Proposal for research on human rights protocol considerations
draft-doria-hrpc-proposal-00

Network Working Group                                           A. Doria
Internet-Draft                                                dotgay LLC
Intended status: Informational                              N. ten Oever
Expires: April 30, 2015                                       Article 19
                                                                J. Varon

                                                        October 27, 2014

     Proposal for research on human rights protocol considerations
                      draft-doria-hrpc-proposal-00

Abstract

   Work has been done on privacy issues that should be considered when
   creating an Internet protocol.  This draft suggests that similar
   considerations may apply for other human rights such as freedom of
   expression or freedom of association.  A proposal is made for
   initiating IRTF work researching the possible connections between
   human rights and Internet standards and protocols.  The goal would be
   to create an informational RFC concerning human rights protocol
   considerations.

   Discussion on this draft at: hrpc@article19.io

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 30, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Doria, et al.            Expires April 30, 2015                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft    Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2014

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Research topic  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Protocol and Standard Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.1.1.  Architecture  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.1.2.  Transparency  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.1.3.  HTML  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.1.4.  Mailing lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.1.5.  IDNs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Proposal  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Appendix A.  Additional Stuff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   The recognition that human rights have a role in Internet policies is
   slowly becoming part of the general discourse.  Several reports from
   former United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on the promotion and
   protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank
   La Rue, have made such relation explicit, which lead to the approval
   of the landmark resolution "on the promotion, protection and
   enjoyment of human rights on the Internet" [HRC2012] at the UN Human
   Rights Council (HRC).  And, more recently, to the resolution "The
   right to privacy in the digital age" [UNGA2013] at the UN General
   Assembly.  The NETmundial outcome document [NETmundial]  affirms that
   human rights, as reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human
   Rights [UDHR], should underpin Internet governance principles.
   Nevertheless, the direct relation between Internet Standards and
   human rights is still something to be explored and more clearly
   evidenced.

Doria, et al.            Expires April 30, 2015                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft    Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2014

   Concerns for freedom of expression and association were a strong part
   of the world-view of the community involved in developing the first
   Internet protocols.  Apparently, by intention or by coincidence, the
   Internet was designed with freedom and openness of communications as
   core values.  But as the scale and the industrialization of the
   Internet has grown greatly, the influence of such world-views started
   to compete with other values.  The belief of the authors is that as
   the Internet continues to grow, the linkage of Internet protocols to
   human rights needs to become both structured and intentional.

   Standards and protocols form the basis of the human rights enabling
   infrastructure of the Internet.  It needs to be determined whether
   there is a causal relationship between Internet protocols and
   standards, and human rights such as freedom of expression.  To study
   the relationship between the two one would need to carefully consider
   structural and architectural considerations, as well as specific
   protocols.  The Internet Society paper "Human Rights and Internet
   Protocols" [HRIP] 'explores human rights and Internet protocols
   comparing the processes for their making and the principles by which
   they operate and concludes that there are some shared principles
   between the two.'  Though that paper does not go into possible
   reasons, dependencies or guidelines, it initiates the discussion.
   More research is needed to map human rights concerns to protocol
   elements and to frame possible approaches towards protocols that
   satisfy the implications of human rights standards.

   To move this debate further, a list has been created for discussion
   of this draft: hrpc@article19.io and related ideas - information or
   subscriptions at: https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/hrpc

1.1.  Requirements Language

   As this is an informational document recommending a research effort,
   it will not make use of requirements language as defined in RFC 2119
   [RFC2119].

2.  Research topic

   In a manner similar to the work done for RFC 6973 [RFC6973] on
   Privacy Consideration Guidelines, the premise of this research is
   that some standards and protocols can solidify, enable or threaten
   human rights, such as freedom of expression and the right to
   association and assembly online.  To start addressing the issue, a
   mapping exercise analyzing Internet architecture and protocols
   features, vis-a-vis possible impact on human rights needs to be
   undertaken.  The list below represents the first examples of this
   exercise.

Doria, et al.            Expires April 30, 2015                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft    Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2014

2.1.  Protocol and Standard Examples

   Some initial topics that need exploration are indicated in this
   section.  Most of this work has yet to move beyond speculation and
   casual conversation.  The next release of the draft will develop
   these discussion further, based on discussion to be held on the
   hrpc@article19.io email list.

2.1.1.  Architecture

   RFC 1958 [RFC1958]  mentions 'the community believes that the goal
   [of the Internet] is connectivity, the tool is the Internet
   Protocol'.  It continues a bit further: 'The current exponential
   growth of the network seems to show that connectivity is its own
   reward, and is more valuable than any individual application such as
   mail or the World-Wide Web.'  This marks the intrinsic value of
   connectivity which is facilitated by the Internet, both in its
   principle, and in practice.  This shows that the underlying
   principles of the Internet aim to preserve connectivity, which is
   fundamental and similar to the part of article 19 of the Universal
   Declaration of Human Rights [UDHR], which defines a right to receive
   and to impart information.

