►
From YouTube: IETF109-HRPC-20201116-0500
Description
HRPC meeting session at IETF109
2020/11/16 0500
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/109/proceedings/
A
Hey
everyone
welcome
to
hrpc
session
we're
going
to
get
started
in
just
a
couple
minutes.
So
hang
tight.
A
Great
so
it
sounds
like
we
are
all
ready
to
go
just
want
to
confirm
that
wonderful,
so
avery,
I
know
you're
there
I'll
go
ahead
and
run
through
our
welcome
slides.
The
highlights
of
the
agenda
are
we're
gonna,
hear
a
talk
from
kim
creighton,
followed
by
our
work
items.
A
So
at
the
moment
that's
draft
association
niels
is
here
he's
going
to
help
me
with
that
and
gerschabod
who
may
or
may
not
be
in
the
call,
if
not
we'll,
probably
just
all,
take
a
look
at
the
the
dock
ourselves
and
see.
If
there's
anything,
we
can
glean
from
that,
he
may
just
be
a
little
late,
which
is
fine,
so
yeah
you've
been
here
before.
Thank
you
all
for
coming
to
to
hrpc.
A
A
It's
really
important
that
you
understand,
what's
in
the
note
well
as
far
as
intellectual
property
rights
go
and
also
privacy
and
code
of
conduct
issues,
so
you
can
also
find
these
anywhere
on
the
ietf
site,
so
the
human
rights
protocol
considerations
research
group
is
part
of
the
internet
research
task
force,
so
we're
looking
at
long-term
research
issues,
we're
very
much
curious
about
and
exploring
the
ways
in
which
the
human
human
rights
framework
might
intersect
both
impact
and
be
impacted
by
internet
protocols
and
their
standardization.
A
So
we're
not
developing
standards,
but
we
are
conducting
research
that
is
relevant
to
standards
development.
We
were
chartered
to
look
at
again
how
protocols
can
strengthen
and
threaten
human
rights,
and
you
can
check
out
more
on
hrpc.io.
A
A
We
also
want
to
propose
guidelines,
that's
a
goal
that
was
that
has
been
here
longer
than
I've
been
here
so
proposed
guidelines
to
protect
the
internet
as
human
rights
enabling
environment
in
protocol
development.
We
we've
been
inspired
by
the
work
of
the
privacy
considerations
or
the
privacy
considerations
directorate.
A
I
guess,
although
we
don't
have
a
directorate,
we
don't
plan
to
have
one
for
human
rights
work,
but
it
was
an
inspiration
so
and
then
lastly,
we
just
want
to
increase
awareness
both
ways,
so
you
know
talking
more
about
human
rights
in
in
the
technical
community
and
being
able,
then
to
make
the
connections
and
relevant.
You
know
technical
developments
in
the
human
rights
community
so
that
there's
actually
a
dialogue
there
so
far.
Well,
these
are
the
planned
outputs.
We
want
to
work
on
internet
drafts,
but
that's
not
all
we
want
to
do.
A
We
want
to
do
policy
and
academic
papers.
Aubrey
has
talked
about
that
in
the
past.
I'd
love
for
that
to
be
on
aob
this
session
or
any
in
the
future.
In
the
past,
there's
been
film
and
textual
interviews
and
also
maybe
at
some
point
in
aob,
in
this
meeting
or
another
one.
A
We
can
talk
about
data
analysis
and
visualization
of
the
current
rfcs,
also
discussion
on
the
list
that
sort
of
thing
and
what
we
can
glean
from
that,
and
then,
lastly-
and
this
relates
to
a
bit
of
the
work
on
the
guidelines
draft
that
we'll
be
discussing
later-
we
do
from
time
to
time
protocol
analysis
to
assess
impact
on
human
rights.
A
So
specifically,
we've
already
talked
about
the
charter,
so
that
happened,
that
film
was
screened
and
then
also
we've
got
an
rfc
8280
that
was
published.
So
that's
our
sort
of
timeline
history,
but
bringing
us
up
to
date.
We
have
two
active
drafts
in
the
past.
We've
had
lots
of
others.
Some
have
expired,
including
draft
politics,
but
I
kept
it
on
here
or
draft
political.
I
kept
it
on
here
because
it
might
be
relevant.
A
It's
only
recently
expired
and
it
might
be
relevant
after
kim
stock
to
talk
about
reviving
that
a
bit
and
how
we
might
do
so,
but
the
main
drafts
we've
got,
which
we
will
talk
about
today
in
the
second
half
of
the
meeting-
are
freedom
of
association,
which
has
some
nice
update
to
it
and
guidelines
guidelines
for
human
rights
protocol
considerations.
