2015-11-03 14:36:24+0900 ------------------------ HRPC at IETF-94 - Beginning (5 min) Agenda Bashing Jabber scribe, note takers - dkg note taking - Melinda Shore jabber scribing Notewell Introduction - - Status of proposed research group (5 min) - - Context of research (10 Min) -- Scott Bradner objects to the white-on-red as a violation of usability guidelines ("speaking of human rights") - - Discussion of 'A Case Study of Coding Rights' (20 min) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/attach/hrpc/pdfbyB1Dp.pdf -- Corrine Cath speaks remotely carnivore post-Snowden pervasive monitoring OPES Middleboxes Status 451 when does the IETF encode values: needs three points clear technical reason no economic or political pressure against it problems directly impact core goals (openness, etc) recommendations: * find ways to have HR guide protocol development. * more participants who are direct custodians of human rights within the IETF * emphasize importance of the four key principles from Clark et al. Linus Gasser -- i think it's really brave to try to put HR into protocols at all, but others understand human rights differently. How should we engage with people who have a different backround toward human rights? Corrine Cath -- some people do say there is no universality, HR is a very western notion. but i've yet to encounter a viable alternative. I'm assuming we want a world where freedom of expression is maintained, and the UNDHR is the best we've got at the moment. Robin Wilton -- the concern that there be no political opposition is really troubling. there's always going to be someone who wants to not do it. Sometimes we just need to push back. Corrine Cath -- i'm not saying it shouldn't, i'm saying if there is a lot of political resistance, it *won't* be done. How do we ensure that the IETF is aligned with the UNHDR in a way that certain actors don't walk away from the table. Jonne Soininen -- If personal morals were encoded, i'd say the reverse: the IETF has always been about technically sane solutions. the e2e argument has been something that we've used because it makes technical sense. many IETFers have thought "When you do it right technically, you insert HR automatically" -have you thought about it that way around? Corrine Cath -- i havne't thought about it that way. separating personal views from what you do is not something we can do effectively. Ted Hardy -- to answer Jonas: when you talk about "techincally right", you're encoding your assumption about what is right. An example is a catenet instead of an internet (catenet has firmer borders between networks; internet is that each node is part of the same overlay). there are values for catenets instead of internets, but these choices are value choices. You can model it as freedom of expression, but i see it as more about freedom of association. "the internet is for anyone" means we should be open to interconnection to all parties. This is encoding technical values. name-drops someone fancy which i missed. Jonne Soininen -- not every engineer thinks about this as the human rights principle. this is chicken and egg. Was e2e originally an HR argument, or was it a technical model? which came first? Corrine Cath -- Baran wanted a network that could survive nuclear attack. That's a particular view of what network you need. Robin Wilton -- technical and ethical dimensions: Sarah S?? from University of Vienna makes clear argument that there is no ethically-neutral design. Ted Hardy -- As to what came first: what i see now is the aim that everyone has the ability to join the network. it doesn't prevent that and it should scale as much as possible. Whether we meant that as "the right to connect" vs. "striving for the ability to connect" has the same effect. Jonne Soininen -- now we take ethics and openness more seriously, but maybe that wasn't always the driving force. - - Discussion of Methodology draft (30 min) https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-varon-hrpc-methodology-01 Cases IP DNS HTTP P2P XMPP VPN Definitions Way forward - - Discussion of Glossary draft (10 min) https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dkg-hrpc-glossary-01 Stephane Bortzmeyer -- how do we organize how to make fixes on these documents? XMPP writeup has false statements. How are we supposed to organize? should we use issue tracker? Avri & Niels -- changes have not been deliberately added. John Levine -- your concentrating on Section 19, but security of the person is also relevant. f. ex. sxsw gamergate horrorshow is relevant. why isn't it in the draft? It's always FreedEx Avri Doria -- we tried to start with just one, to avoid boiling the ocean, but i agree those are critical ones to deal with. We should look at the proposed charter to consider more than just what we've started with. John Levine -- i'll talk with you later. Jeff Jack (?) -- when i look at accessibility, i see it as a human right in itself, but you've got it as a piece of "right to political participation" Niels -- we're comparing from UNHDR over to technical terms. that's why some terms are on the