On the Politics of Standards

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2018-06-18
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Human Rights Protocol Considerations Research Group         N. ten Oever
Internet-Draft                                   University of Amsterdam
Intended status: Informational                           A. Andersdotter
Expires: December 20, 2018                                    ARTICLE 19
                                                           June 18, 2018

                      On the Politics of Standards


   The IETF cannot ordain which standards or protocols are to be used on
   network, but the standards developing process in the IETF has a
   normative effect.  Among other things the standardisation work at the
   IETF has implications on what is perceived as technologically
   possible and useful where networking technologies are being deployed,
   and its standards output reflect was is considered by the technical
   community as feasible and good practice.  Because mediates many
   aspects of modern life, and therefore contributes to the ordering of
   societies and communities, the consideration of the politics and
   (potential) impact of protocols should be part of the standardization
   and development process.

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 https://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 December 20, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents

ten Oever & AndersdotterExpires December 20, 2018               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                   politix                       June 2018

   (https://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
   2.  Vocabulary Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Research Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Technology and Politics: a literature review  . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  Technology is value neutral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.2.  Some protocols are political some times . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.3.  All protocols are political sometimes . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.4.  The network has its own logic and values  . . . . . . . .   5
     4.5.  Protocols are inherently political  . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  IETF: Protocols as Standards  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.1.  Competition and collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.2.  IETF standards setting externalities  . . . . . . . . . .   9
       5.2.1.  Finance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       5.2.2.  Interoperability and backward compatability . . . . .   9
       5.2.3.  Competition between layers  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.3.  How voluntary are open standards? . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  The need for a positioning  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Conclusion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   8.  The way forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   11. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   12. Research Group Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   13. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     13.1.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     13.2.  URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17

1.  Introduction

   "Science and technology lie at the heart of social asymmetry.
      Thus technology both creates systems which close off other
      options and generate  novel, unpredictable and indeed
      previously unthinkable, option. The game of technology is
      never finished, and its ramifications are endless.

                                  - Michel Callon

ten Oever & AndersdotterExpires December 20, 2018               [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                   politix                       June 2018

   The design of the Internet through protocols and standards is a
   technical issue with great political and economic impacts [RFC0613].
   The early Internet community already realized that it needed to make
   decisions on political issues such as Intellectual Property,
   Internationalization [BramanI], diversity, access [RFC0101] privacy
   and security [RFC0049], and the military [RFC0164] [RFC0316],
   governmental [RFC0144] [RFC0286] [RFC0313] [RFC0542] [RFC0549] and
   non-governmental [RFC0196] uses, which has been clearly pointed out
   by Braman [BramanII].

   Recently there has been an increased discussion on the relation
   between Internet protocols and human rights [RFC8280] which spurred
   the discussion on the political nature of standards.  The network
   infrastructure is on the one hand designed, described, developed,
   standardized and implemented by the Internet community, but the
   Internet community and Internet users are also shaped by the
   affordances of the technology.  Companies, citizens, governments,
   standards developing bodies, public opinion and public interest
   groups all play a part in these discussions.  In this document we aim
   to outline different views on the relation between standards and
   politics and seek to answer the question whether standards are
   political, and if so, how.

2.  Vocabulary Used

   Politics  (from Greek: Politika: Politika, definition "affairs of the
      commons") is the process of making decisions applying to all
      members of a diverse group with conflicting interests.  More
      narrowly, it refers to achieving and exercising positions of
      governance or organized control over a community.  Furthermore,
      politics is the study or practice of the distribution of power and
      resources within a given community as well as the
      interrelationship(s) between communities. (adapted from

   Affordances  The possibilities that are provided to an actors through
      the ordering of an environment by a technology.