So
that's
it.
That
is
the
welcome.
A
I
hope
everything
is
going
well.
I
do
thank
you
aubry
always
so
good
at
this.
Stopping
me
from
just
rolling
right
ahead.
We
need
to
pause,
because
we
need
a
note
taker.
A
A
Well,
since
it's
a
talk,
that's
for
the
next
30
minutes
I
might
I'll
ask
again
after
kim,
is
done.
If
we
can
take
some
notes
on
the
discussion.
B
But
I
will
take
some,
but
I
would
really
appreciate
if
there
would
be
others
in
the
notepad
taking
them,
but
but
so
please,
you
know
join
me.
There.
A
Thank
you.
Yes,
please
join
aubrey.
You
don't
have
to
take
notes
on
the
next
part,
necessarily
because
it's
a
talk
and
there
are
slides,
but
when
we
have
discussion
especially
over
our
drafts,
we'll
need
notetakers
so
chill
for
the
next
30
minutes,
but
then
please,
step
up
so
kim.
I
will
invite
you
to
to
come
on.
You
can
click
the
microphone
button
to
unmute
your
audio.
Maybe
we
should
check
that
first
and
then
you
can
even
unmute
your
video
if
you'd
like
to
have.
A
I
guess
a:
what
do
you
call
that,
like
a
thumbnail
video
next
to
your
slides
and
then
I'll
be
sharing
your
slides
for
you
brilliant?
I
can
see
you.
A
Hello,
can
you
hear
me
can
hear
you
perfectly
welcome?
Let
me
get
your
slides
up.
Thank
you.
You
should
see
these
and
you
can
tell
me
when
you'd
like
me
to
hit
the
next
slide.
C
D
C
C
C
I
was
just
a
passing
statement
and
she
mentioned
the
internet
and
how
people
who
are
working
on
the
internet,
don't
believe
it's
political,
and
I
want
to
challenge
that,
particularly
it's
easy
to
be
apolitical
when
you're
the
default
next.
C
I
am
kim
creating
my
pronouns
or
she
her
and
that's
my
twitter
handle
as
well
as
my
website.
Next.
C
I
start
every
talk.
I
do
with
these
terms
because
they
as
an
educator.
I
want
to
make
sure
that
everybody
is
on
the
same
page
and
we
have
the
same
understanding
before
we
move
forward
so
in
this
sent
in
when
I'm
talking
about
when
I'm
using
these
words.
This
is
what
I
mean.
Privilege
is
simply
about
access,
and
I
use
this
picture
because
I
don't
know
how
many
people
have
seen
these
monkeys
that
are
in
this.
C
The
warm
springs
that
are
in
japan
and
when
you
see
them
in
you
know,
national
geographic
or
whatever
nature
show
it
just
they
seem
very
harmonious
and
just
all
people
like
that's
cute
well,
actually,
what
it
is
is
there's
a
matriarchal
family
that
gets
to
be
in
the
hot
springs
and
every
all
the
other
monkeys
are
trying
to
jockey
for
attention
or
mating
rights
just
to
get
in
the
hot
spring.
So
privilege
is
simply
about
access
who
can
use?
Who
can
gain?
Who
can
be
a
part
of.
C
Next
is
simply
about
numbers:
you
see
a
picture
with
several
men
and
one
woman.
She
is
underrepresented.
C
Next
is
about
groups
of
people
so
and
how
groups
of
people
are
treated.
So
it's
not
about
individuals,
it
is
about
groups
of
people,
so
in
tech.
C
Although
white
women
are
underrepresented,
unless
they
are
intersect
at
another,
unless
they
have
another
intersecting
lgbtq,
if
they're
disabled
from
from
a
community
of
color
they're,
usually
not
marginalized
next.
C
C
So
if
I'm,
if
I'm
only
given,
I'm
I'm
told
to
to
paint
a
picture,
and
I
only
have
four
colors,
that
picture
is
gonna
look
and
because
I
really
can't
paint
that's
gonna
be
a
very
simple
ugly
picture,
but
if
I've
given
20
30
60
different
colors,
I
it
may
still
be
an
ugly
picture,
but
I
can
create
some
colors
that
I
could
never
create
by
myself
by
mixing
colors
together
and
or
all
kinds
of
things.
So
that's
what
that
is.
Diversity
is
simply
about
variety.
Next,.
