idnits 2.17.1 draft-tenoever-hrpc-political-05.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 (June 18, 2018) is 2136 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 798 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '2' on line 800 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '3' on line 802 == Unused Reference: 'RFC2804' is defined on line 726, 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: December 20, 2018 ARTICLE 19 6 June 18, 2018 8 On the Politics of Standards 9 draft-tenoever-hrpc-political-05 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 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 December 20, 2018. 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 literature review . . . . . . . . 4 63 4.1. Technology is value neutral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 4.2. Some protocols are political some times . . . . . . . . . 5 65 4.3. All protocols are political sometimes . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 4.4. The network has its own logic and values . . . . . . . . 5 67 4.5. Protocols are inherently political . . . . . . . . . . . 6 68 5. IETF: Protocols as Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 69 5.1. Competition and collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 70 5.2. IETF standards setting externalities . . . . . . . . . . 9 71 5.2.1. Finance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 72 5.2.2. Interoperability and backward compatability . . . . . 9 73 5.2.3. Competition between layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 74 5.3. How voluntary are open standards? . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 75 6. The need for a positioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 76 7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 77 8. The way forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 78 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 79 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 80 11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 81 12. Research Group Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 82 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 83 13.1. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 84 13.2. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 85 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 87 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 design of the Internet through protocols and standards is a 98 technical issue with great political and economic impacts [RFC0613]. 99 The early Internet community already realized that it needed to make 100 decisions on political issues such as Intellectual Property, 101 Internationalization [BramanI], diversity, access [RFC0101] privacy 102 and security [RFC0049], and the military [RFC0164] [RFC0316], 103 governmental [RFC0144] [RFC0286] [RFC0313] [RFC0542] [RFC0549] and 104 non-governmental [RFC0196] uses, which has been clearly pointed out 105 by Braman [BramanII]. 107 Recently there has been an increased discussion on the relation 108 between Internet protocols and human rights [RFC8280] which spurred 109 the discussion on the political nature of standards. The network 110 infrastructure is on the one hand designed, described, developed, 111 standardized and implemented by the Internet community, but the 112 Internet community and Internet users are also shaped by the 113 affordances of the technology. Companies, citizens, governments, 114 standards developing bodies, public opinion and public interest 115 groups all play a part in these discussions. In this document we aim 116 to outline different views on the relation between standards and 117 politics and seek to answer the question whether standards are 118 political, and if so, how. 120 2. Vocabulary Used 122 Politics (from Greek: Politika: Politika, definition "affairs of the 123 commons") is the process of making decisions applying to all 124 members of a diverse group with conflicting interests. More 125 narrowly, it refers to achieving and exercising positions of 126 governance or organized control over a community. Furthermore, 127 politics is the study or practice of the distribution of power and 128 resources within a given community as well as the 129 interrelationship(s) between communities. (adapted from 130 [HagueHarrop]) 132 Affordances The possibilities that are provided to an actors through 133 the ordering of an environment by a technology. 135 Protocols 'Protocols are rules governing communication between 136 devices or applications, and the creation or manipulation of any 137 logical or communicative artifacts concomitant with such 138 communication.' [Sisson] 140 Standards 'An Internet Standard is a specification that is stable 141 and well-understood, is technically competent, has multiple, 142 independent, and interoperable implementations with substantial 143 operational experience, enjoys significant public support, and is 144 recognizably useful in some or all parts of the Internet.' 145 [RFC2026] 147 3. Research Question 149 Are protocols political? If so, should the politics of protocols 150 need to be taken into account in their development process? 