2.1.2.  Transparency

   Another part of article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human
   Rights UDHR [UDHR] mentions that one has the right to hold opinions
   _without interference_ (emphasis added).  This same sentiment can be
   found in IAB RFC4924 [RFC4924] - Reflection on Internet Transparency
   where it states: 'A network that does not filter or transform the
   data that it carries may be said to be transparent" or "oblivious" to
   the content of packets.  Networks that provide oblivious transport
   enable the deployment of new services without requiring changes to
   the core.  It is this flexibility that is perhaps both the Internet's
   most essential characteristic as well as one of the most important
   contributors to its success.'

2.1.3.  HTML

   Websites made it extremely easy for individuals to publish their
   ideas, opinions and thoughts.  Never before has the world seen an
   infrastructure that made it this easy to share your brainchild with
   such a large group of other people.  The HTTP architecture and
   standards, including RFC 7230 [RFC7230], RFC 7231 [RFC7231], RFC 7232
   [RFC7232], RFC 7234 [RFC7234], RFC 7235 [RFC7235], RFC 7236
   [RFC7236], and RFC 7327 [RFC7237], are essential for the publishing
   of information.  The HTTP protocol, therefore, forms an crucial
   instrument for freedom of expression, but also to the right to freely

Doria, et al.            Expires April 30, 2015                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft    Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2014

   participate in the culture life of the community, to enjoy the arts
   and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

2.1.4.  Mailing lists

   Collaboration and cooperation have been part of the Internet since
   its early beginning, one of the instruments of facilitating working
   together in groups are mailing lists (as described in RFC 2369
   [RFC2919], RFC 2919 [RFC2919], and RFC 6783 [RFC6783].  Mailing lists
   are critical instruments and enablers for group communication and
   organization, and therefore form early artefacts of the
   (standardized) ability of Internet standards to enable the right to
   freedom of assembly and association.

2.1.5.  IDNs

   English has been the lingua franca of the Internet, but for many
   Internet user English is not their first language.  To have a true
   global Internet, one that serves the whole world, it would need to
   reflect the languages of these different communities.  The
   Internationalized Domain Names IDNA2008 (RFC 5890 [RFC5890], RFC 5891
   [RFC5891], RFC 5892 [RFC5892], and RFC 5893 [RFC5893]), describes
   standards for the use of a broad range of strings and characters
   (some also written from right to left).  This enables users who use
   other characters than the standard LDH ascii typeset to have their
   own URLs.  This shows the ambition of the Internet community to
   reflect the diversity of users and to be in line with Article 2 of
   the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which clearly stipulates
   that 'everyone is entitles to all rights and freedoms [..], without
   distinction of any kind, such as [..] language [..].

3.  Proposal

   Mapping the relation between human rights and protocols and
   architectures is a new research challenge, which will require a good
   amount of cross organizational cooperation to develop a consistent
   methodology.  While the authors of this first draft are involved in
   both human rights advocacy and research on Internet technologies - we
   believe that bringing this work into the IRTF would facilitate and
   improve this work by bringing human rights experts together with the
   community of researchers and developers of Internet standards and
   technologies.

   At this point we have created a mailing list where we would like to
   encourage discussion of the issue and capture interest of the IRTF
   community.  A second step would be to create a charter and ask the
   IRTF for a Research group to further develop methodology and
   investigate Human rights Protocol considerations.

Doria, et al.            Expires April 30, 2015                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft    Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2014

   Assuming that the research produces useful results, the objective
   would evolve into the creation of a set of recommended considerations
   for the protection of applicable human rights.

4.  Acknowledgements

   This builds on work done by RFC 6973 [RFC6973].

   Thanks go to those who have discussed and edited the ideas in this
   draft.  Special thanks go to Joy Liddicoat as the co-author of
   Human Rights and Internet Protocols [HRIP]

5.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.

6.  Security Considerations

   As this draft concerns a research proposal, there are no security
   considerations.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

7.2.  Informative References

   [HRC2011]  Human Rights Council, , "Report of the Special Rapporteur
              on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of
              opinion and expression, Human Rights Council, May 2011",
              2011.

   [HRC2012]  General Assembly, UN., "Human Rights Council Resolution on
              the promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on
              the Internet", 2011,
              <http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/554342.120885849.html>.

   [HRC2013]  General Assembly, UN., "Report of the Special Rapporteur
              on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of
              opinion and expression, Human Rights Council, April 2013",
              2013.