C
Inclusion
is
about
experience,
and
you
don't
get
to
tell
someone
if
they're
included,
they
tell
you
based
on
how
their
experience
your
community,
your
organization,
your
event,
do
they
feel
included.
Next
inclusion
is
not
about
equality.
We
in
tech
like
to
have
this
false
narrative,
that
everything
is
equal
when
some
people
come
in
when
we
and
we
know
that
people
who
enter
spaces
at
different
levels
as
a
black
woman,
I
do
not
have
the
same
power
and
privileges
as
a
white
man
in
tech.
C
C
It
is
not
about
quotas,
it's
not
about
saying.
We
need
10
people
of
color.
We
need
somebody
who's
on
the
autism
spectrum.
We
need
somebody
who
has
who
who's
deaf.
We
need
several
lgbtqa
people,
it's
not
about
quotas.
Next,
I
just
want
you
to
reiterate.
It
is
about
lived
experience.
Next.
C
So
everything
I
do
every
decision
I
make,
I
look
at
it
through
the
lens
of
the
guiding
principles
and
they
start
from
the
top
down.
Tech
is
not
neutral,
nor
is
it
apolitical,
if
you
this,
is
this.
You
have
to
understand
this
fundamentally
before
you
can
get
to
the
other
guiding
principles.
Once
you
understand
that
tech
is
not
neutral,
nor
is
it
apolitical,
then
you
start
to
understand
that
intention
is
strat
without
strategy
as
chaos.
C
There's
so
often
that
we're
we
have
these
intentions
to
do
things,
and
then
we,
the
impact
of
our
intention,
is,
has
caused
harm,
and
that
was
not
our
intention,
but
the
impact
matters
and
without
it
strategy
it
causes
chaos.
Lack
of
inclusion
is
a
risk
management
and
increasingly
a
crisis
management
issue.
We
see
often
how
someone
or
some
company's
behavior
has
caused
a
lack
of
inclusion,
behaviors
cause
a
risk
management
or
crisis
management
issue,
and
once
you
fundamentally
understand
those,
you
understand
why
it
is
important
to
prioritize
the
most
vulnerable
next.
C
So
this
definition
of
political
is
one
of
the
is
problematic
for
me.
It
it
it's
it's
on
the
surface,
it
seems
innocent
enough,
but
it's
very
binary
because
it
speaks
only
to
government
and
public
affairs
and
countries
and
it's
it
and
it
uses
politics
in
the
word
politics
in
the
in
its
definition
and
when
people
think
of
when
you
use
this
definition,
you
only
think
of
like
political
parties
or
you
how
you
fall
within
political
governmental
sphere,
and
I
am
working
on
redefining
a
definition
of
political
and
so
far.
C
What
I
have
is
any
belief,
decision
or
action
with
the
potential
to
influence
systems,
institutions
and
policies,
because
those
systems,
institutions
and
policies
impact
people's
lives.
We,
this
is
one
of
those
a
very
binary.
The
the
definition
of
political
that
is
on
the
screen
is
a
very
binary
extracts,
the
human
out
of
it,
and
we
have
to
understand
that
our
beliefs,
decisions
and
actions
if
they
have
the
potential
to
influence
systems,
institutions
and
policies
are
indeed
political.
C
Next,
so
I
was
watching
a
new
documentary,
that's
out
called
coding,
coded
bias,
and
I
saw
this
image
and
because,
after
talking
to
mallory,
I
was
like.
Where
am
I
gonna?
Go
with
this
talk?
And
then
I
just
saw
this
image
and
I
was
like.
Oh,
I
think
I
know
where
I'm
going
to
go
with
this
go
with
this
talk,
because
this
is
where,
at
the
same
time,
that
the
internet
was
being
thought
about
and
developed.
C
C
And
the
person
who
she
was
talking
meredith
was
talking
about
this
picture
in
the
movie
coded
bias,
and
she
says
our
ideas
about
technology
and
society
that
we
think
are
normal
are
actually
ideas
that
come
from
a
very
small
and
homogeneous
group
of
people,
and
I
really
want
you
to
understand
that,
because
that
is
political.
Next.
C
And
when
I
was
watching
this
documentary
reminded
me
that
I
had
taken
this
coursera
course
and
if
you
don't
know
what
coursera
is,
it
is
a
open
source,
open
learning
platform
with
a
lot
of
free
classes,
and
that's
where
I
was
taking
when
I
first
injured
tech
was
taking
a
lot
of
my
technology
classes,
and
I
remember
taking
this
course
by
charles
dr
charles
severance
and
who
is
at
the
university
of
michigan
and
that
just
clicked
for
me,
and
I
was
like.