   Protocols  'Protocols are rules governing communication between
      devices or applications, and the creation or manipulation of any
      logical or communicative artifacts concomitant with such
      communication.'  [Sisson]

   Standards  'An Internet Standard is a specification that is stable
      and well-understood, is technically competent, has multiple,
      independent, and interoperable implementations with substantial
      operational experience, enjoys significant public support, and is

ten Oever & AndersdotterExpires December 20, 2018               [Page 3]
Internet-Draft                   politix                       June 2018

      recognizably useful in some or all parts of the Internet.'

3.  Research Question

   Are protocols political?  If so, should the politics of protocols
   need to be taken into account in their development process?

4.  Technology and Politics: a literature review

   In 1993 the Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility stated
   that 'the Internet should meet public interest objectives', similarly
   [RFC3935] states that 'The Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither
   is the IETF.'.  Ethics and the Internet was already a topic of an RFC
   by the IAB in 1989 [RFC1097].  Nonetheless there has been a recent
   uptick in discussions around the impact of Internet protocols on
   human rights [RFC8280] in the IETF and more general about the impact
   of technology on society in the public debate.

   This document aims to provide an overview of the spectrum of
   different positions that have been observed in the IETF and IRTF
   community, during participatory observation, through 39 interviews
   with members of the community, the Human Rights Protocol
   Considerations Research Group mailinglist and during and after the
   Technical Plenary on Protocols and Human Rights during IETF98.
   Without judging them on their internal of external consistency they
   are represented here, where possible we sought to engage with
   academic literature on this topic.

4.1.  Technology is value neutral

   This position starts from the premise that the technical and
   political are differentiated fields and that technology is 'value
   free'.  This is also put more explicitly by Carey: "electronics is
   neither the arrival of apocalypse nor the dispensation of grace.
   Technology is technology; it is a means for communication and
   transportation over space, and nothing more."  [Carey].  In this view
   protocols only become political when it is actually being used by
   humans.  So the technology itself is not political, the use of the
   technology is.  This view sees technology as instrument;
   "technologies are 'tools' standing ready to serve the purposes of
   their users.  Technology is deemed 'neutral,' without valuative
   content of its own.'" [Feenberg].  Feenberg continues: "technology is
   not inherently good or bad, and can be used to whatever political or
   social ends desired by the person or institution in control.
   Technology is a 'rational entity' and universally applicable.  One
   may make exceptions on moral grounds, but one must also understand

ten Oever & AndersdotterExpires December 20, 2018               [Page 4]
Internet-Draft                   politix                       June 2018

   that the "price for the achievement of environmental, ethical, or
   religious goals...is reduced efficiency."  [Feenberg].

4.2.  Some protocols are political some times

   This stance is a pragmatic approach to the problem.  It states that
   some protocols under certain conditions can themselves have a
   political dimension.  This is different from the claim that a
   protocol might sometimes be used in a political way; that view is
   consistent with the idea of the technology being neutral (for the
   human action using the technology is where the politics lies).
   Instead, this position requires that each protocol and use be
   evaluated for its political dimension, in order to understand the
   extent to which it is political.

4.3.  All protocols are political sometimes

   While not an absolutist standpoint it recognizes that all design
   decisions are subject to the law of unintended consequences.  The
   system consisting of the Internet and its users is vastly too complex
   to be predictable; it is chaotic in nature; its emergent properties
   cannot be predicted.  This concept strongly hinges on the general
   purpose aspect of information technology and its malleability.
   Whereas not all (potential) behaviours, affordances and impacts of
   protocols can possible be predicted, on could at least consider the
   impact of proposed implementations.

4.4.  The network has its own logic and values

   While humans create technologies, this does not mean that they are
   forever under human control.  A technology, once created, has its own
   logic that is independent of the human actors that either create or
   use the technology.

   From this perspective, technologies can shape the world.  As Martin
   Heidegger says, "The hydroelectric plant is not built into the Rhine
   River as was the old wooden bridge that joined bank with bank for
   hundreds of years.  Rather the river is dammed up into the power
   plant.  What the river is now, namely, a water power supplier,
   derives from out of the essence of the power station."  [Heidegger]
   (p 16) The dam in the river changes the world in a way the bridge
   does not, because the dam alters the nature of the river.