Doria, et al.            Expires April 30, 2015                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft    Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2014

   [HRIP]     Joy Liddicoat, JL. and AD. Avri Doria, "Human Rights and
              Internet Protocols: Comparing Processes and Principles",
              2012,
              <https://www.Internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/Human
              %20Rights%20and%20Internet%20Protocols-%20Comparing%20Proc
              esses%20and%20Principles.pdf>.

   [ICCPR]    General Assembly, UN., "International Covenant on Civil
              and Political Rights", 1966,
              <http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/
              CCPR.aspx>.

   [NETmundial]
              NetMundial, , "NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement",
              2014, <http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/
              NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf>.

   [RFC1958]  Carpenter, B., "Architectural Principles of the Internet",
              RFC 1958, June 1996.

   [RFC2014]  Weinrib, A. and J. Postel, "IRTF Research Group Guidelines
              and Procedures", BCP 8, RFC 2014, October 1996.

   [RFC2369]  Neufeld, G. and J. Baer, "The Use of URLs as Meta-Syntax
              for Core Mail List Commands and their Transport through
              Message Header Fields", RFC 2369, July 1998.

   [RFC2629]  Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
              June 1999.

   [RFC2919]  Chandhok, R. and G. Wenger, "List-Id: A Structured Field
              and Namespace for the Identification of Mailing Lists",
              RFC 2919, March 2001.

   [RFC3552]  Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
              Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552, July
              2003.

   [RFC3869]  Atkinson, R., Floyd, S., and Internet Architecture Board,
              "IAB Concerns and Recommendations Regarding Internet
              Research and Evolution", RFC 3869, August 2004.

   [RFC4440]  Floyd, S., Paxson, V., Falk, A., and IAB, "IAB Thoughts on
              the Role of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)", RFC
              4440, March 2006.

   [RFC4924]  Aboba, B. and E. Davies, "Reflections on Internet
              Transparency", RFC 4924, July 2007.

Doria, et al.            Expires April 30, 2015                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft    Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2014

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.

   [RFC5564]  El-Sherbiny, A., Farah, M., Oueichek, I., and A. Al-Zoman,
              "Linguistic Guidelines for the Use of the Arabic Language
              in Internet Domains", RFC 5564, February 2010.

   [RFC5890]  Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
              Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework",
              RFC 5890, August 2010.

   [RFC5891]  Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names in
              Applications (IDNA): Protocol", RFC 5891, August 2010.

   [RFC5892]  Faltstrom, P., "The Unicode Code Points and
              Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA)",
              RFC 5892, August 2010.

   [RFC5893]  Alvestrand, H. and C. Karp, "Right-to-Left Scripts for
              Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA)",
              RFC 5893, August 2010.

   [RFC6783]  Levine, J. and R. Gellens, "Mailing Lists and Non-ASCII
              Addresses", RFC 6783, November 2012.

   [RFC6973]  Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,
              Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy
              Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973, July
              2013.

   [RFC7230]  Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
              (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", RFC 7230, June
              2014.

   [RFC7231]  Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
              (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231, June 2014.

   [RFC7232]  Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
              (HTTP/1.1): Conditional Requests", RFC 7232, June 2014.

   [RFC7233]  Fielding, R., Lafon, Y., and J. Reschke, "Hypertext
              Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Range Requests", RFC 7233,
              June 2014.

   [RFC7234]  Fielding, R., Nottingham, M., and J. Reschke, "Hypertext
              Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching", RFC 7234, June
              2014.

Doria, et al.            Expires April 30, 2015                 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft    Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2014

   [RFC7235]  Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
              (HTTP/1.1): Authentication", RFC 7235, June 2014.

   [RFC7236]  Reschke, J., "Initial Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)
              Authentication Scheme Registrations", RFC 7236, June 2014.

   [RFC7237]  Reschke, J., "Initial Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)
              Method Registrations", RFC 7237, June 2014.

   [UDHR]     General Assembly, UN., "Universal Declaration of Human
              Rights", 1948,
              <http://www.ohchr.org/en/udhr/pages/introduction.aspx>.

   [UNGA2013]
              General Assembly, UN., "UN General Assembly Resolution
              "The right to privacy in the digital age" (A/C.3/68/
              L.45)", 2013,
              <http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/1133732.05065727.html>.

Appendix A.  Additional Stuff

   This is a place holder for an Appendix if it is needed.

Authors' Addresses

   Avri Doria
   dotgay LLC
   Providence
   USA

   Email: avri@acm.org

   Niels ten Oever
   Article 19
   Netherlands

   Email: niels@article19.org

   Joana Varon
   Brazil

   Email: joana@varonferraz.com

Doria, et al.            Expires April 30, 2015                 [Page 9]