►
From YouTube: IETF104-HRPC-20190328-1610
Description
HRPC meeting session at IETF104
2019/03/28 1610
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/104/proceedings/
C
C
C
Our
our
outputs
are
drafts
concerning
projects
process,
progress
of
the
project,
methodology
policy
and
academic
papers,
film
and
textual
textual
interviews,
data
analysis
and
visualization
protocol
analysis.
The
work
to
date,
starting
in
October
2014,
the
research
group
proposal,
the
screening
of
the
film
net
of
Rights
December
2015.
We
were
actually
chartered.
Seventeen
are
see
80
to
80
came
out.
The
current
work
includes
those
drafts,
freedom
of
association
on
the
internet,
guidelines
for
human
rights
protocols
and
notes
on
networking
standards
and
politics.
C
D
C
D
So
it's
it's
free,
your
information,
it
hopefully
you'll
be
interesting
right.
So
the
association
for
progressive
communications
has
women's
rights
program
and
they're
the
ones
who
have
pushed
this
long.
Although
it's
been
a
collective
effort
with
lots
and
lots
of
different
organizations,
small
grassroots
groups
around
the
world-
and
that
includes
organizations
that
are
maybe
just
women's
rights
groups
that
don't
have
anything
to
do
with
technology.
It
also
includes
other
groups
that
maybe
have
more
of
a
focus
on
technology
and
yeah.
It's
a
collective
effort,
but
these
are
the
folks
that
are
behind
it.
D
So
this
is
just
a
very
broad
overview
of
what
we
mean
by
a
feminist
internet.
So
it's
it
says
right
there.
It's!
The
purpose
is
to
work
towards
empowering
more
women
and
queer
persons
to
fully
enjoy
their
rights,
engage
in
pleasure
and
play
and
dismantle
patriarchy
with
the
use
of
the
internet
collaborating
online.
D
So
this
is
a
pretty
you
know,
well-known
person
in
feminist
theory,
saying
there's
no
such
thing
as
a
single
issue
struggle
because
we
do
not
live
single
issue
lives.
So
there
might
be
this
question
around
like.
Why
are
feminists
talking
about
the
internet
and
internet
rights?
It's
very
much
ingrained
and
everything
that
you
know
a
women's
rights
organization
would
want
to
do
people
fighting
for
women's
rights
online.
D
The
Internet
is
part
of
that
now,
and
also
to
note
that
this
is
a
particular
there's,
a
lot
of
question
around
ok,
what
is
feminism
and
there's
many
different
interpretations
of
that?
This
is
definitely
a
perspective
of
intersectional
feminism,
which
would
include
lots
of
questions
around
race,
gender,
sexuality,
class,
etc,
and
you'll
see
that
as
we
go
through
what
the
principles
actually
are
all
about.
D
So
the
purpose
of
coming
up
with
principles
for
what
a
feminist
internet
would
look
like
is
to
provide
a
framework,
which
is
why
I
think
this
is
particularly
interesting
to
this
group.
We
work
in
frameworks
to
work
on
standards,
it's
easier
to
understand
if
you
can
kind
of
break
out
the
issues,
so
this
framework
intends
for
women's
movements
to
be
able
to
articulate
and
explore
because
it's
a
process
issues
related
to
technology,
so
the
principles
I'm
gonna
go
into
detail
here.
D
The
visual
is
not
well,
it's
very
exciting
and
cool
as
you
can
see,
but
it
doesn't
tell
you
much
on
the
slide.
So
I'm
gonna
talk
a
little
bit
about
what
each
principle
includes
and
entails
and
they're
broken
into
I
think
five
different
sections,
so
the
first
three
principles
under
the
under
the
ax
X
access
session
section
are
thus
so
when
it
comes
to
access
to
the
Internet.
The
things
to
note
about
the
way
this
is
expressed
and
by
the
way
you
can
actually
find
all
of
this
at
this
URL.
D
So
if
you
wanted
to
to
go
there
now,
you
could
read
along
I'm,
not
going
to
read
them
verbatim,
but
the
thing
about
internet
access
as
it
relates
to
feminism
online,
is
that
needs
to
be
universal,
acceptable,
affordable,
unconditional,
open,
meaningful
and
equal
access
to
information
is
the
second
one
that
things
to
know
there.
It's
really
in
two
parts,
so
one
is
that
sexual
reproductive
health
and
rights
pleasure,
safe
abortion,
access
to
justice
and
LGBTQ
issues
are
available.
Information
about
that
is
available
online
and
in
the
second
part
of
that
which
is
related.
D
D
So
the
second
section
of
principles
is
around
movement
building.
So
this
is
a
really
important
part
of
any
kind
of
social
movement.
Is
that
you
need
the
ability
to
organize
together
as
a
collective
voice,
so
those
items
the
first
one
is
around
resistance.
So
this
also
I
think
is
important
to
note
in
the
context
of
the
online
world
in
the
offline
world,
so
the
offline
world
is
experiencing
globally
a
shrinking
of
civic
space
like
a
shrinking
of
places
where
we
can
go
and
convene.
D
We
see
this
to
varying
degrees
in
different
parts
of
the
world,
but
noting
that
the
Internet
is
important
in
that
way,
because
it
allows
from
ideally
more
of
that
collaboration
and
there's
a
movement
of
organizing
that
traditionally
happened
offline.
That
now
happens
a
lot
online
and
they're
related.
So
there's
there's
also
an
intersection
of
this
principle
about
resistance
necessarily
with
the
access
to
the
Internet,
so
to
be
able
to
utilize
the
ability
to
to
to
organize
online.
D
So
that's
what
I
would
say
about
resistance
and
then
on
movement
building,
which
is
not
the
second
one.
They
might
have
changed.
The
surround.
Sorry
mine
says
the
second.
The
second
piece
under
movements
is
movement
building,
so
that
is
about
facilitating
new
forms
of
sense
of
citizenship.
A
global
internet
leads
to
such
a
thing
and
then
connecting
across
territories
demanding
accountability
and
transparency
across
borders,
and
then
the
last
one
is
around
Internet
governance.
D
So
there
are
a
couple
around
economy,
because
that's
quite
important,
because
part
of
part
of
patriarchy
means
that
there
are
some
people
there.
You
know
economics
comes
into
play
very
strongly
there,
so
the
first
piece
is
around
alternative
economies.
So
this
is
to
interrogate
the
capitalist
logic
that
drives
technology
towards
further
privatization,
profit
and
corporate
control,
and
to
address
that
a
feminist
internet
would
necessarily
rely
on
cooperation,
solidarity,
Commons,
environmental
sustainability
and
openness,
and
then
the
last
piece
around
this
is
open
source.
So
they're
committed
the
feminist
principles.
D
The
internet
are
committed
to
free
and
open
source
software
so
that
there
can
be
creation
and
experimentation
with
technology,
and
then
this
is
the
second
to
final
piece
on
expression.
So
there's
a
few
different
pieces
here,
so
one
is
obviously
the
internet
isn't
amplifying
can
have
an
amplifying
effect.
So
the
the
point
here
is
to
try
to
amplify
resistance
to
the
state,
the
religious
right
and
other
extremist
forces
who
otherwise
and
still
do
to
some
degree,
monopolize
discourses
on
morality
while
at
the
same
time,
silencing
feminism.
The
second
piece
is
on
freedom
of
expression.
D
This
is
interpreted
I,
wouldn't
say
strongly
the
way
it
is
in
the
Universal
Declaration
on
human
rights.
It
has
a
much
broader
view,
and
it's
and
this
principle
focus
on
such
focuses
on
sexual
expression
as
a
freedom
of
expression
issue
and
also
pushes
back
against
the
opposite
of
this,
which
is
to
control,
surveil,
regulate
and
restrict
feminism
and
queer
expression
with
the
use
of
technology,
legislation
and
violence.
D
The
last
piece
on
expression
is
around
sexuality,
so
sexuality
is
seen
as
a
form
of
expression,
and
so
therefore,
the
use
of
pornography
online
is
is
mentioned
here
because
it
has
to
do
with
the
agency,
consent,
power
agency,
consent,
power
and
labor
issues
of
pornography.
So
it's
interesting
that
this
principle
actually
tries
to
take
the
conversation
out
of
a
discussion
about
the
internet
and
about
content
and
tries
to
turn
it
around
and
look
at
the
real
issues
that
are
inherent
in
something
like
pornography.
So
it's
a
much
bigger
issue.
D
So,
lastly,
on
embodiment
and
otherwise
known
as
agency,
there's
again
I'm
looking
at
different
language
here,
because
these
evolved
I
should
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
that.
I
can
do
that
at
the
end,
so
agency
or
embodiment
has
several
different
parts.
This
is
the
biggest
section,
I
think
something
that,
when
people
think
about
what
feminists
would
have
to
say
about
the
Internet,
this
would
be
a
lot
of
of
what
would
come
to
mind
so
consent
really
big
issue,
something
that
feminists
think
a
lot
about.
D
The
idea
of
using
consent
in
the
context
of
the
internet
would
be
to
build
an
ethics
and
politics
of
consent
in
to
the
culture
design
policies
in
terms
of
service
of
Internet
platforms.
This
is
also
very
closely
related
to
the
next
principle
on
privacy
and
data,
so
the
right
to
privacy
and
full
control
again.
Consent
over
personal
data
is
key
here,
and
it
also.
D
This
principle
also
talks
about
surveillance
being
the
historical
tool
of
patriarchy
as
its
used
to
control
and
restrict
women's
bodies,
speech
and
activism,
and
yeah
I
would
just
say
that
they,
the
principle,
also
calls
into
question
not
just
the
private
sector
in
the
state,
but
also
individuals
and
the
way
that
they
use
surveillance.
So
noting
there
I
think
what
it's
indicating
is
things
like
spouse
where
right
like
you
can
use
the
internet.
D
You
can
use
apps
to
like
track
your
track,
the
people
in
your
lives,
so
it's
not
just
about
large
sorts
of
powerful
entities,
the
next
one's
on
memory,
so
memory
about
you
know
what
what
information
is
online
and
so
on
also
has
to
do
with
consent.
So
so
memory
is
the
right
exercise
and
retain
control
over
our
personal
history
and
memory
on
the
internet.
D
The
next
piece
is
anonymity,
so
it's
expressed
here
as
the
right
to
be
anonymous
and
reject
all
claims
to
restrict
anonymity
online,
because
anonymity
enables
freedom
of
expression
and
it
helps
to
break
taboos
of
sexuality
and
heteronormativity.
It
allows
and
facilitates
for
experimenting
with
gender
identity
and
enabling
safety.
D
The
next
piece
is
on
children
and
youth,
which
is
a
I
think
it's
an
attempt
to
have
some
say
in
the
narrative
around
that.