   In the same way -in another and more recent example- the very
   existence automobiles impose physical forms on the world different
   from those that come from the electric tram or the horse-cart.  The
   logic of the automobile means speed and the rapid covering of
   distance, which encourages suburban development and a tendency toward

ten Oever & AndersdotterExpires December 20, 2018               [Page 5]
Internet-Draft                   politix                       June 2018

   conurbation.  But even if that did not happen, widespread automobile
   use requires paved roads, and parking lots and structures.  These are
   pressures that come from the automotive technology itself, and would
   not arise without that technology.

   In much same way, then, networking technology, such as protocols,
   creates its own demands.  One of the most important conditions for
   protocol success is its incremental deployability [RFC5218].  This
   means that the network already contains constrains on what can be
   deployed into it.  In this sense the network creates its own paths,
   but also has its own objective.  According to this view the goal of
   the network is interconnection and connectivity; more connectivity is
   good for the network.  Proponents of this positions also often
   describe the Internet as an organism with its own unique ecosystem.

   In this position it is not necessarily clear where the 'social' ends
   and the 'technical' begins, and it could be argued that the
   distinction itself is a social construction [BijkerLaw] or that a
   real-life distinction between the two is hard to be made [Bloor].

4.5.  Protocols are inherently political

   This position argues the opposite of 'technological neutrality'.
   This position can be illustrated with Postman where he writes: 'the
   uses made of technology are largely determined by the structure of
   the technology itself' [Postman].  He states that the medium itself
   'contains an ideological bias'.  He continues to argue that
   technology is non-neutral:

   (1) because of the symbolic forms in which information is encoded,
   different media have different intellectual and emotional biases; (2)
   because of the accessibility and speed of their information,
   different media have different political biases; (3) because of their
   physical form, different media have different sensory biases; (4)
   because of the conditions in which we attend to them, different media
   have different social biases; (5) because of their technical and
   economic structure, different media have different content biases.

   Recent scholars of Internet infrastructure and governance have also
   pointed out that Internet processes and standards have become part
   and parcel of political processes and public policies.  Several
   concrete examples are found within this approach, for instance, the
   IANA transition or global innovation policy [DeNardis].  The Raven
   process in which the IETF refused to standardize wiretapping -which
   resulted in [RFC2804]- was an instance where an international
   governance body took a position that was largely political, although
   driven by a technical argument.  The process that led to [RFC6973] is
   similar: the Snowden disclosures which occured in the political

ten Oever & AndersdotterExpires December 20, 2018               [Page 6]
Internet-Draft                   politix                       June 2018

   space, engendered the IETF to act.  This is summarized in [Abbate]
   who says: "protocols are politics by other means", emphasizing the
   interests that are at play in the process of designing standards.

   This position further holds that protocols can never be understood
   without their contextual embeddedness: protocols do not exist solely
   by themselves but always are to be understood in a more complex
   context - the stack, hardware, or nation-state interests and their
   impact on civil rights.  Finally, this view is that that protocols
   are political because they affect or sometimes effect the socio-
   technical ordering of reality.  The latter observation leads Winner
   to conclude that the reality of technological progress has too often
   been a scenario where the innovation has dictated change for society.
   Those who had the power to introduce a new technology also had the
   power to create a consumer class to use the technology 'with new
   practices, relationships, and identities supplanting the old, --and
   those who had the wherewithal to implement new technologies often
   molded society to match the needs of emerging technologies and
   organizations.'  [Winner].

5.  IETF: Protocols as Standards

   In the previous section we gave an overview of the different existing
   positions of the impact of Internet protocols in the Internet
   community.  In the following section we will consider the standards
   setting process and its consequences for the politics of protocols.