152 4. Technology and Politics: a literature review 154 In 1993 the Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility stated 155 that 'the Internet should meet public interest objectives', similarly 156 [RFC3935] states that 'The Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither 157 is the IETF.'. Ethics and the Internet was already a topic of an RFC 158 by the IAB in 1989 [RFC1097]. Nonetheless there has been a recent 159 uptick in discussions around the impact of Internet protocols on 160 human rights [RFC8280] in the IETF and more general about the impact 161 of technology on society in the public debate. 163 This document aims to provide an overview of the spectrum of 164 different positions that have been observed in the IETF and IRTF 165 community, during participatory observation, through 39 interviews 166 with members of the community, the Human Rights Protocol 167 Considerations Research Group mailinglist and during and after the 168 Technical Plenary on Protocols and Human Rights during IETF98. 169 Without judging them on their internal of external consistency they 170 are represented here, where possible we sought to engage with 171 academic literature on this topic. 173 4.1. Technology is value neutral 175 This position starts from the premise that the technical and 176 political are differentiated fields and that technology is 'value 177 free'. This is also put more explicitly by Carey: "electronics is 178 neither the arrival of apocalypse nor the dispensation of grace. 179 Technology is technology; it is a means for communication and 180 transportation over space, and nothing more." [Carey]. In this view 181 protocols only become political when it is actually being used by 182 humans. So the technology itself is not political, the use of the 183 technology is. This view sees technology as instrument; 184 "technologies are 'tools' standing ready to serve the purposes of 185 their users. Technology is deemed 'neutral,' without valuative 186 content of its own.'" [Feenberg]. Feenberg continues: "technology is 187 not inherently good or bad, and can be used to whatever political or 188 social ends desired by the person or institution in control. 189 Technology is a 'rational entity' and universally applicable. One 190 may make exceptions on moral grounds, but one must also understand 191 that the "price for the achievement of environmental, ethical, or 192 religious goals...is reduced efficiency." [Feenberg]. 194 4.2. Some protocols are political some times 196 This stance is a pragmatic approach to the problem. It states that 197 some protocols under certain conditions can themselves have a 198 political dimension. This is different from the claim that a 199 protocol might sometimes be used in a political way; that view is 200 consistent with the idea of the technology being neutral (for the 201 human action using the technology is where the politics lies). 202 Instead, this position requires that each protocol and use be 203 evaluated for its political dimension, in order to understand the 204 extent to which it is political. 206 4.3. All protocols are political sometimes 208 While not an absolutist standpoint it recognizes that all design 209 decisions are subject to the law of unintended consequences. The 210 system consisting of the Internet and its users is vastly too complex 211 to be predictable; it is chaotic in nature; its emergent properties 212 cannot be predicted. This concept strongly hinges on the general 213 purpose aspect of information technology and its malleability. 214 Whereas not all (potential) behaviours, affordances and impacts of 215 protocols can possible be predicted, on could at least consider the 216 impact of proposed implementations. 218 4.4. The network has its own logic and values 220 While humans create technologies, this does not mean that they are 221 forever under human control. A technology, once created, has its own 222 logic that is independent of the human actors that either create or 223 use the technology. 225 From this perspective, technologies can shape the world. As Martin 226 Heidegger says, "The hydroelectric plant is not built into the Rhine 227 River as was the old wooden bridge that joined bank with bank for 228 hundreds of years. Rather the river is dammed up into the power 229 plant. What the river is now, namely, a water power supplier, 230 derives from out of the essence of the power station." [Heidegger] 231 (p 16) The dam in the river changes the world in a way the bridge 232 does not, because the dam alters the nature of the river. 234 In the same way -in another and more recent example- the very 235 existence automobiles impose physical forms on the world different 236 from those that come from the electric tram or the horse-cart. The 237 logic of the automobile means speed and the rapid covering of 238 distance, which encourages suburban development and a tendency toward 239 conurbation. But even if that did not happen, widespread automobile 240 use requires paved roads, and parking lots and structures. These are 241 pressures that come from the automotive technology itself, and would 242 not arise without that technology. 