So
often
we
find
in
well
at
least
I
see
an
Internet
Governance
spaces,
maybe
not
so
much
the
IETF,
the
children
are
brought
up,
and
so
this
attempts
to
speak
to
that.
Since
it's
a
it's,
definitely
a
feminist
issue.
D
So
the
points
that
they've
made
on
principles
around
children,
youth
is
that
the
inclusion
of
voices
and
experiences
of
young
people
and
the
decisions
made
about
safety
and
security
online
is
critical
for
all
the
reasons
essentially
listed
in
the
rest
of
the
principles
and
then
the
very
last
piece-
and
this
is
something
that
APC
is
really
LED
on
since
2006
is
talking
about
violence
against
women
online.
So
the
last
piece
is
around
online
violence.
D
So
this
is
key
because
we
need
to
address
the
issue
of
online
harassment
and
Technology
related
violence,
because,
even
though
this
happens
on
the
internet,
it's
actually
very
very
real,
harmful
and
alarming.
What
can
happen
online
with
regards
to
the
with
regrets?
A
violence
against
women,
so
I
will
actually
back
up,
which
is
something
I
should
have
done
the
beginning
to
talk
about
the
provenance
of
these
principles
a
little
bit
more
in
depth.
D
D
Anyway,
it
doesn't
matter,
but
so
over
the
course
of
four
or
five
years
they
convened
dozens
of
activists
to
to
talk
about
this
again,
folks
that
are
coming
women
and
gender
non-conforming
people
that
are
coming
from
just
traditionally
women's
rights
organizations
and
then
also
those
that
have
a
bit
more
awareness
and
understanding
of
Technology,
and
so
that
conversation
led
to
several
versions
of
this
document.
So
they
started
out
with
a
version
one
after
the
very
first
meeting
in
Malaysia
in
2015
and
then
also
the
what
coincided
with
the
second
meeting
was
really
interesting.
D
They
had
chatter
about
it
on
the
internet,
so
they
did
it's
like
a
hashtag
campaign
kind
of
so
it
was.
You
can
still
look
it
up
online
hashtag,
imagine
a
feminist
Internet,
so
they
were
asking
people
they
were
in
this
second
meeting,
but
also
online.
What
if
you
could
imagine
what
you
know
if,
if
the
internet
were
designed
by
feminists,
like
what
would
be
some
features
of
that,
you
got
a
wide
range
of
stuff,
but
it
ultimately
fed
into
the
second
version
of
these
these
principles
and
so
yeah.
D
D
So
we
want
to
bring
in
information
about
human
rights
and
social
considerations
into
the
IETF
and
into
the
technical
community,
more
largely,
but
then
also
to
be
able
to
have
that
convert,
have
conversations
about
technology
outside
the
ITF
and
bring
let's
bring
the
discussions
that
happen
here
to
other
groups
and
and
movements
and
organizing
efforts
so
that
it's
clear
what
is
at
stake
and
to
have
more
of
a
conversation,
and
so
that's
kind
of
the
point
of
that
draft
in
the
process
around
it.
That's
it
I
would
just
I.
D
Have
these
slides,
so
I'll
just
go
ahead
and
finish
them
off,
because
I
think
it's
kind
of
interesting,
so
there
there's
some
other
things.
You
can
do
online
if
you're
interested
in
this
or
want
to
read
more
about
what
people
are
thinking
this
website,
gender
IT
org,
it's
very
active
there
are
posts
all
the
time
from
people
around
the
world
talking
about
issues
in
the
technology
and
Internet
right
space
and
their
impact
specifically
on
gender.
It's
a
really
great
resource,
it's
something
you
should
like.
D
If
you
follow
things
or
have
feeds,
just
add
it
to
your
feed.
This
is
another
project
that
APC
did,
that
is
a
bit
related,
but
specifically
focused
on
the
sexual
rights
piece,
and
so
this
erotic
s--
was
also
a
long-standing
project,
mostly
focused
in
the
global
South
in
Southeast
Asia
in
Latin
America,
and
you
can
go
here
to
learn
about
some
of
the
research
they
did
in
the
findings
they
did,
but
that
I
think
this
project
has
sunsetted
for
the
moment.
D
But
it's
always
an
active
conversation
and
then
at
some
point,
so
global
information
society
watches
an
annual
publication
by
ABC
and
its
partners
that
puts
out
just
thought:
leadership,
I
guess
or
like
research
from
different
country
perspectives.
There
usually
are
about
what
50
to
60
reports
individually
on
a
specific
topic
and
then
in
2016
I
believe
that
whole
book
was
about
about
feminism,
women's
rights
and
sexual
rights.
D
So
you
can
go
on,
gives
watch
organ,
look
up
that
publication
if
you'd
like
again,
it
gets
really
specific
country,
like
country,
specific
context
to
some
of
these
issues
and
then
again,
because
feminists
organized
and
it's
gonna
feminist,
they
they
do
an
annual
campaign,
and
this
coincides
with
the
16
days
of
activism
against
gender-based
violence
that
is
I,
think
put
on
by
the
UN.
Mostly
it
happens
in
November
December
every
year,
and
then
this
a
PCS
contribution
and
their
partners--
contribution
to
this
is
to
have
specifically
actions
around
internet
and
and
and
technology,
so
yeah.
D
C
G
I
I
If
you
don't
know,
we've
been
asked
to
step
in
as
technical
advisors
to
the
group
to
address
a
couple
of
the
issues
which
would
come
up
mainly.
We
want
to
make
sure
that
that
this
research
group
is
working
well
in
the
context
of
the
IRS
G
and
the
IETF,
and
making
sure
that
relations
are
good,
that
people
are
talking
to
each
other,
that
the
work
coming
out
of
this
group
is
relevant
to
the
IRS
G
and
the
ITF
IRT.
I
Excuse
me
an
IETF,
so
some
a
lot
of
this
is
going
to
be
related
to
the
question
of
how
reviews
are
handled
and
done.
It's
been
highly
contentious.
You
know
my
own
view
is
that
they're
extremely
valuable
that
they
absolutely
need
to
continue.
The
focus
initially
really
needs
to
be
on
using
them
as
a
mechanism
to
evaluate
80
to
80
and
make
sure
that
all
the
right,
all
the
right
points
are
being
hit.
I
Also,
I
think
that
you
know,
one
of
the
things
that
can
be
done
is
to
work
more
closely
with
the
working
groups
which
drafts
your
evaluating
and
you
stand
kind
of
standard,
IETF
working
processes,
but
just
to
make
sure
this
goes
more
smoothly
that
it's
value.
The
value
to
the
this
research
group
is
primary
and
and
yeah
by
a
little
bit
of
context,
I'm
from
I'm
from
Alaska
I'm
very
concerned
about
rights
in
the
circumpolar
north.
I
J
Should
I
should
I
go
now?
Yes,
I
hi,
I'm,
DK
g,
I'm
daniel
con
Gilmore
I
work
for
the
ACLU
I'm
here
at
the
IETF,
because
I
care
about
a
number
of
human
rights
and
their
interactions
with
protocols
here
and
I'm
I
think
the
research
that's
happening
in
this
research
group
is
important
and
informative
and
to
the
extent
that
we
can
see
that
research
have
more
of
a
clear
theoretical
backing
and
sorry
I'm
anywhere
I
turn
up.
J
C
You
I
want
to
thank
both
of
you
for
that.
I
want
to
thank
both
of
you
for
stepping
in
while
we
caught
up
on
everything
want
to
sort
of
explain
just
slightly
that
until
yesterday
morning
this
was
gonna,
be
our
goodbye
meeting
and
welcoming
of
new
chairs,
and
it's
only
through
the
day
yesterday
that
we
discovered
that
we
were
actually
gonna
stay
on
as
as
co-chairs
so
use
that
as
an
excuse
for
the
lack
of
together.
Please.
F
Say
you,
sir?
The
kg
has
been
really
important
and
trying
to
understand
how
this
ITF
work,
because
I
six
months
ago,
I
didn't
know
that
idea
so
I'm
really
interested
in
trying
this
information
and
these
experiences
most
of
all
here
but
I,
it's
for
me.
It's
really
difficult
to
be
inside
so
much
many
engineers
so
well.
F
What
we
want
to
do
in
the
draft
is
to
think
about
how
technical
decisions
and
infrastructure
standards
and
protocol
you
do
impact
on
Internet
users
around
the
world,
but
specifically
on
marginalized
groups
and
communities.
But
this
is
not
only,
for
example,
what
Gaia
do,
which
is
like
people
in
places
far
far
away
from
the
centralized
cities
and
so
on,
but
socially
condemned
without
or
excluded
because
of
their
difference.
So
the
way
they
express
themselves,
which
in
terms
of
language
or
color
of
skin
or
bodies
or
practices
or
form
so
and
so.
F
Starting
with
this
work,
we
have
the
reference
like
the
80
to
80,
which
I
think
you
know,
and
the
77040
each
talk
about
how
those
ITF
works
inside
the
dynamics
you
have
inside
the
ITF
and
I
recently
read
the
internet
is
for
users
for
end
users,
which,
for
me
it's
very
important
because
I
am
an
end
user.
So
this
is
like
a
call
to
think
about
not
only
the
operators,
but
how
does
this
work
can
be
impacting
on
on
the
final
chain?
F
I
think
so
we
when,
as
Mallory
was
presenting
the
expression,
is
a
chapter
in
feminist
principles
of
the
Internet.
So
we
want
to
take
the
expression
as
a
framework
in
this
work
as
a
framework,
in
the
sense
that
feminist
movements
have
used
for
years,
the
Internet
to
meet
to
resist
to
I,
don't
know
amplify
their
voices
and
using
the
formats
internet
offer
you
know,
but
on
the
other
hand,
inside
the
IDF.
There
are
many
ways
in
which
you
are,
or
you
have
been
for
long
years,
expressing
about
gender
bodies
and
people
in
general.
F
As
we
are
talking
about
machines,
gender
is
really
present
in
documents.
So
one
of
the
ideas
is
to
look
back
the
archive
not
only
RFC's
but
drafts
and
see
how
gender
is
being
expressed
there.
So
in
the
short
document
we
have
for
now
there
is.
There
are
not
it's
mentioned
that
this
is
something
we
do,
but
we
are
not
doing
it
yet.
F
You
know
it,
you
don't
need
to
be
a
government
or
a
big
institution
or
have
a
lot
of
resources,
but
what
happens
on
the
user
level
permits
and
enables
a
lot
of
violence
against
women
and
many
other
rips
marginalized
and
vulnerable?
So
that's,
okay,
so
the
feminist
principles.
What
we're
gonna
do
is
try
to
take
some
use
cases,
users,
cases
and
well.
