) p.183-211 , 661 1997. 663 [Heidegger] 664 Heidegger, M., "The Question Concerning Technology and 665 Other Essays", Garland: New York, 1977 , 1977, 666 . 669 [IAOC69] IAOC, ., "IAOC Report Chicago", 2007, 670 . 673 [IAOC77] IAOC, ., "IAOC Report Anaheim", 2010, 674 . 677 [IAOC99] IAOC, ., "IAOC Report Prague", 2017, 678 . 681 [Nadvi] Nadvi, K. and F. Waeltring, "Making sense of global 682 standards", In: H. Schmitz (Ed.), Local enterprises in the 683 global economy (pp. 53-94). Cheltenham, UK: Edward 684 Elgar. , 2004. 686 [Postman] Postman, N., "Technopoly: the Surrender of Culture to 687 Technology", Vintage: New York. pp. 3-20. , 1992. 689 [RFC0049] Meyer, E., "Conversations with S. Crocker (UCLA)", RFC 49, 690 DOI 10.17487/RFC0049, April 1970, 691 . 693 [RFC0101] Watson, R., "Notes on the Network Working Group meeting, 694 Urbana, Illinois, February 17, 1971", RFC 101, 695 DOI 10.17487/RFC0101, February 1971, 696 . 698 [RFC0144] Shoshani, A., "Data sharing on computer networks", 699 RFC 144, DOI 10.17487/RFC0144, April 1971, 700 . 702 [RFC0164] Heafner, J., "Minutes of Network Working Group meeting, 703 5/16 through 5/19/71", RFC 164, DOI 10.17487/RFC0164, May 704 1971, . 706 [RFC0196] Watson, R., "Mail Box Protocol", RFC 196, 707 DOI 10.17487/RFC0196, July 1971, 708 . 710 [RFC0286] Forman, E., "Network Library Information System", RFC 286, 711 DOI 10.17487/RFC0286, December 1971, 712 . 714 [RFC0313] O'Sullivan, T., "Computer based instruction", RFC 313, 715 DOI 10.17487/RFC0313, March 1972, 716 . 718 [RFC0316] McKay, D. and A. Mullery, "ARPA Network Data Management 719 Working Group", RFC 316, DOI 10.17487/RFC0316, February 720 1972, . 722 [RFC0542] Neigus, N., "File Transfer Protocol", RFC 542, 723 DOI 10.17487/RFC0542, August 1973, 724 . 726 [RFC0549] Michener, J., "Minutes of Network Graphics Group meeting, 727 15-17 July 1973", RFC 549, DOI 10.17487/RFC0549, July 728 1973, . 730 [RFC0613] McKenzie, A., "Network connectivity: A response to RFC 731 603", RFC 613, DOI 10.17487/RFC0613, January 1974, 732 . 734 [RFC1097] Miller, B., "Telnet subliminal-message option", RFC 1097, 735 DOI 10.17487/RFC1097, April 1989, 736 . 738 [RFC1958] Carpenter, B., Ed., "Architectural Principles of the 739 Internet", RFC 1958, DOI 10.17487/RFC1958, June 1996, 740 . 742 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 743 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996, 744 . 746 [RFC2804] IAB and IESG, "IETF Policy on Wiretapping", RFC 2804, 747 DOI 10.17487/RFC2804, May 2000, 748 . 750 [RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC 751 Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552, 752 DOI 10.17487/RFC3552, July 2003, 753 . 755 [RFC3935] Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF", 756 BCP 95, RFC 3935, DOI 10.17487/RFC3935, October 2004, 757 . 759 [RFC5218] Thaler, D. and B. Aboba, "What Makes for a Successful 760 Protocol?", RFC 5218, DOI 10.17487/RFC5218, July 2008, 761 . 763 [RFC6973] Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J., 764 Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy 765 Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973, 766 DOI 10.17487/RFC6973, July 2013, 767 . 769 [RFC7704] Crocker, D. and N. Clark, "An IETF with Much Diversity and 770 Professional Conduct", RFC 7704, DOI 10.17487/RFC7704, 771 November 2015, . 773 [RFC7776] Resnick, P. and A. Farrel, "IETF Anti-Harassment 774 Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 7776, DOI 10.17487/RFC7776, March 775 2016, . 777 [RFC8280] ten Oever, N. and C. Cath, "Research into Human Rights 778 Protocol Considerations", RFC 8280, DOI 10.17487/RFC8280, 779 October 2017, . 781 [RogersEden] 782 Rogers, M. and G. Eden, "The Snowden Disclosures, 783 Technical Standards, and the Making of Surveillance 784 Infrastructures", International Journal of Communication 785 11(2017), 802-823 , 2017, 786 . 788 [Russell] Russell, A., "Open standards and the digital age: History, 789 ideology, and networks", Cambridge, UK: Cambridge 790 University Press , 2014. 792 [Sisson] Sisson, D., "Standards and Protocols", 2000, 793 . 795 [UNGP] Ruggie, J. and United Nations, "United Nations Guiding 796 Principles for Business and Human Rights", 2011, 797 . 800 [Webster] Webster, J., "Networks of Collaboration or Conflict? The 801 Development of EDI", The social shaping of inter- 802 organizational IT systems and data interchange, eds: I. 803 McLougling & D. Mason, European Commission PICT/COST A4 , 804 1995. 806 [Winner] Winner, L., "Upon openig the black box and finding it 807 empty: Social constructivism and the philosophy of 808 technology", Science, Technology, and Human Values 18 (3) 809 p. 362-378 , 1993. 811 [Woolgar] Woolgar, S., "Configuring the user: the case of usability 812 trials", A sociology of monsters. Essays on power, 813 technology and dominatior, ed: J. Law, Routeledge p. 814 57-102. , 1991. 816 13.2. URIs 818 [1] mailto:hrpc@ietf.org 820 [2] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc 822 [3] https://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/hrpc/current/index.html 824 Authors' Addresses 826 Niels ten Oever 827 University of Amsterdam 829 EMail: mail@nielstenoever.net 831 Amelia Andersdotter 832 ARTICLE 19 834 EMail: amelia@article19.org