244 In much same way, then, networking technology, such as protocols, 245 creates its own demands. One of the most important conditions for 246 protocol success is its incremental deployability [RFC5218]. This 247 means that the network already contains constrains on what can be 248 deployed into it. In this sense the network creates its own paths, 249 but also has its own objective. According to this view the goal of 250 the network is interconnection and connectivity; more connectivity is 251 good for the network. Proponents of this positions also often 252 describe the Internet as an organism with its own unique ecosystem. 254 In this position it is not necessarily clear where the 'social' ends 255 and the 'technical' begins, and it could be argued that the 256 distinction itself is a social construction [BijkerLaw] or that a 257 real-life distinction between the two is hard to be made [Bloor]. 259 4.5. Protocols are inherently political 261 This position argues the opposite of 'technological neutrality'. 262 This position can be illustrated with Postman where he writes: 'the 263 uses made of technology are largely determined by the structure of 264 the technology itself' [Postman]. He states that the medium itself 265 'contains an ideological bias'. He continues to argue that 266 technology is non-neutral: 268 (1) because of the symbolic forms in which information is encoded, 269 different media have different intellectual and emotional biases; (2) 270 because of the accessibility and speed of their information, 271 different media have different political biases; (3) because of their 272 physical form, different media have different sensory biases; (4) 273 because of the conditions in which we attend to them, different media 274 have different social biases; (5) because of their technical and 275 economic structure, different media have different content biases. 277 Recent scholars of Internet infrastructure and governance have also 278 pointed out that Internet processes and standards have become part 279 and parcel of political processes and public policies. Several 280 concrete examples are found within this approach, for instance, the 281 IANA transition or global innovation policy [DeNardis]. The Raven 282 process in which the IETF refused to standardize wiretapping -which 283 resulted in [RFC2804]- was an instance where an international 284 governance body took a position that was largely political, although 285 driven by a technical argument. The process that led to [RFC6973] is 286 similar: the Snowden disclosures which occured in the political 287 space, engendered the IETF to act. This is summarized in [Abbate] 288 who says: "protocols are politics by other means", emphasizing the 289 interests that are at play in the process of designing standards. 291 This position further holds that protocols can never be understood 292 without their contextual embeddedness: protocols do not exist solely 293 by themselves but always are to be understood in a more complex 294 context - the stack, hardware, or nation-state interests and their 295 impact on civil rights. Finally, this view is that that protocols 296 are political because they affect or sometimes effect the socio- 297 technical ordering of reality. The latter observation leads Winner 298 to conclude that the reality of technological progress has too often 299 been a scenario where the innovation has dictated change for society. 300 Those who had the power to introduce a new technology also had the 301 power to create a consumer class to use the technology 'with new 302 practices, relationships, and identities supplanting the old, --and 303 those who had the wherewithal to implement new technologies often 304 molded society to match the needs of emerging technologies and 305 organizations.' [Winner]. 307 5. IETF: Protocols as Standards 309 In the previous section we gave an overview of the different existing 310 positions of the impact of Internet protocols in the Internet 311 community. In the following section we will consider the standards 312 setting process and its consequences for the politics of protocols. 314 Standards enabling interoperating networks, what we think of today as 315 the Internet, were created as open, formal and voluntary standards. 316 A platform for internet standardisation, the Internet Engineering 317 Task Force (IETF), was created in 1992 to enable the continuation of 318 such standardisation work. The IETF has sought to make the standards 319 process transparent (by ensuring everyone can access standards, 320 mailing-lists and meetings), predictable (by having clear procedures 321 and reviews) and of high quality (by having draft documents reviewed 322 by members from its own epistemic community). This is all aimed at 323 increasing the accountability of the process and the quality of the 324 standard. 