This
is
very
first,
so
what
we
plan
to
do
next
is
to
better
explain,
explain
some
terminology,
feminist
terminology,
trying
to
explain
it
to
you.
F
So
we
need
a
lot
of
comment
about
that,
develop
some
other
concepts
and
what
I
was
telling
you
review
the
archive
and
take
the
use
cases,
and
this
is
a
collaborative
process.
So
this
is
not
the
only
place.
What
is
it
will
be
developed,
because
in
this
moment
there
is
a
lot
of
feminist
technical
community
I,
don't
know
like
administrating
infrastructure
and
so
on.
So
we
want
to
construct
there.
F
C
L
Hi
I'm
Jimmy
Luther
from
Boston
University
I,
was
just
sifting
through
the
draft
right
now.
I
haven't
read
it
through
in
detail,
but
I
had
a
small
question
at
some
places.
The
word
internet
is
small
I
and
at
others
its
capital
I.
Is
it
intentional
because
I
think
it
changes
the
context
a
little
bit.
C
M
I
Ted
lemon,
so
I'm,
just
looking
at
the
document
and
I
kind
of
have
a
question
about
what
the
goal
is:
I
just
I've
been
reading
over
various
sections
of
it
and
there's
a
lot
of
statements
in
here
that
I
that
make
a
lot
of
sense
to
me
and
that
I
agree
with,
but
also
you
know,
I'm
looking
at.
For
example,
in
section
I,
don't
know
if
it's
I
guess
it's
1.5.2
talks
about
a
lot
of
gendered
subjects
in
IETF
RFC
s
in
the
draft
archive
and
I.
M
Don't
doubt
that
that's
true
I
also
suspect
that
if
you
were
to
analyze
that
over
time
there
would
be
a
trend
towards
a
lot
less
of
it.
Certainly
when
I
write
drafts,
I
try
to
avoid
gendered
language
and
so
I'm
using
that
as
an
example
I'm,
not
particularly
picking
this
knit,
but
but
I'm
wondering
if
there's
going
to
be
an
intention
to
actually
associate
some
data
with
these
assertions
as
opposed
to
just
making
the
assertions
or
if
this
is
more
intended
as
a
sort
of
a
collection
of
statements
of
sort
of
position,
statements
I,
don't.
F
It's
the
only
question
people
have
done
about
the
text
and
I
think
there
are
a
lot
assumptions
and
I
think
this
work
is
important
because
of
not
taking
just
assumptions
but
facts.
So
that's
why
I
think
it's
interesting
and
because
it
has
helped
to
me
has
helped
me
to
have
a
tool
to
review
the
archive.
So
I
am
trying
to
count
the
terms
and
the
contexts,
and
it's
really
interesting.
I
didn't
write
it,
but
I
hope.
C
No
yeah
because
showing
a
trend
over
time
would
actually
be
a
very
interesting
curve
to
see
and
now
we're
even
going
to
be
able
to
see
curves
and
graphs
I
understand
which
will
be
really
marvelous.
Ok,
thanks
thanks
for
waiting
and
present
it
please
and
then
there's
also
Bradley,
who
often
bring
in
with
the
red
eye.
G
We
also
want
to
emphasize
the
importance
of
sticking
with
the
Charter
of
this
group,
because
it
is
the
harder
is
practicable.
We
do
have
our
criticism,
but
it
is
practicable.
The
principles
are
agreeable
on
to
IETF
actors,
and
if
we
stick
with
the
Charter,
we
might
also
avoid
a
policy
cessation
of
the
group
work.
So
Bradley
do
you
want
to
say
a
couple
of
words:
can.
H
N
I
can
hear
myself
really
clearly
too,
which
is
not
okay.
Okay,
it's
better!
Now,
hi
everyone,
I'm
gonna,
run
out
to
deafen
everyone,
I'm
Bradley
fiddler,
it's
great
to
be
here.
This
is
my
first
IETF
I'm.
Sorry,
I
can't
be
there
in
person
I'm
an
assistant
professor
I'm,
a
historian
of
computing,
in
fact
at
the
Stevens
Institute
of
Technology,
and
what
we're
doing
here
is
we're
looking
at
we're
going
to
start
by
going
over
in
brief,
the
kind
of
intellectual
history
of
this.
N
So
you
can
get
these.
You
know
trend
lines
and
manat,
and
you
can
see
that
kind
of
work
right
up
until
the
present
day
on
studies
of
technical
systems
and
their
social
impact
of
such
things.
As
you
know
the
internet
now
this
is
so.
This
is
a
kind
of
consensus,
I
think
in
in
large
pieces
of
the
social
sciences.
N
These
technologies
interact
with
the
society
over
a
long
time
before
you
can
really
know.
What's
going
to
happen,
it
was
also
separated
from
the
political
projects
that
tried
to
use
those
kinds
of
observation
as
a
form
of
social
control
like
state
communism,
for
example.
So
it
was
born
anew
but
separated
from
this
kind
of
centuries
history
of
this
kind
of
investigation,
and
we
think
that
there
are
actually
problems
that
showed
up
and
like
things
that
were
learned
in
asking
these
kinds
of
questions
over
time
that
can
productive
may
be
applied
to
these
issues.
G
So
I'm
going
to
just
briefly
mention
that
Human
Rights
protocol
considerations
in
in
the
IETF-
and
you
can
correct
me
if
I'm,
wrong,
ivory
and
others
who
have
been
involved
with
this
since
2015
so
did
the
research
group
came
up
with
a
couple
of
internet
drafts,
various
versions
that
became
at
some
point.
One
of
them
became
an
RFC
and
the
principles
I
think
as
charter
addresses,
is
to
identify
and
protect
the
rights
enabling
characteristics
of
the
Internet,
so
which
is
a
great
goal.
G
However,
we
we
need
to
have
better
methods
to
actually
achieve
this
goal
and
identify
the
rights
the
other.
But,
however,
we
also
see
an
evolution
in
the
approach
of
the
group
to
that
goes
from
encoding,
arguing
that
you
should
encode
rights
into
Internet
Protocol,
and
that
is
in
the
version
0
0,
of
the
research
draft
in
2015.
G
It
comes
and
becomes
more
moderate
and
accepts
that
it's
actually
internet
protocols
might
enable
human
rights,
protection
of
and
protect
human
rights
on
the
Internet.
So
this
was
like
a
background
that
I
thought
it's
important
to
know
and
kind
of
like
remind
ourselves
why
we
are
here
and
why
we
have
such
group.
G
But
then,
but
then
so
the
message
that
the
group
argued
and
they're
coming
up
with
methods
at
the
moment,
more
kind
of
like
gets
this
idea
that
the
despite
the
fact
that
we
don't
in
place,
we
don't
really
explicitly
say
we
want
to
encode
in
rights
into
and
values
into
internet
protocols.
We
again
use
that
impetus
that
was
used
in
the
in
the
beginning,
when
the
group
was
formed
to
kind
of
measure
the
impact
and
advise
the
the
developers
to
consider
values
before
when
they
are
developing
the
Internet
Protocol.
G
So
I
thought
that
it
would
be
important.
We
thought
it
would
be
important
in
our
document
to
talk
about
how
struggling
is
measuring
political
impacts
and
how
sometimes
it
is
impossible-
and
this
is
a
picture
of
a
North,
Korean
Network
internet
network-
that
they
used
you're
right,
enabling
Internet,
Protocol
and
used
it
as
a
surveillance
and
mechanisms
that
do
not
necessarily
enable
rights
on
the
further
citizens.
So,
but
that
is
the
problem.
Measuring
the
impact
of
our
political
decisions
before
the
Internet
protocols
are
in
place
and
used
is
very
difficult,
so
you
might
have.
G
We
might
have
really
good
intentions
to
enable
certain
rights
and
then
later
on,
those
protocols
might
be
used
actually
to
do
exactly
the
opposite,
so
it
is
not
very.
It
is
not
very
accurate
to
expand
before
the
protocols
are
in
place
to
understand
and
actually
come
up
with
values
in
the
design
of
the
Internet
protocols.
Of
course,
afterwards,
as
we
are,
we
are
going
to
explain
in
the
method
afterwards
you
can
consider
that
with
other
factors,
but
before
that
it
is,
it
is
not
possible
so
and
Bradley
go
ahead
with
measuring.
Oh
sure,.
N
So
you
know
again
it
is
it
is
that
kind
of
issue
of
whether
or
not
we
can,
how
much
that
we
can
start
considering
political
values
as
part
of
the
design
process.
So
we
want
to
trace
from
impact
through
design
and
and
design
decisions
and
kind
of
the
next
step
along
that
causal
chain.
We
have
designed
the
political
character
of
the
design.
N
If
this
technology
did
this
particular
thing,
we
will
say
that
this
technology
has
a
certain
kind
of
politics
that
we
associated
with
it,
but
it
we
should
be
really
clear
about
what
we
mean
in
our
thinking
here,
because
there
is
no
real
observable
or
measurable
property.
That's
like
inherent
that's
like
that,
like
matter
or
something
like
that
that
we
can
see
or
measure
in
the
technology
itself,
and
we
really
have
two
choices
for
the
way.
I
think
that
we
can
talk
about
this.
N
One
is
kind
of
speculative
philosophical
metaphysics
where
you
can
say
that
a
technology
is
by
looking
at
it.
One
particular
way
so
I
can
say
a
particular
protocol
is
democratic.
A
pen
is
socialist
whatever
right,
and
it
allows
us
to
kind
of
choose
metaphorically
make
powerful
statements,
but
then
we
run
into
these
questions
of
like
well
is
internet
protocol.
This
Liberal
Democratic
thing
is
it
the
US
Department
of
Defense?
N
Is
that
a
fashion
of
neo
authoritarianism,
it's
kind
of
tough
to
say
it's
hard
to
falsify
the
other
way
to
do
this
is
to
make
measurements
of
observed
causal
relationships
right.
So
you
could
say
clearly
that,
in
a
certain
context,
a
certain
protocol
would
have
a
certain
kind
of
consequence,
and
that's
something
that
is
is
measurable
and
observable,
but
it
doesn't
actually
have
us
assigning
a
kind
of
fetishized
quality
to
the
protocol
itself.
N
N
This
is
this
important
moment
that
that
to
which
attention
is
being
drawn
by
a
lot
of
this
research
here
and
there's
also
a
couple
different
ways
to
identify
or
to
understand
those
one
is
as
properties
that
are
inherent
in
the
kind
of
event
the
act
of
design
right,
so
I
can
say
my
decision
right
now
to
implement
this
particular
crypto.
Primitive
is
liberal,
but
that
that
person
over
there
doing
the
other
primitive
is
alright
or
something
like
that
and
that's
that's.
That's
fine,
there's
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
cases.