left, and some on the right. Stephane Bortzmeyer -- we have more subtle points, but hrpc@irtf.org is too quiet. f. ex. I challenged comments about IP mobility, but no one responded to my challenge. We need more discussion. Avri -- methodology document is just a starting point, i agree we need more discussion. how many have read methodology -- show of hands is very small Avri -- that's why there's not enough discussion. Bob ?? -- these rights conflict with each other. Just picking a few isn't helpful because the interesting stuff is in the conflicts. Niels -- agreed, these are interdependent and interrelated and need to be balanced, but before we do that we need to define them. Avri -- I don't think the RG is going to solve the problem. hopefully it's going to help us understand it better instead. Robin Wilton -- rephrasing Niels and Avri: i don't think the work of the group is about defining these rights. i tihnk it's about trying to understand what these rights involve and how you implement it. Bob's right, it's not a neat hierarchy. but that shouldn't stop us from looking at them one by one. Nalini Alkins -- i've been looking at how censorship attacks take place. - - Discussion of report draft (10 min) https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-doria-hrpc-report-00 - - Discussion of 'The Internet is for End Users' draft (20 min) https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-for-the-users-02 mnot displays W3C priority of constituencies surfacing the constitutencies makes it a bit easier to think about the arguments you run into. failing end users means failing the goals of the internet John Levine -- i read the draft, and my initial response was "duh, this is obvious". My only concern is that we're notoriously bad about knowing what is best for our users. mnot -- right, this draft is in some ways a very small step. it's just sort of a stake in the ground we can use against OPES Peter Koch -- priority of constituencies is self-referentially invalid because it is a theoretical principle that says theoretical principles should go last. my users might not be your users -- couldn't the principles be used as a tool to [missed] mnot -- "end user" is not usually something that refers to router administrators. Andrew Sullivan -- the term "end user" has the ability to hide a lot of sins. we don't know who our end users are in many cases. Suppose HomeNet coalesced quickly around some routing protocol that made it easy to go in and support the system remotely on the part of the ISP. There are two end users: the owner of the home, and the guy stuck at the helpdesk who has a claim of being a legit end user of this protocol. The W3C use cases involve a human. IETF work often is just machines talking to each other. I don't think that fascists come to the IETF. I think the issue might be about focusing on "real problems". can we re-cast this in terms of "how do you identify a real problem"? Using abstract properties instead of end users might be better. mnot -- yes, a toolbox of sticks to bet down bad proposals would be useful Ted Hardy -- instead of trying to abstract this down, we consider this in the context where end users are effected. Maybe some drafts have no effect on end users, so they have a section that says "no issues", just like when IANA isn't impacted by a draft. Lee Howard -- I like the short draft! I agree that end user depends on the thing you're designing. I want to ask: "better" could mean "simpler" or it could mean "more knobs to turn" mnot -- i agree that the relevance to the user might be less at higher layers, but lower layers do also have effects on end users. Ted Hardy -- agree. Robin Wilton -- leave "end user", since we all understand it's a shorthand. I think we need to understand "end user" as "those affected". f. ex. wrt privacy, my privacy is affected by protocols used by other users. Jeff Jack -- i'm surprised that the IETF has no understanding of what's best for end users given what we've just talked about with the UNDHR. these don't compute. Bob Hinden -- we have insight, we should be able to use it, don't say we have no specific insight. dkg -- the statement is saying that we as the IETF have no specific insight into what's good for everyone, because the world is more diverse than this room. The IETF needs to become more diverse. Bryan Ford -- our insight as a group of geeks is anything but a representative sample of the internet user community. Maybe we can solve that? Maybe we need a democratic root of trust for the Internet. Who has heard of the deliberative poll process? can we get an ordinary group of users to come to the IETF and ask them questions? Niels -- bring it to the mailing list. - - Open discussion other drafts, papers, ideas (20 min) no takers - - Charter update status (if necessary - 5 Min) Randy -- standards used to be about users trying to get vendors to interop so that we have choices. IETF is now about vendors trying to sell us stuff. I didn't come out of today better at protocol design or with better knowledge about what to do for users. - - Next steps (5 min) - - AOB