326 The IETF implements what has been referred to as an "informal ex ante 327 disclosure policy" for patents [Contreras], which includes the 328 possibility for participants to disclose the existence of a patent 329 relevant for the standard, royalty-terms which would apply to the 330 implementors of that standard should it enter into effect, as well as 331 other licensing terms that may be interesting for implementors to 332 know. The community ethos in the IETF seems to lead to 100% royalty- 333 free disclosures of prior patents which is a record number, even 334 among other comparable standard organisations [Contreras]. 336 5.1. Competition and collaboration 338 Standards exist for nearly everything: processes, technologies, 339 safety, hiring, elections, and training. Standards provide blue- 340 prints for how to accomplish a particular task in a similar way for 341 others that are trying to accomplish the same thing, while reducing 342 overhead and inefficiencies. Although there are different types and 343 configurations of standards, they all enhance competition by allowing 344 different entities to work from a commonly accepted baseline. 346 On the first types of standards than can be found are "informal" ones 347 -agreed upon normal ways of interacting within a specific community. 348 For example, the process through which greetings to a new 349 acquaintance are expressed through a bow, a handshake or a kiss. On 350 the other hand "formal" standards, are normally codified in writing. 351 The next subsection will --- 353 Within economy studies, _de facto_ standards arise in market 354 situations where one entity is particularly dominant; downstream 355 competitors are therefore tied to the dominant entity's technological 356 solutions [Ahlborn]. Under EU anti-trust law, de facto standards 357 have been found to restrict competition for downstream services in PC 358 software products [CJEU2007], as well as downstream services 359 dependent on health information [CJEU2004]. 361 Even in international law, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) uses 362 standards, although it recognises a difference between standards and 363 technical regulations. The former are voluntary formal codes to 364 which products or services may conform, while technical regulations 365 are mandatory requirements to be fullfilled for a product to be 366 accessible on one of the WTO country markets. These rules have 367 implications for how nation states bounded by the WTO agreements can 368 impose specific technical requirements on companies. Nonetheles, 369 there are many standardisation groups that were originally launched 370 by nation states or groups of nation states. ISO, BIS, CNIS, NIST, 371 ABNT and ETSI are examples of institutions that are, wholly or 372 partially, sponsored by public money in order to ensure smooth 373 development of formal standards. Even if under WTO rules these 374 organisations cannot create the equivalent of a technical regulation, 375 they have important normative functions in their respective 376 countries. No matter what form, all standards enhance competition 377 and collaboration because they define a common approach to a problem. 378 This potentially allows different instances to interoperate or be 379 evaluated according to the same indicators. 381 The development of formal standards faces a number of economic and 382 organisational challenges. Mainly, the cost and difficulty of 383 organising many entities around a mutual goal, as well as the cost of 384 research and development leading up to a mutually beneficial 385 technological platform. In addition, deciding what the mutual goal 386 is can also be a problem. These challenges may be described as 387 inter-organisational costs. Even after a goal is decided upon, 388 coordination of multiple entities requires time and money. One needs 389 communication platforms, processes and a commitment to mutual 390 investment in a higher good. They are not simple tasks, and the more 391 different communities are affected by a particular standardisation 392 process, the more difficult the organisational challenges become. 394 5.2. IETF standards setting externalities 396 In spite of a strong community ethos and transparent procedures, the 397 IETF is not immune to externalities. 399 5.2.1. Finance 401 Sponsorship to the IETF is varied, but is also of the nature that 402 ongoing projects that are in the specific interest of one or some 403 group of corporations may be given more funding than other projects 404 (see [draft-finance-thoughts]). The IETF has faced three periods of 405 decreased commitment from participants in funding its meetings in the 406 past ten years, leading, naturally, to self-scrutiny, see for 407 instance [IAOC69], [IAOC77], [IAOC99]. 409 5.2.2. Interoperability and backward compatability 411 The need for interoperability, and backward compatability makes 412 engineering work harder. And once a standard is designed, it does 413 not automatically mean it will be broadly adopted at a fast pace. 414 Examples of this are IPv6, DNSSEC, DKIM, etc. The need for 415 interoperability means that a new protocol needs to take into account 416 a much more diverse environment than early protocols, and also be 417 amendable to different needs: protocols needs to relate and negotiate 418 in a busy agora, as do the protocol developers. This means that some 419 might get priority, whereas others get dropped. 