N
I
would
argue,
they're,
probably
edge
cases,
but
there's
a
lot
of
powerful
cases
where
there's
clearly
a
kind
of
political
intent
that
people
would
agree
on
that
they
can
see.
But
it's
also
true
that
we
haven't
even
really
agreed
what
liberal
means,
since
the
invention
of
liberalism,
everyone
has
a
different
take
and
it
isn't
clear
that
we
understand
their
own
motivations.
We
all
know
someone
who
claims
to
have
a
certain
kind
of
politics
and
they're,
very
even
you
know,
articulate
about
it,
but
then
maybe
act
a
different
way
and
we've
known
that.
N
We
don't
really
understand
their
own
motivations
very
clearly
since
since
psychology
now
so
there's
that
one
way
to
do
which
is
kind
of
ascribing
those
properties,
the
other
way
would
be
consequentially
like
after
we
can
see
what
the
consequence
was
go
back
and
say.
Well,
these
decisions
had
those
certain
kinds
of
like
measurable
impacts,
and
if
we
do
that,
what's
interesting
is
that
the
consequence
of
those
decisions
will
change
over
time
as
context
change,
and
the
impact
of
a
certain
protocol
will
change.
N
So
the
same
design
decision
will
have
different
meanings
over
time
and
and
there's
also
problems
that
are
involved
with,
for
example,
and
when
people
make
these
decisions
we
don't
know
that
it's
entirely
their
own
agency.
So,
for
example,
Internet
Protocol
addresses
the
interface
right
that
wasn't
necessarily
this
entirely
creative
act.
It
looks
a
lot
like
how
interface
message
processor
gave
a
port
to
a
host
on
the
ark
net
right.
N
So
you
have
these
intellectual
trajectories
that
don't
necessarily
let
people
step
outside
and
actually
make
decisions
in
a
vacuum
and-
and
you
know
entirely
politically
so-
we've
got
three
case-
studies
that
we'll
go
through
pretty
quickly
here.
These
are
in
the
in
the
draft
that
we,
we
posted
a
kind
of
pre
print
of
it
on
the
listserv,
and
the
actual
formal
draft
will
be
coming
out
soon.
N
If
you
were
in
the
internet,
community,
like
the
at
the
time,
DARPA
led
Internet
community
in
the
late
1970's
and
early
1980s,
exterior
gateway
protocol
and
which
becomes
BGP
in
1989,
is
extremely
important
because
it
allows
you
to
expand
the
internet
and
privily
beyond
the
smaller
size
that
was
enforced
when
all
the
routers
were
visible
in
a
single
kind
of
routing
architecture.
Right.
N
So
it
was
a
highly
contested
thing
and
we'd
be
hard-pressed
not
to
recognize
the
kind
of
differential
nature
of
how
political
values
and
their
impact
are
actually
understood.
The
second
case
study
is
the
domain
name
system.
The
diagram
here
was
when
Makkah
petrus
was
figuring
out.
The
tree
he
picked
truth
is
one
of
the
higher
level
domains
and
realized
he'd
bit
off
a
bit
more
than
he
could
chew
and
stopped
extending,
because
that
would
be
pretty
tough.
In
any
case,
with
the
domain
name
system,
it
was
developed
in
the
early
1980s.
N
The
first
name
servers
were
online
and
about
five
and
in
our
preprint
Draft.
We
look
at
how.
If
you
took
snapshots
of
DNS
in
85,
95
and
2005,
just
dates
taken
arbitrarily
decade
intervals,
you
would
see
them
being
you'd,
see
DNS
being
attached
to
very
different
values
than
very
different
objectives.
Right
and
what's
interesting
about.
N
That
is
that
the
objectives
that
it
was
attached
to,
and
also
its
consequences,
changing
quite
radically
at
those
ten-year
intervals,
would
have
us
mean
that
if
we
went
back
to
Jon
Postel,
Paul,
Malcolm,
Petrus
and
Zhou
sangsoo
and
tried
to
assess
the
politics
inherent
in
their
design
decisions,
we
would
come
to
different
conclusions
about
what
was
actually
going
on
at
those
different
intervals.
Even
though
those
decisions
were
in
fact
the
same
ones,
they
don't
change.
We
just
relate
like
retro,
actively
kind
of
retcon
them
right.
So
that's
a
that's
a
difficulty
there.
N
The
other
another
issue
with
DNS
is
that
you
can
actually
just
see
today.
It's
actually
really
interesting
that
people
emphasize
the
decentralized
nature
of
it.
That
really
wasn't
necessarily
one
of
the
things
that
people
were
focused
on
and
in
the
early
years,
and
in
fact
a
lot
of
the
criticism
of
that
architecture
was
that
it
was
entirely
centralizing
and
locked
out
other
naming
architectures.
So
again,
it's
also
that
relational
issue
with
rights
and
then
finally,
the
last
case
study,
Internet
Protocol.
N
One
of
the
things
that's
interesting
about
the
way
that
the
Internet
Protocol
is
discussed
in
terms
of
the
social
implications
of
the
Internet
is
that
people
from
humanists,
such
as
myself,
social
scientists,
people
that
comment
on
the
large-scale
social
implications
of
networks
and
the
Internet
in
particular
have
identified
the
Internet
Protocol
as
the
thing
that's
responsible
for
the
distributed
architecture
of
the
Internet.
That's
really
interesting,
because
the
Internet
Protocol,
one
of
the
reasons
it
was
specified,
was
for
a
network
called
auto-tune
which
had
less
than
10
nodes.
N
It
was
actually
a
fairly
centralized
network
with
something
we'd
call
more
a
network
than
an
Internet.
Today,
though,
I
suppose
it
was
technically
an
Internet,
but
the
point
is
it
was.
It
was
designed
for
actually
something
that
looks
quite
centralized
by
today's
standards
and
the
change
in
the
topology
of
the
internet
over
time
is
not
a
consequence
of
I
pee
being
radically
changed,
but
of
routing
protocols
and
algorithms
that
have
altered
the
way
that
routing
actually
works.
N
So
while
the
Internet
Protocol
enables
the
routing
that
we
have
today,
it's
not
the
deciding
factor
and
the
fact
that
it
has
been
kind
of
identified,
often
exclusively
as
the
harbinger
of
the
topology
that
we
have,
and
the
fact
that
things
are
distributed,
illustrates
the
fact
that
it's
really
easy
to
it's
easy
to
have
a
hard
time
in
figuring
out
what
the
specific
impact
of
one
protocol
is
in
a
world
of
many
many
protocols
interacting
and
complex,
and
often
emergent
ways,
and
that's
it
for
the
case.
Studies.
G
So
now
get
to
the
last
slide,
which
I'm
going
to
tell
you
about
them
method
that
we
are
developing.
It's
not
developed
yet,
but
considering
the
problems,
the
issues
that
we
may
face
in
understanding
the
impact
and
measuring
the
impact
of
internet
protocols
on
writes
we
first
of
all,
we
need
to
identify.
G
As
the
Charter
said,
we
need
to
identify
these
rights
and
we
cannot
just
go
and
say
this
is
like
a
set
up
a
UDHR
rights
or
some
other
conventions
right
and
just
take
them
and
then
generally
consider
the
impacts
on
these
rights
without
understanding
the
context,
they're,
very
context,
dependent
and
also
they're.
Very
their
impact
is
very
relational.
G
It
might
be
the
Internet
Protocol,
it
might
be
the
whole
Internet
Protocol.
It
might
be
sets
of
Internet
Protocol
that
are
interrelated,
that
might
have
effect
on
these
rights
or
it
might
be
the
Internet
Protocol,
as
well
as
the
market
and
law
and
other
other
actors
that
will
hamper
the
rights
that
we
will
find
a
identify.
So
we
need
to
answer
two
questions.
First,
before
we
started
our
research,
one
is
context
dependency.
But
what
context
are
we
actually
measuring
there?
G
Internet
Protocol,
so
the
impact
of
the
Internet
Protocol
in
our
rights
and
by
context
I
do
not
necessarily
mean
geographical
location
but
other
context
like
social
context,
and
that
way
we
can
also
identify
the
rights
instead
of
just
having
a
laundry
list
of
Rights
and
picking
from
them,
and
then
the
other
question
that
is
important
to
answer
is
whether
Internet
Protocol
is
the
right
units
of
analysis.
Whether
this
is
really
whether
Internet
Protocol
really
have
consequences
or,
along
with
other
actors
and
factors,
has
consequences
on
our
rights.
G
O
O
D
G
Is
providing
a
new
angle?
Yes,
it
is
very
difficult
and
almost
impossible,
because
if
you
look
at
as
historically
will
we
see
sometimes
intentions
are
something
and
you
predict,
you
predict
a
positive
effect
and
you
get
another
another
effect.
So
it
is
it
is.
It
is
difficult
to
act.
Your
we
predict.
G
Of
course
you
can
predict
it
by
this
difficult
to
accurately
predict,
but
if
it's,
if
it
has
been
operationalized
for
a
good
number
of
years,
I
think
that
there
might
be
ways
to
consider
how
it
affects
her,
but
then
that
would
not
be
considering
when
developing
it.
That
would
be
reviewing
the
protocol.
G
N
Just
to
further
answer
that,
thank
you
for
the
question.
We
also
think
that
you
know
we
don't
we
think
protocols
are
political
and
we
think
human
rights
are
important.
We
do
think,
though,
that
if
political
considerations
became
an
active
part
of
the
development
process
or
was
kind
of
institutionalized
in
any
way
at
the
IETF
were
concerned,
that
the
political
values
that
were
being
assessed
in
the
people
making
those
decisions
would
be
difficult
to
measure
or
know
right
self
self
reporting
in
Survey
Research
we'd
been
trying
to
get
that
down
for
a
long
time
it's
difficult.
N
It
would
also
be
because
we
won't
really
know
what
the
consequences
of
that
protocol
are
for
a
while,
whatever
it
was
that
we
were
seeing
in
the
politics
of
those
people
or
asking
them
to
kind
of
self-report
or
confess
would
be
something
else,
it
would
be
some
other
kind
of
bias.
It
would
be
at
some
other
kind
of
thing
we
think
once
in
awhile
there
could
be
I
think
these
edge
cases
where
it's
just
blindingly
obvious
that
somebody
has
an
ulterior
motive
and
it's
a
you
know,
maybe
a
damaging
thing,
but
most
of
the
time.
N
O
So
thank
you
for
the
also
taking
the
case
studies
I,
think
in
my
personal
experience,
participating
in
IETF
working
groups.
Sometimes
the
impact
of
protocols
on
human
rights
or
otherwise
is
very,
very
apparent.
If
we
just
go
and
look
back
at
Els
1.3,
there
was
a
huge
debate
about
whether
the
protocol
will
have
perfect
forward
secrecy
or
not,
and
this,
in
fact
is
a
political
process
right.