   Standards enabling interoperating networks, what we think of today as
   the Internet, were created as open, formal and voluntary standards.
   A platform for internet standardisation, the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), was created in 1992 to enable the continuation of
   such standardisation work.  The IETF has sought to make the standards
   process transparent (by ensuring everyone can access standards,
   mailing-lists and meetings), predictable (by having clear procedures
   and reviews) and of high quality (by having draft documents reviewed
   by members from its own epistemic community).  This is all aimed at
   increasing the accountability of the process and the quality of the

   The IETF implements what has been referred to as an "informal ex ante
   disclosure policy" for patents [Contreras], which includes the
   possibility for participants to disclose the existence of a patent
   relevant for the standard, royalty-terms which would apply to the
   implementors of that standard should it enter into effect, as well as
   other licensing terms that may be interesting for implementors to
   know.  The community ethos in the IETF seems to lead to 100% royalty-
   free disclosures of prior patents which is a record number, even
   among other comparable standard organisations [Contreras].

ten Oever & AndersdotterExpires December 20, 2018               [Page 7]
Internet-Draft                   politix                       June 2018

5.1.  Competition and collaboration

   Standards exist for nearly everything: processes, technologies,
   safety, hiring, elections, and training.  Standards provide blue-
   prints for how to accomplish a particular task in a similar way for
   others that are trying to accomplish the same thing, while reducing
   overhead and inefficiencies.  Although there are different types and
   configurations of standards, they all enhance competition by allowing
   different entities to work from a commonly accepted baseline.

   On the first types of standards than can be found are "informal" ones
   -agreed upon normal ways of interacting within a specific community.
   For example, the process through which greetings to a new
   acquaintance are expressed through a bow, a handshake or a kiss.  On
   the other hand "formal" standards, are normally codified in writing.
   The next subsection will ---

   Within economy studies, _de facto_ standards arise in market
   situations where one entity is particularly dominant; downstream
   competitors are therefore tied to the dominant entity's technological
   solutions [Ahlborn].  Under EU anti-trust law, de facto standards
   have been found to restrict competition for downstream services in PC
   software products [CJEU2007], as well as downstream services
   dependent on health information [CJEU2004].

   Even in international law, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) uses
   standards, although it recognises a difference between standards and
   technical regulations.  The former are voluntary formal codes to
   which products or services may conform, while technical regulations
   are mandatory requirements to be fullfilled for a product to be
   accessible on one of the WTO country markets.  These rules have
   implications for how nation states bounded by the WTO agreements can
   impose specific technical requirements on companies.  Nonetheles,
   there are many standardisation groups that were originally launched
   by nation states or groups of nation states.  ISO, BIS, CNIS, NIST,
   ABNT and ETSI are examples of institutions that are, wholly or
   partially, sponsored by public money in order to ensure smooth
   development of formal standards.  Even if under WTO rules these
   organisations cannot create the equivalent of a technical regulation,
   they have important normative functions in their respective
   countries.  No matter what form, all standards enhance competition
   and collaboration because they define a common approach to a problem.
   This potentially allows different instances to interoperate or be
   evaluated according to the same indicators.

   The development of formal standards faces a number of economic and
   organisational challenges.  Mainly, the cost and difficulty of
   organising many entities around a mutual goal, as well as the cost of

ten Oever & AndersdotterExpires December 20, 2018               [Page 8]
Internet-Draft                   politix                       June 2018

   research and development leading up to a mutually beneficial
   technological platform.  In addition, deciding what the mutual goal
   is can also be a problem.  These challenges may be described as
   inter-organisational costs.  Even after a goal is decided upon,
   coordination of multiple entities requires time and money.  One needs
   communication platforms, processes and a commitment to mutual
   investment in a higher good.  They are not simple tasks, and the more
   different communities are affected by a particular standardisation
   process, the more difficult the organisational challenges become.

5.2.  IETF standards setting externalities

   In spite of a strong community ethos and transparent procedures, the
   IETF is not immune to externalities.