421 5.2.3. Competition between layers 423 There is a competition between layers, and even contestation about 424 what the borders of different layers are. This leads to competition 425 between layers and different solutions for similar problems on 426 different layers, which in its turn leads to further ossification, 427 which leads to more contestation. 429 5.3. How voluntary are open standards? 431 Coordinating transnational stakeholders in a process of negotiation 432 and agreement through the development of common rules is a form of 433 global governance [Nadvi]. Standards are among the mechanisms by 434 which this governance is achieved. Conformance to certain standards 435 is often a basic condition of participation in international trade 436 and communication, so there are strong economic and political 437 incentives to conform, even in the absence of legal requirements 438 [Russell]. [RogersEden] argue: 440 "As unequal participants compete to define standards, technological 441 compromises emerge, which add complexity to standards. For instance, 442 when working group participants propose competing solutions, it may 443 be easier for them to agree on a standard that combines all the 444 proposals rather than choosing any single proposal. This shifts the 445 responsibility for selecting a solution onto those who implement the 446 standard, which can lead to complex implementations that may not be 447 interoperable. On its face this appears to be a failure of the 448 standardization process, but this outcome may benefit certain 449 participants-- for example, by allowing an implementer with large 450 market share to establish a de facto standard within the scope of the 451 documented standard." 453 6. The need for a positioning 455 It is indisputable that the Internet plays an increasingly important 456 role in the lives of individuals. The community that produces 457 standards for the Internet therefore also has an impact on society, 458 which it itself has recognised in a number of previously adopted 459 documents [RFC1958]. 461 The IETF cannot ordain which standards are to be used on the 462 networks, and it specifically does not determine the laws of regions 463 or countries where networks are being used, but it does set open 464 standards for interoperability on the Internet, and has done so since 465 the inception of the Internet. Because a standard is the blue-print 466 for how to accomplish a particular task in a similar way to others, 467 the standards adopted have a normative effect. The standardisation 468 work at the IETF will have implications on what is perceived as 469 technologically possible and useful where networking technologies are 470 being deployed, and its standards output reflect was is considered by 471 the technical community as feasible and good practice. 473 This calls for providing a methodology in the IETF community to 474 evaluate which routes forward should indeed be feasible, what 475 constitutes the "good" in "good practice" and what trade-offs between 476 different feasible features of technologies are useful and should 477 therefore be made possible. Such an analysis should take societal 478 implication into account. 480 The risk of not doing this is threefold: (1) the IETF might make 481 decisions which have a political impact that was not intended by the 482 community, (2) other bodies or entities might make the decisions for 483 the IETF because the IETF does not have an explicit stance, (3) other 484 bodies that do take these issues into account might increase in 485 importance to the detriment of the influence of the IETF. 487 This does not mean the IETF does not have a position on particular 488 political issues. The policies for open and diverse participation 489 [RFC7704], the anti-harassment policy [RFC7776], as well as the 490 Guidelines for Privacy Considerations [RFC6973] are proof of this. 491 Nonetheless, these are all examples of positions about the IETF's 492 work processes or product. What is absent is a way for IETF 493 participants to evaluate their role with respect to the wider 494 implications of that IETF work. 496 7. Conclusion 498 Economics, competition, collaboration, openness, and political impact 499 have been an inherent part of the work of the IETF since its early 500 beginnings, by its nature as standards developing organization, 501 through the contributions of the members of the Internet community, 502 and because the ordering effect the Internet has on society. Whereas 503 there might not be agreement in the Internet community on what the 504 specific political nature is of technological development, it is 505 undispited that standards and protocols are both product of a 506 political process, and they can also be used for political means. 507 Whereas there is no need for a unified philosophy of Internet 508 protocols, it is in the benefit of the IETF, the Internet and 509 arguably society at large to take this into account in the standards 510 development process. 