We
have
different
stakeholders
wanting
different
properties
out
of
the
protocol,
that
is
being
designed
and
clear.
G
Criticize
that
els
thing
in
our
paper,
not
at
paper
with
Professor,
an
allure
and
I,
don't
want
to
take,
we
can.
We
can
have
a
discussion
after
this.
We
don't
think
that
it
is
really
apparent
which
decision
is
right.
Also,
it
has
created
some
kind
of
competition
between
start
standard-setting
organizations,
so
I
trill
it
has
come
up
with
its
own.
That's.
G
C
G
C
M
We
had
aspirations
that
very
clearly
were
not
realized,
but
it
was
not
that
big
a
surprise.
There
were
definitely
people
who
understood
at
the
time
that
this
was
happening,
that
the
problems
that
we've
seen,
for
example,
with
Facebook
and
data
election
and
so
forth.
These
were
all
things
that
were
anticipated
well
in
advance
of
the
appearance
of
the
Internet
and
the
ubiquity
of
online
purchasing
and
online
commerce
and
and
social
networking.
So
so.
M
Based
on
the
reason,
I
say,
this
is
because
I'm
feel
like
it's
hard
to
it's
hard
to
believe
that
the
solutions
that
you're
likely
to
propose
are
going
to
be
useful.
If
you
haven't
actually
understood
the
history
of
the
Internet
as
it
was
actually
experienced
by
those
of
us
who
lived
through
those
years
and
the
the
so
I'm
not
saying
this,
because
I
want
to
make
you
go
away
and
shut
up,
I'm
saying
it
because
I
want
you
to
do
more.
M
Research,
I
think
that
I
think
that
it
would
be
useful
to
actually
look
at
some
of
the
literature
from
the
from
the
80s
mid
90s
about
what
was
anticipated
for
the
Internet
and
see
how
that
compares
to
what
actually
happened.
I
think
you
might
see
that
there
was
actually
a
great
deal
of
wisdom
and
knowledge
about
what
the
future
held.
Even
you
know,
20
years
before,
Facebook
came
along,
for
example,
so
just.
N
Yeah,
thank
you.
That's
it's
a
reminder
that
the
history,
I
think
is
very
contested.
I
think
the
the
controversies
that
we
were
speaking
to
are
available
online
on
the
archives
of
things
like
the
name,
dropper
list
and
other
kind
of
online
discussion
forums
as
well
as
things
like
RFC's
and
whatnot
I.
Think
the
our
main
point
about
the
about
the
domain
name
system.
N
Is
it's
not
a
kind
of
impossible
task
of
peering
into
the
you
know,
sentiments
of
the
people
who
all
the
people
who
are
there
at
the
time,
it's
more
the
ways
that
it
was
understood
more
broadly
by
a
larger
community
and
also
the
politics
that
it
was
associated
with
right.
So,
regardless
of
whether
or
not
people
you
know
working
in
the
trenches
in
this
felt
one
way
or
the
other,
there
was
still
its
association,
for
example,
with
the
so
I
neck.
N
Then
the
internet
I
can
pti
and
said
so
where
our
example,
with
the
with
the
domain
name
system,
is
more
about
the
context
in
which
it
operated
and
how
that
changed
over
time
and
then
again
yeah
the
debates
I
think
there.
There
were
obviously
a
lot
of
different
opinions
of
what
happened
there,
but
we're
mostly
thinking
of
things
that
we
can
see
online.
N
C
P
I'm
Gabrielle
insanely
from
University
of
Luxembourg,
it's
my
first
time
so
I
always
said
my
comments
in
the
right
way.
So
I
definitely
agree
with
you
that
that
acknowledged
as
an
impact
on
society,
but
then
I
have
some
doubts
on
whether
stating
as
you
say
that,
do
you
want
to
bring
back
and
anticipate
the
impact
of
a
technology.
Why
there's
a
need
to
technology
is
the
right
way.
P
Okay,
have
I,
think
a
moral
value
and
for
me
also
can
be,
can
open
to
certain
threats
and
invalid
reasoning,
because
you
may
forgot
certain
but
bodyboards
context
so
was
question
or
comment
would
be
probably
better
instead
to
think
how
to
design
technology
in
such
a
way
that
all
these
analyses
can
be
possible
later
analysis
in
the
in
the
sense
of
research
methods,
valid
analogy
so
basically
having
a
repeated
objective.
Repeatable
logically,
sound
measurable,
falsifiable
analysis
of
the
impact
of
technology
after
were
exposed.
G
It
is
very
it's
very
ambitious
and
sorry.
We
didn't
go
to
like
Grandma
details
of
our
criticism
of
the
approach
to
consider
values
while
developing
internal
protocols
and
why
they
don't
work
as
effectively
as
when
you
like
come
back
and
review
it,
because
well
basically,
the
ex
the
ex-ante
factor
here,
you
cannot
really
predict.
We
have
showed
that
in
our
cases,
studies
that
it
you
cannot
predict
whether,
as
a
result
of
the
design
decision,
what
you
want
to
achieve
will
happen.
P
G
Well,
yeah
we're
trying
to
make
that
point.
So,
basically
what
we
are,
what
we
are
saying
that,
instead
of
considering
these
values
before
like
during
coming
up
with
the
Internet
Protocol,
we
should
consider
the
impacts
of
the
protocol
after
a
while
and
see
whether
this
is
the
impact
of
whether
this
protocol
has
any
impact
on
our
right,
whether
it's
only
this
protocol
that
has
an
impact
or
with
like.
Very
if
you
have
other
factors.
So
we
need
to
be
a
little
bit
more
scientific.
Q
Christian
Aveda,
mom
I,
was
saying
to
your
talk,
and
the
idea
of
looking
at
unintended
consequences
is
indeed
something
that
engineers
should
do.
I
mean
the
historical
thing
is
like,
for
example,
the
poor
would
not
have
been
the
Wars
of
Religion
without
the
printing
press,
and
the
great
walls
of
the
20th
century
would
not
have
happened
without
the
Industrial
Revolution
and
now.
Q
N
I
think
at
the
risk
of
getting
into
areas
that
the
IETF
doesn't
cover,
such
as
the
Industrial,
Revolution
I,
think
that's
an
interesting
case
where,
before
the
factories
were
built,
there
wasn't
a
lot
of
understanding
of
what
the
consequences
would
be
prior
to
industrialized
warfare.
It
wasn't
really
obvious
pecked,
we
can
say
wow
the
Industrial
Revolution
changed
the
face
of
the
world
and
so
did
World
War
one
in
the
less
productive
way.
N
But
when
people
were
just
kind
of
thinking,
you
know
what,
if
I
made
my
dunnsworth
fact
reasons
that
you
know
it
wasn't
necessarily
clear
and
in
fact
some
of
the
predictions
were
way
off.
So
you
know
some
of
the
predictions
I
think
the
machine
gun
will
bring
world
peace
because,
where
we
come
to
costly
or
something
like
that
right
so
I
think
those
examples
would
be
cases
where
we
recognize
and
we
celebrate
the
dramatic
impact
that
the
Internet
can
have
and
we
worry
about
the
downsides.
N
Q
I
mean
if
we
have
to
cite
one
the
one
on
an
unintended
consequence.
We
see
today
is
generalized
surveillance,
I
mean
bit
corporate
surveillance
or
bit
government
surveillance,
but
but
we
see
that
and
the
level
of
surveillance
that
we
have
today
that
we
see
emerging
probably
will
not
have
happened
without
the
technology
and.
G
Do
we
know
that
how
much
internet
protocols
played
a
role
in
that
and
whether
we
can
actually
stop
it
by
changing
these
protocols
and
the
other
question
and
I
know
that
there
was
a
statement
after
that
ITF
issued?
But
it
was
a
statement.
I,
don't
know
how
much
we
actually
did
something
about
it.
The
other.
G
The
other
thing
is
that
when,
when
we
actually
made
an
example
of
the
printing
press
in
our
paper,
where
we
presented
here
two
years
ago-
and
they
told
us
this
very
meeting
that
this
is
not
an
accurate
analogy,
so
it
is
not
nothing,
it
is
not.
It
is
not
a
cure,
but
we
we
kind
of
like
this-
is
why
we
did
not
make
those
examples,
because
we
thought
that
the
community
might
not
be
receptive
to
it
anymore,
so,
but
internet
that
is
apparently
different,
and
this
is
what
they
argued,
but
yeah.
J
Hello
Daniel
can't
go
more
a
cou,
so
I
want
to
thank
you
both
for
bringing
this
here
and
for
engaging
in
the
discussion.
I
think
it's
important
that
we
think
about
how
we
do
this
research
and
I
completely
agree
with
you
about
the
context
being
relevant
and
individual
reviews
of
a
specific
internet
draft
or
a
specific
RFC
may
not
be
sufficient
right
that
to
do
such
a
review
effectively,
you
may
well
need
to
bring
in
context
whether
that
context
is
other
internet
protocols
or
social
or
economic
factors.
J
So
I
want
to
thank
you
for
bringing
that
that
mends
to
this
I
think
I
think
in
terms
of
being
able
to
understand
the
impact
we
may
well
need
to
situate
these
reviews
in
in
current
political
or
historical
political,
depending
on
what
we're
looking
at
context,
so
I'm
wondering
the
the
argument
that
I
hear
you.
Advancing,
though,
seems
to
be
that
prospective
prediction
is
so
hard
as
to
be
impossible,
so
we
should
stick
with
retrospective
analysis
and
I'm.
A
big
fan
of
the
you
know
the
virtues
of
not
biting
off
more
than
you
can
chew.
J
So
I
I
can
understand
where
you're
coming
from
with
that,
but
I
also
wonder
if
we
do
a
historical
analysis
and
we
see
some
clear
evidence
based
on
contextual
analysis
and
protocols.
What
are
our
obligations?
What
should
we?
How
should
we
use
that
analysis
going
forward?
Is
it
something
that
should
inform
future
evolutions
of
the
protocols
in
question?
Even
even
if
we
can't
predict
the
results,
or
do
you
see
that
as
like
too
much
too
fast,
we
should
just
keep
reviewing
existing
things
in
the
pass
Bradley.
N
I
think
that
we,
you
know
we're
what
we're
trying
to
raise
I
think
is
kind
of
a
cautionary
approach
to
institutionalizing,
I,
guess,
political
review
of
protocols.
I.
Think
that,
like
the
case
you
gave
if
a
particular
protocol
has
a
demonstrated
consequence,
then
you're
working
on
new
versions
of
it
or
something
like
that.
That's
an
obvious
case
to
have
that
discussion.
I
think
there
are
and
we've
spoken
about
this.