5.2.1.  Finance

   Sponsorship to the IETF is varied, but is also of the nature that
   ongoing projects that are in the specific interest of one or some
   group of corporations may be given more funding than other projects
   (see [draft-finance-thoughts]).  The IETF has faced three periods of
   decreased commitment from participants in funding its meetings in the
   past ten years, leading, naturally, to self-scrutiny, see for
   instance [IAOC69], [IAOC77], [IAOC99].

5.2.2.  Interoperability and backward compatability

   The need for interoperability, and backward compatability makes
   engineering work harder.  And once a standard is designed, it does
   not automatically mean it will be broadly adopted at a fast pace.
   Examples of this are IPv6, DNSSEC, DKIM, etc.  The need for
   interoperability means that a new protocol needs to take into account
   a much more diverse environment than early protocols, and also be
   amendable to different needs: protocols needs to relate and negotiate
   in a busy agora, as do the protocol developers.  This means that some
   might get priority, whereas others get dropped.

5.2.3.  Competition between layers

   There is a competition between layers, and even contestation about
   what the borders of different layers are.  This leads to competition
   between layers and different solutions for similar problems on
   different layers, which in its turn leads to further ossification,
   which leads to more contestation.

ten Oever & AndersdotterExpires December 20, 2018               [Page 9]
Internet-Draft                   politix                       June 2018

5.3.  How voluntary are open standards?

   Coordinating transnational stakeholders in a process of negotiation
   and agreement through the development of common rules is a form of
   global governance [Nadvi].  Standards are among the mechanisms by
   which this governance is achieved.  Conformance to certain standards
   is often a basic condition of participation in international trade
   and communication, so there are strong economic and political
   incentives to conform, even in the absence of legal requirements
   [Russell].  [RogersEden] argue:

   "As unequal participants compete to define standards, technological
   compromises emerge, which add complexity to standards.  For instance,
   when working group participants propose competing solutions, it may
   be easier for them to agree on a standard that combines all the
   proposals rather than choosing any single proposal.  This shifts the
   responsibility for selecting a solution onto those who implement the
   standard, which can lead to complex implementations that may not be
   interoperable.  On its face this appears to be a failure of the
   standardization process, but this outcome may benefit certain
   participants-- for example, by allowing an implementer with large
   market share to establish a de facto standard within the scope of the
   documented standard."

6.  The need for a positioning

   It is indisputable that the Internet plays an increasingly important
   role in the lives of individuals.  The community that produces
   standards for the Internet therefore also has an impact on society,
   which it itself has recognised in a number of previously adopted
   documents [RFC1958].

   The IETF cannot ordain which standards are to be used on the
   networks, and it specifically does not determine the laws of regions
   or countries where networks are being used, but it does set open
   standards for interoperability on the Internet, and has done so since
   the inception of the Internet.  Because a standard is the blue-print
   for how to accomplish a particular task in a similar way to others,
   the standards adopted have a normative effect.  The standardisation
   work at the IETF will have implications on what is perceived as
   technologically possible and useful where networking technologies are
   being deployed, and its standards output reflect was is considered by
   the technical community as feasible and good practice.

   This calls for providing a methodology in the IETF community to
   evaluate which routes forward should indeed be feasible, what
   constitutes the "good" in "good practice" and what trade-offs between
   different feasible features of technologies are useful and should

ten Oever & AndersdotterExpires December 20, 2018              [Page 10]
Internet-Draft                   politix                       June 2018

   therefore be made possible.  Such an analysis should take societal
   implication into account.

   The risk of not doing this is threefold: (1) the IETF might make
   decisions which have a political impact that was not intended by the
   community, (2) other bodies or entities might make the decisions for
   the IETF because the IETF does not have an explicit stance, (3) other
   bodies that do take these issues into account might increase in
   importance to the detriment of the influence of the IETF.