512 8. The way forward 514 There are instruments that can help the IETF develop an approach to 515 address the politics of standards. Part of this can be found in 516 [RFC8280] as well as the United National Guiding Principles for 517 Business and Human Rights [UNGP]. But there is not a one-size-fits- 518 all solution. The IETF is a particular organization, with a 519 particular mandate, and even if a policy is in place, its success 520 depends on the implementation of the policy by the community. 522 Since 'de facto standardization is reliant on market forces' 523 [Hanseth] we need to live with the fact standards bodies have a 524 political nature [Webster]. This does not need to be problematic as 525 long as there are sufficient accountability and transparency 526 mechanisms in place. The importance of these mechanisms increases 527 with the importance of the standards and their implementations. The 528 complexity of the work inscribes a requirement of competence in the 529 work in the IETF, which forms an inherent barrier for end-user 530 involvement. Even though this might not be intentional, it is a 531 result of the interplay between the characteristics of the epistemic 532 community in the IETF and the nature of the standard setting process. 534 Instead of splitting hairs about whether 'standards are political' 535 [Winner] [Woolgar] we argue that we need to look at the politics of 536 individual standards and invite document authors and reviewers to 537 take these dynamics into account. 539 9. Security Considerations 541 As this draft concerns a research document, there are no security 542 considerations as described in [RFC3552], which does not mean that 543 not addressing the issues brought up in this draft will not impact 544 the security of end-users or operators. 546 10. IANA Considerations 548 This document has no actions for IANA. 550 11. Acknowledgements 552 Thanks to Andrew Sullivan, Brian Carpenter, Mark Perkins and all 553 contributors and reviewers on the hrpc mailinglist. Special thanks 554 to Gisela Perez de Acha for some thorough editing rounds. 556 12. Research Group Information 558 The discussion list for the IRTF Human Rights Protocol Considerations 559 working group is located at the e-mail address hrpc@ietf.org [1]. 560 Information on the group and information on how to subscribe to the 561 list is at: https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc [2] 563 Archives of the list can be found at: https://www.irtf.org/mail- 564 archive/web/hrpc/current/index.html [3] 566 13. References 568 13.1. Informative References 570 [Abbate] Abbate, J., "Inventing the Internet", MIT Press , 2000, 571 . 573 [Ahlborn] Ahlborn, C., Denicolo, V., Geradin, D., and A. Padilla, 574 "Implications of the Proposed Framework and Antitrust 575 Rules for Dynamically Competitive Industries", DG Comp's 576 Discussion Paper on Article 82, DG COMP, European 577 Commission , 2006, 578 . 580 [BijkerLaw] 581 Bijker, W. and J. Law, "Shaping Technology/ Building 582 Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change", Cambridge, MA: 583 MIT Press , 1992. 585 [Bloor] Bloor, D., "Knowledge and Social Imagery", London: 586 Routeledge & Kegan Paul , 1976. 588 [BramanI] Braman, S., "Internationalization of the Internet by 589 design: The first decade", Global Media and Communication, 590 Vol 8, Issue 1, pp. 27 - 45 , 2012, . 593 [BramanII] 594 Braman, S., "The Framing Years: Policy Fundamentals in the 595 Internet Design Process, 1969-1979", The Information 596 Society Vol. 27, Issue 5, 2011 , 2010, . 599 [Carey] Carey, J., "Communication As Culture", p. 139 , 1992. 601 [CJEU2004] 602 Court of Justice of the European Union, ., 603 "ECLI:EU:C:2004:257, C-418/01 IMS Health", Cambridge, UK: 604 Cambridge University Press , 2004, 605 . 607 [CJEU2007] 608 Court of Justice of the European Union, ., 609 "ECLI:EU:T:2007:289, T-201/04 Microsoft Corp.", Cambridge, 610 UK: Cambridge University Press , 2007, 611 . 613 [Contreras] 614 Contreras, J., "Technical Standards and Ex Ante 615 Disclosure: Results and Analysis of an Empirical Study", 616 Jurimetrics: The Journal of Law, Science & Technology, 617 vol. 53, p. 163-211 , 2013. 619 [DeNardis] 620 Denardis, L., "The Internet Design Tension between 621 Surveillance and Security", IEEE Annals of the History of 622 Computing (volume 37-2) , 2015, . 624 [draft-finance-thoughts] 625 Arkko, J., "Thoughts on IETF Finance Arrangements", 2017, 626 . 629 [Feenberg] 630 Feenberg, A., "Critical Theory of Technology", p.5-6 , 631 1991. 633 [HagueHarrop] 634 Hague, R. and M. Harrop, "Comparative Government and 635 Politics: An Introduction", Macmillan International Higher 636 Education. pp. 1-. ISBN 978-1-137-31786-5. , 2013. 638 [Hanseth] Hanseth, O. and E. Monteiro, "Insribing Behaviour in 639 Information Infrastructure Standards", Accounting, 640 Management and Infomation Technology 7 (14) p.183-211 , 641 1997. 643 [Heidegger] 644 Heidegger, M., "The Question Concerning Technology and 645 Other Essays", Garland: New York, 1977 , 1977, 646 . 