On the Politics of Standards

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2018-03-19
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
On Agenda hrpc at IETF-101
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: September 20, 2018                                   ARTICLE 19
                                                          March 19, 2018

                      On the Politics of Standards


   This document argues that the politics of standards need to be taken
   into account in the standards development process.  We come to this
   conclusion by mapping different perspectives on the relation between
   standards and politics in the Internet community and by providing
   illustrations of the political aspects of standard development.

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 September 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
   (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

ten Oever & AndersdotteExpires September 20, 2018               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                   politix                      March 2018

   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.  Literature and Positions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Technology is value neutral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.2.  Some protocols are political some times . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.3.  All protocols are political sometimes . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.4.  The network has its own logic and values  . . . . . . . .   4
     3.5.  Protocols are inherently political  . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Examples and approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Competition and collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.1.  Standards development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.2.  Standards development in the IETF . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  More legacy, more politics? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  Layers of politics  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   8.  How voluntary are open standards? . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   9.  The need for a positioning  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   10. The way forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   13. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   14. Research Group Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   15. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     15.1.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     15.2.  URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

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

   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

ten Oever & AndersdotteExpires September 20, 2018               [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                   politix                      March 2018

   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 )

3.  Literature and Positions

   While discussing the impact of protocols on human rights different
   positions can be differentiated.  Without judging them on their
   internal of external consistency they are represented here.

3.1.  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
   technology 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

ten Oever & AndersdotteExpires September 20, 2018               [Page 3]
Internet-Draft                   politix                      March 2018

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

3.2.  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.

3.3.  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.

3.4.  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.

   Consider, for instance, the way that the very existence of the
   automobile imposes 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 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.

   Certain kinds of technology shape the world in this sense.  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,

ten Oever & AndersdotteExpires September 20, 2018               [Page 4]
Internet-Draft                   politix                      March 2018

   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 much same way, then, networking technology once created makes its
   own demands.  One of the most important conditions for protocol
   success is that the protocol is incremental deployability [RFC5218].
   This means that the network already deployed constrains what can be
   deployed into it.  Moreover, one interpretation of [RFC7258] is that
   pervasive monitoring is an "attack" precisely because of the
   network's need not to leak traces of online exchanges.  A different
   network with a different design might not have been subject to this
   kind of attack.

3.5.  Protocols are inherently political

   On the other side of the spectrum there are the ones who insist that
   technology is non-neutral.  This is for instance made explicit by
   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.

   More 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: one only
   has to look at the IANA transition or global innovation policy for
   concrete examples [DeNardis].  Similarly one can look at the Raven
   process in which the IETF after a long discussion refused to
   standardize wiretapping (which resulted in [RFC2804].  That was an
   instance where the IETF took a position that was largely political,
   although driven by a technical argument.  It was similar to the
   process that led to [RFC6973], in which something that occurred in
   the political space (Snowden disclosures) engendered the IETF to act.
   This is summarized in [Abbate] who says: "protocols are politics by
   other means".  This emphasizes the interests that are at play in the
   process of designing standards.  This position holds further that
   protocols can never be understood without their contextual

ten Oever & AndersdotteExpires September 20, 2018               [Page 5]
Internet-Draft                   politix                      March 2018

   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].

4.  Examples and approaches

5.  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 to
   others trying to accomplish the same thing, while reducing overhead
   and inefficiencies.  Standards enhance competition by allowing
   different entities to work from a commonly accepted baseline.  And
   they exist in many forms: there can be informal standards, that are
   just agreed upon normal ways of interacting within a specific
   community (i.e. the process through which greetings to a new
   acquaintance are expressed through a bow, a handshake or similar).
   There can be formal standards, that are normally codified in writing.

   And there can be de facto standards: standards that arise in market
   situations where one entity is particularly dominant, and 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 be able to restrict competition for downstream
   services for PC software products [CJEU2007], as well as downstream
   services dependent on health information [CJEU2004].

   The World Trade Organisation (WTO) recognises a difference between
   standards and technical regulations, where standards are voluntary
   formal codes to which products or services may conform while
   technical regulations are mandatory requirements the fulfillment of
   which is required for a product to be accessible on one of the WTO
   country markets.  The WTO rules have implications for how nation
   states, at least those that have signed on to the WTO agreements, may
   impose specific technical requirements on companies.

ten Oever & AndersdotteExpires September 20, 2018               [Page 6]
Internet-Draft                   politix                      March 2018

   But 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.

5.1.  Standards development

   The development of formal standards development faces a number of
   economic and organisational challenges.  The cost and difficulty of
   organising many entities around a mutual goal, as well as the cost of
   research and development leading up to a mutually beneficial
   technological platform.  In addition, one faces the problem of
   deciding what the mutual goal is.

   These problems 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.  Standards development in the IETF

   The 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 standard.

   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-

ten Oever & AndersdotteExpires September 20, 2018               [Page 7]
Internet-Draft                   politix                      March 2018

   free disclosures of prior patents which is a record number, even
   among other comparable standard organisations [Contreras].

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

6.  More legacy, more politics?

   Roman engineers complained about inadequate legacy standards they
   needed to comply with, which hampered them in their engineering
   excellence.  In that sense not much has changed in the last 2100
   years.  When starting from a tabula rasa, one does not need to take
   other systems, layers or standards into account.  The need for
   interoperability, and backward compatability makes engineering work
   harder.  And once a standard is designed, it does not automatically
   means it will be broadly adopted at as 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.

7.  Layers of politics

   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.

8.  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:

ten Oever & AndersdotteExpires September 20, 2018               [Page 8]
Internet-Draft                   politix                      March 2018

   "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."

9.  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 what 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
   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.

ten Oever & AndersdotteExpires September 20, 2018               [Page 9]
Internet-Draft                   politix                      March 2018

   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 testament of
   this.  But 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.

10.  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
   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.

11.  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.

12.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.

ten Oever & AndersdotteExpires September 20, 2018              [Page 10]
Internet-Draft                   politix                      March 2018

13.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Andrew Sullivan, Brian Carpenter, Mark Perkins and all
   contributors and reviewers on the hrpc mailinglist.

14.  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]

15.  References

15.1.  Informative References

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

   [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,

   [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,

ten Oever & AndersdotteExpires September 20, 2018              [Page 11]
Internet-Draft                   politix                      March 2018

              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.

              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 ,

   [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,

ten Oever & AndersdotteExpires September 20, 2018              [Page 12]
Internet-Draft                   politix                      March 2018

   [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.

   [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>.

ten Oever & AndersdotteExpires September 20, 2018              [Page 13]
Internet-Draft                   politix                      March 2018

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

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

   [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,

   [RFC7258]  Farrell, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Pervasive Monitoring Is an
              Attack", BCP 188, RFC 7258, DOI 10.17487/RFC7258, May
              2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7258>.

   [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 & AndersdotteExpires September 20, 2018              [Page 14]
Internet-Draft                   politix                      March 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.

   [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.

15.2.  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

   Niels ten Oever
   University of Amsterdam

   EMail: mail@nielstenoever.net

ten Oever & AndersdotteExpires September 20, 2018              [Page 15]
Internet-Draft                   politix                      March 2018

   Amelia Andersdotter

   EMail: amelia@article19.org

ten Oever & AndersdotteExpires September 20, 2018              [Page 16]