   This does not mean the IETF does not have a position on particular
   political issues.  The policies for open and diverse participation
   [RFC7704], the anti-harassment policy [RFC7776], as well as the
   Guidelines for Privacy Considerations [RFC6973] are proof of this.
   Nonetheless, these are all examples of positions about the IETF's
   work processes or product.  What is absent is a way for IETF
   participants to evaluate their role with respect to the wider
   implications of that IETF work.

7.  Conclusion

   Economics, competition, collaboration, openness, and political impact
   have been an inherent part of the work of the IETF since its early
   beginnings, by its nature as standards developing organization,
   through the contributions of the members of the Internet community,
   and because the ordering effect the Internet has on society.  Whereas
   there might not be agreement in the Internet community on what the
   specific political nature is of technological development, it is
   undispited that standards and protocols are both product of a
   political process, and they can also be used for political means.
   Whereas there is no need for a unified philosophy of Internet
   protocols, it is in the benefit of the IETF, the Internet and
   arguably society at large to take this into account in the standards
   development process.

8.  The way forward

   There are instruments that can help the IETF develop an approach to
   address the politics of standards.  Part of this can be found in
   [RFC8280] as well as the United National Guiding Principles for
   Business and Human Rights [UNGP].  But there is not a one-size-fits-
   all solution.  The IETF is a particular organization, with a
   particular mandate, and even if a policy is in place, its success
   depends on the implementation of the policy by the community.

   Since 'de facto standardization is reliant on market forces'
   [Hanseth] we need to live with the fact standards bodies have a
   political nature [Webster].  This does not need to be problematic as

ten Oever & AndersdotterExpires December 20, 2018              [Page 11]
Internet-Draft                   politix                       June 2018

   long as there are sufficient accountability and transparency
   mechanisms in place.  The importance of these mechanisms increases
   with the importance of the standards and their implementations.  The
   complexity of the work inscribes a requirement of competence in the
   work in the IETF, which forms an inherent barrier for end-user
   involvement.  Even though this might not be intentional, it is a
   result of the interplay between the characteristics of the epistemic
   community in the IETF and the nature of the standard setting process.

   Instead of splitting hairs about whether 'standards are political'
   [Winner] [Woolgar] we argue that we need to look at the politics of
   individual standards and invite document authors and reviewers to
   take these dynamics into account.

9.  Security Considerations

   As this draft concerns a research document, there are no security
   considerations as described in [RFC3552], which does not mean that
   not addressing the issues brought up in this draft will not impact
   the security of end-users or operators.

10.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.

11.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Andrew Sullivan, Brian Carpenter, Mark Perkins and all
   contributors and reviewers on the hrpc mailinglist.  Special thanks
   to Gisela Perez de Acha for some thorough editing rounds.

12.  Research Group Information

   The discussion list for the IRTF Human Rights Protocol Considerations
   working group is located at the e-mail address hrpc@ietf.org [1].
   Information on the group and information on how to subscribe to the
   list is at: https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc [2]

   Archives of the list can be found at: https://www.irtf.org/mail-
   archive/web/hrpc/current/index.html [3]

13.  References

13.1.  Informative References

   [Abbate]   Abbate, J., "Inventing the Internet", MIT Press , 2000,

ten Oever & AndersdotterExpires December 20, 2018              [Page 12]
Internet-Draft                   politix                       June 2018

   [Ahlborn]  Ahlborn, C., Denicolo, V., Geradin, D., and A. Padilla,
              "Implications of the Proposed Framework and Antitrust
              Rules for Dynamically Competitive Industries", DG Comp's
              Discussion Paper on Article 82, DG COMP, European
              Commission , 2006,

              Bijker, W. and J. Law, "Shaping Technology/ Building
              Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change", Cambridge, MA:
              MIT Press , 1992.

   [Bloor]    Bloor, D., "Knowledge and Social Imagery", London:
              Routeledge & Kegan Paul , 1976.