649 [IAOC69] IAOC, ., "IAOC Report Chicago", 2007, 650 . 653 [IAOC77] IAOC, ., "IAOC Report Anaheim", 2010, 654 . 657 [IAOC99] IAOC, ., "IAOC Report Prague", 2017, 658 . 661 [Nadvi] Nadvi, K. and F. Waeltring, "Making sense of global 662 standards", In: H. Schmitz (Ed.), Local enterprises in the 663 global economy (pp. 53-94). Cheltenham, UK: Edward 664 Elgar. , 2004. 666 [Postman] Postman, N., "Technopoly: the Surrender of Culture to 667 Technology", Vintage: New York. pp. 3-20. , 1992. 669 [RFC0049] Meyer, E., "Conversations with S. Crocker (UCLA)", RFC 49, 670 DOI 10.17487/RFC0049, April 1970, 671 . 673 [RFC0101] Watson, R., "Notes on the Network Working Group meeting, 674 Urbana, Illinois, February 17, 1971", RFC 101, 675 DOI 10.17487/RFC0101, February 1971, 676 . 678 [RFC0144] Shoshani, A., "Data sharing on computer networks", 679 RFC 144, DOI 10.17487/RFC0144, April 1971, 680 . 682 [RFC0164] Heafner, J., "Minutes of Network Working Group meeting, 683 5/16 through 5/19/71", RFC 164, DOI 10.17487/RFC0164, May 684 1971, . 686 [RFC0196] Watson, R., "Mail Box Protocol", RFC 196, 687 DOI 10.17487/RFC0196, July 1971, 688 . 690 [RFC0286] Forman, E., "Network Library Information System", RFC 286, 691 DOI 10.17487/RFC0286, December 1971, 692 . 694 [RFC0313] O'Sullivan, T., "Computer based instruction", RFC 313, 695 DOI 10.17487/RFC0313, March 1972, 696 . 698 [RFC0316] McKay, D. and A. Mullery, "ARPA Network Data Management 699 Working Group", RFC 316, DOI 10.17487/RFC0316, February 700 1972, . 702 [RFC0542] Neigus, N., "File Transfer Protocol", RFC 542, 703 DOI 10.17487/RFC0542, August 1973, 704 . 706 [RFC0549] Michener, J., "Minutes of Network Graphics Group meeting, 707 15-17 July 1973", RFC 549, DOI 10.17487/RFC0549, July 708 1973, . 710 [RFC0613] McKenzie, A., "Network connectivity: A response to RFC 711 603", RFC 613, DOI 10.17487/RFC0613, January 1974, 712 . 714 [RFC1097] Miller, B., "Telnet subliminal-message option", RFC 1097, 715 DOI 10.17487/RFC1097, April 1989, 716 . 718 [RFC1958] Carpenter, B., Ed., "Architectural Principles of the 719 Internet", RFC 1958, DOI 10.17487/RFC1958, June 1996, 720 . 722 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 723 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996, 724 . 726 [RFC2804] IAB and IESG, "IETF Policy on Wiretapping", RFC 2804, 727 DOI 10.17487/RFC2804, May 2000, 728 . 730 [RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC 731 Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552, 732 DOI 10.17487/RFC3552, July 2003, 733 . 735 [RFC3935] Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF", 736 BCP 95, RFC 3935, DOI 10.17487/RFC3935, October 2004, 737 . 739 [RFC5218] Thaler, D. and B. Aboba, "What Makes for a Successful 740 Protocol?", RFC 5218, DOI 10.17487/RFC5218, July 2008, 741 . 743 [RFC6973] Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J., 744 Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy 745 Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973, 746 DOI 10.17487/RFC6973, July 2013, 747 . 749 [RFC7704] Crocker, D. and N. Clark, "An IETF with Much Diversity and 750 Professional Conduct", RFC 7704, DOI 10.17487/RFC7704, 751 November 2015, . 753 [RFC7776] Resnick, P. and A. Farrel, "IETF Anti-Harassment 754 Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 7776, DOI 10.17487/RFC7776, March 755 2016, . 757 [RFC8280] ten Oever, N. and C. Cath, "Research into Human Rights 758 Protocol Considerations", RFC 8280, DOI 10.17487/RFC8280, 759 October 2017, . 761 [RogersEden] 762 Rogers, M. and G. Eden, "The Snowden Disclosures, 763 Technical Standards, and the Making of Surveillance 764 Infrastructures", International Journal of Communication 765 11(2017), 802-823 , 2017, 766 . 768 [Russell] Russell, A., "Open standards and the digital age: History, 769 ideology, and networks", Cambridge, UK: Cambridge 770 University Press , 2014. 772 [Sisson] Sisson, D., "Standards and Protocols", 2000, 773 . 775 [UNGP] Ruggie, J. and United Nations, "United Nations Guiding 776 Principles for Business and Human Rights", 2011, 777 . 780 [Webster] Webster, J., "Networks of Collaboration or Conflict? The 781 Development of EDI", The social shaping of inter- 782 organizational IT systems and data interchange, eds: I. 783 McLougling & D. Mason, European Commission PICT/COST A4 , 784 1995. 786 [Winner] Winner, L., "Upon openig the black box and finding it 787 empty: Social constructivism and the philosophy of 788 technology", Science, Technology, and Human Values 18 (3) 789 p. 362-378 , 1993. 791 [Woolgar] Woolgar, S., "Configuring the user: the case of usability 792 trials", A sociology of monsters. Essays on power, 793 technology and dominatior, ed: J. Law, Routeledge p. 794 57-102. , 1991. 796 13.2. URIs 798 [1] mailto:hrpc@ietf.org 800 [2] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc 802 [3] https://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/hrpc/current/index.html 804 Authors' Addresses 805 Niels ten Oever 806 University of Amsterdam 808 EMail: mail@nielstenoever.net 810 Amelia Andersdotter 811 ARTICLE 19 813 EMail: amelia@article19.org