There
are
existing
mechanisms
in
the
ITF,
where
those
kinds
of
considerations
would
be
up
for
discussion.
N
Obviously,
the
people
in
the
ITF
know
that
they're
building
things
that
are
used
in
the
world,
so
it's
not
that
we
should
never
would
just
go
completely
blind
and
develop
whatever
we
want
move
fast
break
things
whatever
it's
that
we
should
be
careful
about
how
far
we
institutionalize
things
and
how
far
we
would
be
willing
to
argue
for
a
change
of
the
design
process.
We're
not
advocating
some
kind
of
a
moral
like
sociopathic
protocol
development
process.
So
the
example
you
get
I
think
is
the
perfect
one
of
where
you
would
obviously
want
to
say
wow.
N
C
Okay,
now
I
have
to
figure
out
how
to
get
niels.
Oh
now
he
just
joined
again
so
I'm,
not
quite
sure
now
how
I
shift.
C
R
Thank
so
much
for
the
effort
for
a
very
interesting
presentation.
I
would
be
very
interested
to
hear
from
the
scholars
whether
they
have
the
same
opinion
visa
fee
security
considerations.
So
should
we
not
think
about
the
security
impacts
of
something,
and
should
we
first
do
it
and
then
see
if
accidents
happen
and
if
so,
address
that.
A
R
Then
the
second
part
would
be:
do
you
think
it
could
make
sense
in
the
design
process
to
state
our
expected
impact
on
the
world
and
on
values,
so
that
we
have
something
to
measure
against
after
that,
because
else
we
then
we
have
at
least
a
baseline
measurement
against.
We
can
see
what
we
were
thinking
of
the
impact
it
has,
so
they
would
make
analysis
after
the
fact
perhaps
easier.
Would
that
also
be
a
thing,
something
that
could
be
included
in
your
model
thanks
so
much
Thank.
G
You
Neil,
so
for
your
first
question,
security
and
privacy
has
a
very
precise
technical
meaning
and
they
put
that
in
their
documents
and
considerations
so,
and
we
always
talk
about
like
security
and
privacy
like
and
the
and
the
balance
between
them.
But
when,
when
we
talk
about
the
technical
definition,
I
leave
it
to
the
IETF
developers
to
discuss
that
and
come
up
with
that
I
mean
they
have
already.
So
we
have
a
specific
afford
a
technicality.
G
We
have
a
specific
definition
while,
if
we
go
to
like
the
outside
world
privacy
and
security
law
enforcement
wants
to
save
us
from
the
bad
actors,
and
then
you
have
people
that
want
to
be
to
have
their
privacy
and
not
be
serving
so.
These
are
like
the
question,
so
I
think
we
need
to
really
distinguish
between
the
two
concept:
the
concept
of
security
and
privacy
at
the
technical
level
and
at
the
outside
and
the
other
question.
Sorry
I
forgot
your
other
question.
What
was
it?
Oh
yeah?
G
Oh
okay,
I
have
a
really
good
example
for
that,
so
basically
I'm,
not
I,
don't
know
if
I
do
I
think
that
would
politicize
internet
protocols
like
saying
that
this
I
want
to
advance
freedom
of
expression
in
the
world
that
would
politicize
the
Internet
Protocol
and
I'm,
not
in
favor
of
it.
G
But
if
the
community
is
that,
then
that
that's
okay
but
then
the
other
thing
is
well
it
that's
just
like,
because
I
think
it
was
Einstein
that
came
up
with
like
a
fridge
kind
of
take
like
come
up
with,
like
a
kind
of
like
a
cooler
for
the
fridge
and
they
was
used
for
something
else
and
I.
Don't
know
if
Einstein
I
don't
know.
G
N
So
I
think
that
those
are
really
great
questions
and
Niels
it's
great
to
finally
meet.
You
I
think
that
we
obviously
should
think
about
security
and
I.
Think
one
of
the
issues
with
the
internet.
One
of
the
problems
is
that
people
weren't
thinking
about
it
soon
enough
I
think
that
but
I
don't
think
the
the
lack
of
security
kind
of
designed
in
early
on
was
a
lack
of
the
think
about
it
or
talking
about
it.
I
think
it
was
for
other
kind
of
institutional
reasons.
N
I
think
that
when
it
the
question
of
whether
or
not
we
would
state
what
we
expect
this
to
do
with
respect
to
certain
political
values,
if
I
was
in
a
community
of
people,
if
the
entire
planet
thought
exactly
the
same
way,
I
did
about
politics,
and
so
did
the
organizations
and
governments
absolutely.
However,
depending
on
for
the
people
in
the
room,
depending
on
what
your
politics
are,
if
kwame
or
Cisco,
it's
made
a
statement
through
one
of
their.
You
know
representatives
as
to
what
they
were
hoping
to
accomplish.
Would
you
find
it
credible?
N
What
do
you
find
it
insightful?
Do
you
find
corporate
press
releases
incredible
sources
of
you
know
truth.
Furthermore,
if
a
let's
say
for
the
sake
of
argument,
I
was
to
call
article
19,
liberal
organizations
and
the
Hudson
Institute
or
the
Heritage
Foundation
said
we
care
and
let's
pretend
they
were
building
the
protocol.
The
idea
for
this
is
this:
this
yeah
and
they
said,
let's
they
said
we
care
about
exactly
the
same
human
rights
you
do.
As
for
imagine,
they're
like
paleo
conservatives,
or
something
like
that
people
from
a
totally
different
place
on
the
political
spectrum.
N
Would
you
find
those
statements
compelling?
Would
you
find
them
useful
for
me?
I
think
that
I
might
see
something
of
value,
but
that
value
there,
but
I
think
normally
I
wouldn't
find
a
lot
of
useful
information
and
I
think
that
our
concern
would
be
those
kinds
of
statements
would
become
there'd,
be
so
many
latent
consequences
built
into
the
active
State.
You
know
stating
them
that
it
will
become
a
problem
and
maybe
detract
from
the
work
of
the
ITF
or
even
kind
of
call
its
legitimacy
into
question.
Thank.
C
You
we've
really
run
over
time
on
this
one,
but
if
you
have
a
room,
you
have
a
remote
comment.
Is
that
yeah
bring
bring
that
one
in
and
then
we
really
do
need
to
cut
this
one?
But
hopefully
we'll
continue
this
discussion
on
the
list
as
opposed
to
waiting
until
the
next
time
we're
in
Prague.
But
no,
please
yeah
I
mean.
A
Just
quickly
want
Siobhan's
I,
just
wanted
to
say
I
wish,
we
understood,
probably
see
as
much
as
you
think
we
do,
but
we
don't
really
but
I.
Think
the
value
and
map
from
my
point
of
view,
is
that
the
value
in
having
a
privacy
consideration
section
is
that
we
do
think
about
it
and,
as
we
keep
doing
this
more
and
more,
we
eventually
learn
more.
It's.
C
C
We
had
a
discussion
of
any
reviews
and
then
we
did
have
the
three
drafts
that
are
currently
moving
had
a
suggestion
that
we
move
first
to
the
three
drafts,
and
then
we
can
come
back
to
the
the
reviews
if
there
are
any
and
then
to
the
hackathon,
the
hackathon
has
been
talked
about
a
lot
and
all
the
wonderful
stuff
that's
being
done
has
been
talked
about.
So
if
that's,
okay
with
people
will
move
to
the
three
documents
that
are
in
progress
and
the
first
one
we
were
going
to
cover
was
the.
O
Yes,
the
objective
of
the
draft
is
to
create
guidelines
for
writing.
Human
rights
considerations
and
RFC
80
to
80
already
contains
this,
but
this
will
sort
of
be
an
update
as
we
do
more
reviews
and
get
more
information
from
the
idea.
So
the
writing
is
also
practice
based
in
the
sense
we
are
drawing
from
a
chart
of
you
experience
and
it
is
oriented.
So
it
is
aimed
at
helping
authors
draft
their
human
rights
considerations
for
documents.
O
O
If
those
sections
are
relevant
and
what
we've
seen
is
that
HR
reviews
are
happening
not
just
of
protocols
in
the
traditional
sense
but
problem
statement,
drafts,
architecture,
solutions,
etc,
etc.
So
for
now
the
title
says:
guidelines
for
Human
Rights
protocol
and
architecture
considerations,
but
if
you
have
suggestions
on
what
the
scope
of
the
guidelines
should
be
right
now,
in
my
opinion,
they
are
written
mostly
for
protocol
analysis
rather
than
having
a
larger
scope
in
mind.
O
O
And
Thank
You
Corinne,
thank
you,
Joe
Thank,
You
Aubrey
for
reviewing
the
draft.
We
will
address
those
comments
on
the
mailing
list
and
hopefully
publish
a
new
version
soon
and
we're
also
hoping
to
add
more
explanation.
So
wherever
there
is
a
a
guideline
states
a
question,
we
intend
to
clearly
make
the
connection
between
human
rights
and
that
particular
question
linked
to
various
RFC's.
C
O
C
You
know
making
it
part:
I
mean
it's
sort
of
a
derivative
of
80
to
80,
but
I
think
that
as
people
gain
more
experience
as
we
go
through
any
method,
our
methodological
sort
of
work
on
the
considerations
and
it
gets
updated,
it
becomes
richer
and
then
we
can
figure
out
what
we
want
to
do
with
it.
Yes,
at
some
point
later,
yes,.
B
I
mean
Stefan
Bosnia
just
to
remind
that.
This
is
a
very
important
work
and
it's
related
to
the
previous
discussion,
because
a
previous
discussion
was
our.
It
is
difficult,
you
foresee
the
consequences
of
something,
but
we
cannot
just
say:
oh
it's
difficult.
We
will
do
nothing.
We
have
to
take
decisions.
You
take
the
example
of
TLS
1.3,
which
is
a
good
one.
So
it's
very
useful.
B
O
C
R
R
Please,
and
what
we
try
to
do
is
a
doc
is
a
one
specific
part
of
the
Charter,
namely
expand
and
deepen
the
relationships
between
specific
rights
and
protocols,
and
in
this
case
it's
specifically
the
right
of
freedom,
physician
and
assembly,
and
what
we
do
not
try
to
do
like
analyze,
specific
protocols
for
their
human
rights
impact
or
produce
new
guidelines,
even
though
we
do
for
grass
the
interrelation
between
these
rights
and
the
guidelines
next
slide.
Please.
R
So
we
had
two
full
reviews
of
the
document
and
some
co-chair
concerns
and
based
on
that,
we
reworked
the
abstract
and
added
a
research
design.
The
research
design
sparked
quite
some
discussion
in
the
last
two
days
on
the
list
about
the
nature
of
ethnography
and
whether
ethnography
can
expose
causal
relations
and
whether
causality
can
be
implied
based
on
these
cases.