   [BramanI]  Braman, S., "Internationalization of the Internet by
              design: The first decade", Global Media and Communication,
              Vol 8, Issue 1, pp. 27 - 45 , 2012, <http://dx.doi.org.pro

              Braman, S., "The Framing Years: Policy Fundamentals in the
              Internet Design Process, 1969-1979", The Information
              Society Vol. 27, Issue 5, 2011 , 2010, <http://dx.doi.org.

   [Carey]    Carey, J., "Communication As Culture", p. 139 , 1992.

              Court of Justice of the European Union, .,
              "ECLI:EU:C:2004:257, C-418/01 IMS Health", Cambridge, UK:
              Cambridge University Press , 2004,

              Court of Justice of the European Union, .,
              "ECLI:EU:T:2007:289, T-201/04 Microsoft Corp.", Cambridge,
              UK: Cambridge University Press , 2007,

              Contreras, J., "Technical Standards and Ex Ante
              Disclosure: Results and Analysis of an Empirical Study",
              Jurimetrics: The Journal of Law, Science & Technology,
              vol. 53, p. 163-211 , 2013.

ten Oever & AndersdotterExpires December 20, 2018              [Page 13]
Internet-Draft                   politix                       June 2018

              Denardis, L., "The Internet Design Tension between
              Surveillance and Security", IEEE Annals of the History of
              Computing (volume 37-2) , 2015, <http://is.gd/7GAnFy>.

              Arkko, J., "Thoughts on IETF Finance Arrangements", 2017,

              Feenberg, A., "Critical Theory of Technology", p.5-6 ,

              Hague, R. and M. Harrop, "Comparative Government and
              Politics: An Introduction", Macmillan International Higher
              Education. pp. 1-. ISBN 978-1-137-31786-5. , 2013.

   [Hanseth]  Hanseth, O. and E. Monteiro, "Insribing Behaviour in
              Information Infrastructure Standards", Accounting,
              Management and Infomation Technology 7 (14) p.183-211 ,

              Heidegger, M., "The Question Concerning Technology and
              Other Essays", Garland: New York, 1977 , 1977,

   [IAOC69]   IAOC, ., "IAOC Report Chicago", 2007,

   [IAOC77]   IAOC, ., "IAOC Report Anaheim", 2010,

   [IAOC99]   IAOC, ., "IAOC Report Prague", 2017,

   [Nadvi]    Nadvi, K. and F. Waeltring, "Making sense of global
              standards", In: H. Schmitz (Ed.), Local enterprises in the
              global economy (pp. 53-94). Cheltenham, UK: Edward
              Elgar. , 2004.

ten Oever & AndersdotterExpires December 20, 2018              [Page 14]
Internet-Draft                   politix                       June 2018

   [Postman]  Postman, N., "Technopoly: the Surrender of Culture to
              Technology", Vintage: New York. pp. 3-20. , 1992.

   [RFC0049]  Meyer, E., "Conversations with S. Crocker (UCLA)", RFC 49,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC0049, April 1970,

   [RFC0101]  Watson, R., "Notes on the Network Working Group meeting,
              Urbana, Illinois, February 17, 1971", RFC 101,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC0101, February 1971,

   [RFC0144]  Shoshani, A., "Data sharing on computer networks",
              RFC 144, DOI 10.17487/RFC0144, April 1971,

   [RFC0164]  Heafner, J., "Minutes of Network Working Group meeting,
              5/16 through 5/19/71", RFC 164, DOI 10.17487/RFC0164, May
              1971, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc164>.

   [RFC0196]  Watson, R., "Mail Box Protocol", RFC 196,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC0196, July 1971,

   [RFC0286]  Forman, E., "Network Library Information System", RFC 286,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC0286, December 1971,

   [RFC0313]  O'Sullivan, T., "Computer based instruction", RFC 313,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC0313, March 1972,

   [RFC0316]  McKay, D. and A. Mullery, "ARPA Network Data Management
              Working Group", RFC 316, DOI 10.17487/RFC0316, February
              1972, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc316>.