R
We
try
to
address
that,
but
apparently
not
so
well,
but
I
hope
we
can
have
a
discussion
about
that,
because
I
actually
do
think
we
can
and
if
we
cannot,
perhaps
other
people
could
suggest
stuff
on
that
a
bit
more
on
that
later.
So
we
also
try
to
improve
the
framing
of
the
cases,
the
case
selection
and
their
impacts.
We
linked
the
cases
to
the
guidelines
in
RFC
80
to
80
so
to
show
where
the
rights
that
are
mentioned
in
80
to
80
and
the
specific
considerations
linked
upon
the
specific
cases.
R
R
Next
slide,
please,
and
it
will
be
great
to
have
your
comments
and
questions
and
what
I
would
like
to
ask
the
group,
especially
the
people
who
have
suggested
comments
or
reviews
whether
they
would
be
willing
to
participate
in
authoring,
because
gazella
and
I
have
been
out
working
on
this
for
quite
a
while,
and
the
reviews
that
have
come
in.
We
find
it
hard
to
to
address
those
issues.
So
it
would
be
really
here
to
about
you
to
hear
about
concrete
ways
forward
and
whether
we
people
would
be
willing
to
to
help
shape
those
yeah.
S
And
I
would
like
to
second
Nielson
that
this
has
been
a
great
research
group
and
a
great
learning
process.
But
at
this
point
it
just
feels
like
the
emotional
and
intellectual
investment.
It's
not
worth
be
worth
it
because
we're
just
not
advancing
anywhere
and
just
to
stress
again
as
an
outsider
and
a
new
person.
Well
not
that
new,
because
this
has
been
going
on
for
two
years.
S
C
Okay,
thank
you,
I'm,
actually,
very
sorry
to
hear
about
the
the
emotional
stress
of
it
all
and
I
do
apologize
for
only
sending
in
my
comments
at
the
very
last
minute.
I
would
like
to
see
this.
The
discussions
actually
continue
on
the
list.
I
think,
although
we
have
two
people
in
line
now,
we
will
continue
the
discussions
at
this
point.
You
know
it's
it's.
It
is
quite
reasonable
for
these
discussions
to
evolve
and
for
you
to
ask
some
of
us
that
are
commenting
to
perhaps
suggest
wording
and
and
to
suggest
such
as
that.
C
T
It's
Joe
Joe
Hall,
oh
I,
also
want
to
apologize
for
sending
feedback
so
close
to
the
meeting.
I
couldn't
help
it
I,
don't
think
I
could
be
an
author
but
I'm
happy
to
offer
doodles
offer
tons
and
tons
of
text
for
the
things
that
I
mentioned
in
my
review
and
what
and
work
on
other
things.
I.
Definitely
don't
want
you
to
feel
like
this
is
a
Sisyphean
task,
you're
pushing
a
boulder
up
a
hill
and
we're
just
adding
weight
to
the
boulder
and
one
of
the
things
I
think
our
reviews.
T
K
Thank
you
hey
both.
This
is
a
Corinne
from
the
Oxford
internet
Institute.
This
is
a
conversation.
We've
been
having
back
and
forward
when
it
comes
to
methods
and
I
do
think.
We
should
be
really
careful
in
terms
of
stating
what
our
nog
rafi
can
and
cannot
do,
as
Annanagar
fir
I
feel
really
uncomfortable
about
talking
about
it.
Nog
ravine
causality,
because
that
is
assumes
an
epistemic
kind
of
approach
that
isn't
taken
within
anthropology,
which
is
the
main
domain
that
this
comes
from.
K
That
doesn't
mean
it
doesn't
serve
other
super
valuable
purposes,
but
let's
make
sure
that
if
we
pick
a
method,
we're
also
really
clear
about
what
that
means
in
terms
of
what
we
can
and
cannot
say
about
the
world,
and
in
this
case
causality
is
not
the
right
framing
and
I'm
super
happy
to
think
along
and
I
suggest
other
ways
of
making
use
of
the
data
that
you
guys
got.
Yeah.
R
Well,
thank
so
much
Quinn
I.
So
what
we
used
here
was
a
Goering
criteria
framework
and
in
Gary's
criteria
framework.
It
is
which
it
does
not
come
from
anthropology,
but
from
a
sociology
but
I'm
happy
to
see
how
we
can
improve
that
so.
But
but
this
is
where
I'm
a
bit
at
a
loss,
because
we
chose
a
framework,
a
framework,
that's
quite
widely
used
and
and
widely
cited.
R
C
Yeah
I
I
think
continuing
the
methodological
discussion
on
the
list
would
be
good
and
and
I'll
confess
not
having
the
knowledge
of
the
of
Mythology
you're.
Using
my
knowledge
of
the
ethnographic
was
that
it
was
an
image
of
establishing
causality
so
that
that
was
certainly
where
my
response
came
from,
but
I'm,
certainly
more
than
willing
to
learn
a
different,
framing
and
and
see
if
I
can
understand
it
and
Mallory
wanted
to
make
a
comment.
Well,.
D
Just
to
move
this
into
next
step,
so
it
sounds
like
there's
still
active
discussion
on
the
list.
Also
I've
got
someone
lined
up
from
University
of
York
who
will
review
it.
This
is
a
stepping
creature,
who
was
here
last
year
in
Montreal
and
probably
will
also
be
in
Montreal
again,
so
be
a
good
opportunity
to
get
a
full
review
from
him,
as
it
really
relates
to
his
work
in
a
scholarly
way.
So
that
will
happen
that
he's
committed
to
doing
a
review.
I
think
soonest,
because
it
doesn't
sound
like
you're
gonna.
D
R
C
We
could
certainly
talk
more
about
you
know,
switching
the
the
editors
of
this
and
you
folks
have
been
the
editors
of
this
for
a
while.
So
we
could
certainly
talk
about
that.
You
know
further
after
the
meeting
I,
don't
see
anybody
with
their
hand
up
offering
to
take
over
the
editorship,
though
I
do
have
Alison
at
the
microphone
now.
This.
U
Is
a
different
comment:
if
there's
a
need,
I
think
it
would
be
a
good
idea
to
talk
about
the
frameworks,
but
I
just
took
a
look
and
I'd
have
to
pay
$36
to
read
the
article
by
Starr.
So
when
we
have
these
kinds
of
discussions,
it
would
be
very
useful
to
have
an
appendix
or
something
that
Phil
that
Phil's
other
people
had
done.
What's
in
those
articles,
yes,.
S
If
possible,
sorry
that
I'm,
not
streaming
video
but
my
fun
with
is
a
little
low,
so
yeah.
Thank
you
very
much
for
all
of
this.
As
I
said,
this
has
been
a
beautiful
learning
process
and
I
believe
that
this
is
a
very
important
working
in
research
group,
but
also
I
want
to
say
that
I
participate
in
other
spaces.
S
Academic,
journalistic
activists
and
I
also
believe
that
there
could
be
more
respect
to
each
other
on
the
list.
That's
why
it's
been
so
emotionally
straining
for
me,
a
woman
of
color
who
my
and
my
first
language
is
not
English.
We
want
diversity,
the
IETF,
because
it
is
a
group
of
power,
but
it
cannot
be
like
the
barrier
of
entry
is
so
high
for
us
women
of
color
from
the
global
south.
That
can
we
just
be
nicer
to
each
other.
Can
we
even
on
the
list
and
I
know?
S
This
is
completely
out
of
the
scope
that
we're
discussing
right
now,
but
I'm.
Really,
what
I'm
weighing
out
now
is
the
emotional
labor
that
I'm
putting
into
this
and
then
the
outcome
that
I
will
have
so
it's
just
rather
than
focusing
on
the
1%
that
we're
disagreeing
on.
Can
we
maybe
focus
on
the
90%
that
we
actually
agree
on
so
certainly.
C
C
And
in
fact,
you've
hit
upon
one
of
the
themes
that
has
been
a
constant
item
of
discussion
in
the
meeting,
not
not
just
this
session
of
the
niceness
and
the
respect
and
the
cross
cultural
understandings
of
that
and
I.
So
lots
of
heads
nodding
of.
Can
we
be
nicer
and
can
we
talk
about
the
parts
we
agree
on
and
and
indeed
that
is
something
that
I
think
we
can
all
always
do
better
at
I,
certainly
can
be
do
better
at
being
nice.
C
S
C
Okay,
thank
you
so
I
guess
that
we'll
continue
discussing
this
on
the
list
we'll
see.
If
there's
anybody
that
wishes
to
add
themselves
to
working
as
an
editor
on
this
I
will
help
contribute.
I
will
continue
to
comment,
but
I.
Don't
think
that
a
co-chair
should
be
an
editor.
It
sort
of
combines
the
roles
and
confuses
them,
but
I
will
do
what
I
can
with
comments
and
I'll
try
to
comment
on
the
parts
that
I
like.
C
R
All
it's
me
again,
the
notes
on
networking
standards
and
politics
next
slide,
please.
So
the
objective
of
this
dog
is
documenting
a
long-standing
discussion
in
HR
PC,
documenting
the
positions
in
the
community
on
the
politics
of
protocols,
documenting
the
positions
in
scientific
literature
on
this
topic
and
providing
a
platform
to
further
the
discussion
without
having
to
repeat
it,
and
it
was
really
interesting
to
hear
earlier.
R
The
two
scholars
in
the
earlier
presentation
also
acknowledging
the
politics
of
protocols.
It
seems
that
were
moving
towards
consensus,
but
we're
not
trying
to
do
in
this
dog
is
provide
an
exhaustive
analysis
of
everything,
that's
possible
to
make
everything
political
or
provide
new
guidelines
or
considerations.
This
is
actually
a
platform
for
further
discussion
next
slide,
please.
R
So
the
changes
that
we
made
is
on
flow,
but
also
edit
considerations
very
similar
to
what
a
doctor
ba
da
just
said
is
considerations
about
possible
external
interventions
in
the
standard
development
process,
such
as
the
standardization
of
what
was
called
ETLs
for
a
while
in
etsy.
So
that
is
the
idea
and
not
just
its
own
bubble,
but
there's
also
a
larger
context.
Next
slide,
please,
we
received
a
very
extensive
review
by
a
Michael
Rogers
that
I
haven't
yet
fully
addressed.
R
But
what
is
very
clear
in
that
document
is
that
I
think
I'm
we're
trying
to
do
too
much
in
this
draft
and
that
it
it
is.
It
looks
at
reads
like
a
comment
or
like
a
combination
between
advocacy
and
research
and
I
think
that
this
should
solely
be
a
research
but
they're
not
of
the
explaining
or
the
predicting
kind,
but
of
the
describing
kind
to
ensure
that
we
have
a
common
understanding
of
how
we
understand
that
protocols
are
political
or
not
and
to
what
extent
so
I
will
for
the
next
version.