   [RFC0542]  Neigus, N., "File Transfer Protocol", RFC 542,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC0542, August 1973,

   [RFC0549]  Michener, J., "Minutes of Network Graphics Group meeting,
              15-17 July 1973", RFC 549, DOI 10.17487/RFC0549, July
              1973, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc549>.

   [RFC0613]  McKenzie, A., "Network connectivity: A response to RFC
              603", RFC 613, DOI 10.17487/RFC0613, January 1974,

ten Oever & AndersdotterExpires December 20, 2018              [Page 15]
Internet-Draft                   politix                       June 2018

   [RFC1097]  Miller, B., "Telnet subliminal-message option", RFC 1097,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1097, April 1989,

   [RFC1958]  Carpenter, B., Ed., "Architectural Principles of the
              Internet", RFC 1958, DOI 10.17487/RFC1958, June 1996,

   [RFC2026]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
              3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996,

   [RFC2804]  IAB and IESG, "IETF Policy on Wiretapping", RFC 2804,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2804, May 2000,

   [RFC3552]  Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
              Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3552, July 2003,

   [RFC3935]  Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF",
              BCP 95, RFC 3935, DOI 10.17487/RFC3935, October 2004,

   [RFC5218]  Thaler, D. and B. Aboba, "What Makes for a Successful
              Protocol?", RFC 5218, DOI 10.17487/RFC5218, July 2008,

   [RFC6973]  Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,
              Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy
              Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6973, July 2013,

   [RFC7704]  Crocker, D. and N. Clark, "An IETF with Much Diversity and
              Professional Conduct", RFC 7704, DOI 10.17487/RFC7704,
              November 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7704>.

   [RFC7776]  Resnick, P. and A. Farrel, "IETF Anti-Harassment
              Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 7776, DOI 10.17487/RFC7776, March
              2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7776>.

   [RFC8280]  ten Oever, N. and C. Cath, "Research into Human Rights
              Protocol Considerations", RFC 8280, DOI 10.17487/RFC8280,
              October 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8280>.

ten Oever & AndersdotterExpires December 20, 2018              [Page 16]
Internet-Draft                   politix                       June 2018

              Rogers, M. and G. Eden, "The Snowden Disclosures,
              Technical Standards, and the Making of Surveillance
              Infrastructures", International Journal of Communication
              11(2017), 802-823 , 2017,

   [Russell]  Russell, A., "Open standards and the digital age: History,
              ideology, and networks", Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
              University Press , 2014.

   [Sisson]   Sisson, D., "Standards and Protocols", 2000,

   [UNGP]     Ruggie, J. and United Nations, "United Nations Guiding
              Principles for Business and Human Rights", 2011,

   [Webster]  Webster, J., "Networks of Collaboration or Conflict? The
              Development of EDI", The social shaping of inter-
              organizational IT systems and data interchange, eds: I.
              McLougling & D. Mason, European Commission PICT/COST A4 ,

   [Winner]   Winner, L., "Upon openig the black box and finding it
              empty: Social constructivism and the philosophy of
              technology", Science, Technology, and Human Values 18 (3)
              p. 362-378 , 1993.

   [Woolgar]  Woolgar, S., "Configuring the user: the case of usability
              trials", A sociology of monsters. Essays on power,
              technology and dominatior, ed: J. Law, Routeledge p.
              57-102. , 1991.

13.2.  URIs

   [1] mailto:hrpc@ietf.org

   [2] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc

   [3] https://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/hrpc/current/index.html

Authors' Addresses

ten Oever & AndersdotterExpires December 20, 2018              [Page 17]
Internet-Draft                   politix                       June 2018

   Niels ten Oever
   University of Amsterdam

   EMail: mail@nielstenoever.net

   Amelia Andersdotter

   EMail: amelia@article19.org

ten Oever & AndersdotterExpires December 20, 2018              [Page 18]