R
If
you
agree
with
me
and
if
you
think
this
is
a
good
way
forward.
So
this
is
a
proposal,
remove
more
human
rights
language
from
the
draft
and
simply
try
to
document
and
shave
it
back
to
simply
outlining
the
different
positions
in
the
literature
and
in
the
community
and
not
suggest
a
way
forward,
and
then
I
hope
that
we
are
much
closer
with
the
documents
where
we
want
to
be.
D
Yeah
Mallory
here
I
I,
support
that
and
I
also
think
that
just
I
know
you've
changed
the
flow
I
like
the
flow
better
now
I
think
we
can
do
better
jobs
like
putting
I'm
like
to
edit
things,
so
you
know
changing
some
of
the
the
subheadings,
perhaps
even
just
get
ridding
getting
rid
of
the
vocabulary
section
like
there's
some
stuff.
That
I
think
is
pretty
easy
to
tackle
and
but
I
think
would
be
good
too.
I
think
it
would
be
good
in
terms
of
next
steps
for
you
to
address
Michaels
response.
D
C
We
don't
have
anybody
at
the
microphone
on
this
one
at
the
moment.
So
thank
you
for
this.
Thank
you
for
all
the
work
you're
putting
in
on
these
and
for
continuing
to
work
on
the
drafts.
Despite
the
long
periods
of
silence,
sometimes
I
know
I'll
try
harder
to
to
to
respond
to
new
versions
of
the
document
quickly
and
not
wait
for
the
last
minute.
C
So
anything
else
on
the
drafts
we
have
five
minutes,
left,
I,
guess
covering
and
off
their
reviews,
but
cover
the
subject
of
reviews.
One
of
the
things
that
came
up
reviews
were
very
much
a
topic
of
discussion
over
the
last
couple
of
months
and
and
I.
Think
one
of
the
things
that's
happened
is
that
we're
supposed
to
be
doing
the
reviews
to
try
and
understand
what
we
are
doing
better,
in
other
words,
to
take
the
considerations
of
80
to
80.
C
That's
how
this
group
should
be
looking
at
them
in
terms
of
other
people,
picking
up
the
work
and
using
it
I
think
we
should
advise
them
to
you
with
caution,
because
it's
work,
that's
still
in
development,
but
that
and
and
so
very
much
I'm.
Looking
at
these
now
as
there's
really
two
different
periods
when
these
eighty
two
eighty
considerations
can
be
used
in
a
review
by
the
people
working
on
the
protocol
within
the
groups,
if
they
wished
you
and
they
find
it
useful,
it's
a
good
thing.
C
If
it's
used
by
this
group,
we
really
should
be
using
it
more
as
a
learning
exercise
on
how
do
we
make
the
considerations
better
at
some
point,
it
may
also
be
that
they
will
be
useful,
for
you
know,
doing
impact
analysis,
doing
Human,
Rights
impact
analysis,
but
not
until
such
time
as
we've
gained
far
more
experience
with
them
and
sort
of
the
way
I've
been
looking
at
it.
I
don't
know
if
anybody
wants
to
comment
on
that,
basically
trying
to
find
a
way
to
keep
working
on
this
without
transgressing
any
borders,
as
it
were,.
I
The
other
thing
is
and
how
how
you're
dealing
with
the
working
groups
that
you
know
whose
documents
you're
evaluating
I
I
think
the
other
day
Mallory
referred
to
the
deep
agent
model
or
C,
which
I
think
is
a
good
way
to
describe
it
because,
of
course,
he's
doing
work
in
these
working
groups.
So
I
think
that
you
know,
if
you're
interested
in
having
an
impact,
which
is
a
lesser
priority
right
now.
I
The
thing
to
do
is
to
work
with
the
working
group
so,
rather
than
producing
a
document,
do
write,
send
email
to
the
mailing
list
and
recognize
that
this
is
an
iterative
process.
It's
interactive,
you're,
engaging
with
people
you're,
not
sort
of
delivering
an
evaluation
and
boom.
It's
done
so
I
think
it's
really
important
to
work
with
folks
and
work
using
their
methods.
So
definitely.
D
V
Cooper
I
think
I
understand
sort
of
the
motivation
for
what
you
described
ivory,
but
my
experience
in
the
IETF
is
that
when
people
receive
a
review,
they
respond
to
it
as
if
it's
like
a
full-throated,
you
know
ready
to
go
analysis,
and
this
is
true,
like
even
for
the
drug
directorate
reviews,
the
real
directorate
reviews,
which
are
supposed
to
be
for
the
benefit
of
the
area.
Directors
like
you,
get
lots
of
people
commenting
on
them,
and
sometimes
even
these
like
really
long
threads,
which
are
great
it's
which
it's
fine.
V
They
make
the
documents
better,
but
though
those
aren't
even
like
necessitated
by
the
Directorate
reviews,
and
they
happen
anyway.
So
I
think
it's
like
a
little
naive
to
think
that
these
would
be
sent
and
if
they
were
sort
of
the
same
tone
and
tenor
as
some
of
the
previous
ones
that
they
would
be
received
any
better
because
there's
a
disclaimer
at
the
top
that
says
like
we
just
did
this
for
our
own
benefit,
but
we're
sending
it
to
you
anyway.
So
I
think.
V
If,
if
the
idea
is
to
sort
of
further
the
understanding
of
80
to
80
and
figure
out
how
it
works,
then
probably
better
to
sort
of
consume
those
within
the
group
or
I,
don't
even
know
what
group
it
is
really
because
they're
they're
not
supposed
to
be
coming
out
of
this
research
group,
but
maybe
that
could
be
sent
back
to
the
research
group
for
consumption.
And
you
know
further
development.
I
just
don't
think
the
model
of
like
sending
something
which
is
not
really
mature
to
somebody.
D
D
So
that's
still
TBD
but
I
think
we'll
have
to
continue
to
keep
it
as
part
of
our
agenda
and
is
something
that
we're
talking
about
and
I.
Think
we'll
will
definitely
be
very
reflective
on
that
before
we
before
we
have
the
next
meeting
so
that
it's
very
clear
what
the
point
of
that
agenda
point
is
and
how
we
actually
facilitate
that
knowledge
sharing
back
into
the
research
group.
Sure
that
wasn't
a
question
for
you,
but
I
just
wanted
to
see.
You
nod
when
I
said
that.
So
thank
you.
J
Hi
Daniel,
Cahn
Gilmore
of
I
think
I
followed
the
dkg
model,
perhaps
better
than
anyone
does
just
because
I
get
whatever
I
do
apparently
have
to
see
the
dkg
model.
So
what's
that?
Oh
thank
you!
That's
nice,
so
yeah
I
wanted
to
I
think
there's
a
bunch
of
different
things
that
are
happening
here
when
people
are
looking
at
historical
documents
that
IETF
has
published
that
we
have
an
opportunity
to
consider
both
those
documents
and
80
to
80
in
concert
and
look
at
the
way.
J
The
way
that
those
things
reflect
each
other
and
I
think
that's
really
valuable
work
to
happen
here.
I'd
love
to
hear
more
research
that
describes
the
how
those
pieces
of
the
puzzle
are
connected.
Similarly
to
what
the
scholars
who
spoke
with
this
earlier
today
are
we're
talking
about
like
how
can
how
can
we
do
that
analysis
and
I?
J
And
if
you
find
yourself
there-
and
you
say-
oh
man
in
this
working
group-
people
are
having
these
particular
discussions
about
these
factors,
and
these
are
considerations
that
are
not
present
in
48
in
the
80
to
80.
Thank
you.
Sorry
I've
lost
my
RFC
memory
here
then
that's
a
great
thing
to
bring
back
here
and
say:
hey,
there's
a
there's,
a
there's,
a
gap
in
our
analysis
of
how
Human
Rights
protocol
considerations
are
being
discovered
here,
the
and
and
and
and
addressed
or
not
addressed
here
at
the
IETF
and
it
would.
J
C
Q
Oh
I
wonder
whether
we
could
drive
a
small
experiment
to
compare
several
review
formats
because
eighty
to
1880,
the
the
big
IFC
says
that
you
have
to
publish
a
human
right
review,
which
tends
to
encompass
lots
of
different
subjects
and
be
quite
long
and
I.
Wonder
whether
it
could
be
tried
to
just
to
review
and
say
impact
on
censorship
or
impact
on
accessibility
in
a
in
underdeveloped
countries.
Or
something
like
that.
But
they
see
something
focused.
Q
Could
do
that?
What
I
had
in
mind
is
an
alternative
to
the
model
of
arriving
in
a
working
group
and
doing
a
full
coated
human
right
with
you
of
just
just
doing
a
review
on
a
small
subject,
because
it
will
be
well
easier
to
do
and
also
it
might
be
easier
to
consume
and
and
maybe
I'm
completely
wrong.
But
I
mean,
as.
O
O
I
mean
intuitively
I,
I,
read
it
after
I
figure
out
some
problems
in
it.
I
can
comment
on
it.
Another
exercise
I
have
done
is
read
80
to
80
use
the
considerations
as
a
framework
for
an
realizing
that
protocol,
and
that
has
been
useful
as
well
it.
It
has
helped
me
figured
out
some
problems
that
I
wouldn't
be
able
to.
O
Otherwise
the
I
guess
the
point
I'm
getting
to
is
that
the
review
format
is
a
combination
of
that
exercise,
which
is
both
consumable
for
the
working
group
and
for
HR
PC
to
use
to
improve
the
guidelines
or
in
that
way,
so
just
just
explaining
why
that
earlier
format,
if
we're
losing
it
was
useful,
that's
it.
Thank
you.
Thank.
C
W
For
keeping
everyone,
I'm
Brooke,
Schofield
white
anglo-celtic
male
are
rapidly
approaching.
50
come
from
an
island
and
country
that
doesn't
share
a
border
with
anyone.
So
there's
lots
of
issues
in
this
space
that
I
do
not
understand
and
and
probably
will
never
fully
comprehend
the
next
generation
Internet
initiative.
W
This
is
what
I've
been
spooking
all
this
week
and
I
apologize
for
banging
on
about
this
again,
but
building
the
next
generation
internet
may
encompass
a
feminist
Internet,
but
our
assessment
panel
lacks
diversity
because
it
was
in
fact
compiled
by
people
matching
my
profile,
so
I'll
probably
reach
out
to
this
group.
Looking
for
more
diversity
on
the
on,
you
know
assessing
these
areas
because
yeah
we
we
lack.
Okay,
we
may
have
people
that
come
from
Europe
and
countries
that
do
share
a
border,
but
the
initial
assessment
of
me
is
commonplace.