C
C
So
for
me,
history
matters,
and
so
that's
why
I
wanted
to
to
walk
through
this
class,
so
alan
turing
and
you
and
and
bletchley
park,
when
he's
we're
talking
about
the
development
of
the
internet,
with
cold
breakers
and
and
and
people
who
worked
in
in
world
war
ii
next.
C
C
And
so
you
have
this:
this
reliance
on
math
and
science,
both
broad-based
investment
and
maintaining
u.s
and
and
the
west
intellectual
lead.
Now
I
want
you
to
think
about.
I
want
you
to
remember
this
intellectual
lead
and
then
you,
you
have
these
mathematicians
that
were
recruited.
You
know
their
value,
recruited,
brilliant,
arrogant
and
quirky,
and
then
they
talk
about
the
beautiful
mind.
Next.
C
C
And
so
in
this
diagram,
it
is
the
architects
or
the
authors
of
the
opernet
completion
report.
Next.
C
And
then
you
have
the
in
ncsa
and
you
have
larry
smear
who
was
pivotal
in
bringing
a
super
computer
to
urban
champaign
urbana
university.
Next.
C
And
then
you
have
the
nsfnet
at
the
university
of
michigan
and
they
were
the
networking
part
of
the
of
this
super
compute.
They
didn't
get
a
super
computer,
so
they
wanted
to
be
the
networking
part
of
the
internet
next
and
then
you
have
this
individual,
larry
leonard
sorry,
and
he
was
the
first
person
to
do
two
packets
on
the
internet.
C
C
And
then
you
have
robert
and
he
was
a
co-op
inventor
of
the
web,
and
so
I
st
I
stopped
grabbing
images
from
this
this
course
for
a
reason.
Next,.
C
C
C
Next,
they
were
white,
cisgender,
heterosexual,
able-bodied,
western
christian,
english-speaking
educated
fathers
married,
it
was
male
white,
male
focus,
it
was
patriarchal
and
it
was
binary
thinking
and
then
there
were
other.
But
those
were
the
main
that
you
saw
in
those
pictures.
I
would
say
that
the
majority
of
those
individuals,
including
that
image
of
the
ai
team,
fall
in
this
category
and
next.
C
C
C
The
furthest,
an
individual
is
from
the
default,
the
greater
their
level
of
vulnerability
related
to
the
decisions
and
behaviors
of
others,
and
that's
why
I
wanted
to
I
need.
I
want
to
re,
define
what
political
is,
because
it's
not
just
the
government
so
and
and
then
the
instances
of
being
impacted
by
unintended
harm,
the
chances
of
never
being
extended.
The
benefit
of
the
doubt.
C
C
Whiteness
is
political
and
I
don't
care
where
you
are
in
this
world
right
now.
You
can
turn
on
any
news
show
and
you
can
see
that
whiteness
is
political.
Next.
C
Because
systems,
institutions
and
policies
are
developed
to
reinforce
the
default,
and
I
want
to
bring
in
before
I
move
forward.
I
took
as
based
on
the
intro
that
not
even
the
intro
mallory
was
going
through,
like
the
the
your
core
values
are,
was
internet
as
a
human
right
to
have
that
as
a
core
value
is
political
and
then
you
had
a
networking
and
standards
and
politics
that
was,
I
guess
that
has
expired.
That
is
political.
C
C
When
I
showed
you
when
you
saw
the
slide
of
the
default,
it
was
for
white
men
and
so
people,
the
narrative
is
always
what
other
people
weren't
there
or
they're
absent,
and
we
see
it
in
our
organizations.
Now
people
still
make
these
same
excuses
for
why
there
aren't
brown
and
black
people
in
these
spaces.
Why
there
aren't
indigenous
people
in
these
spaces
and
and
without
a
historical
perspective.
You
just
think
they
weren't
there
because
they
weren't
interested.
C
They
had
other
things
to
do
they
weren't
good
enough.
That's
usually
one
of
the
things
that
leads
to
them.
When
we
go
back
to
the
definitions
of
what
marginalization
is,
it
goes
back
to
that
marginalization
or
they.
C
You
know
they're
just
not
good
enough,
but
when
you
particularly-
and
this
is
why
I
took
this
route
because
particularly
the
individuals
that
developed
the
internet
were
in
the
us
in
in
in
and
right
after
world
war
ii,
and
we
had
something
in
place
called
the
gi
bill
right
after
world
war
ii
and
as
you
will
see,
it
is
political
and
it
ensured
all
but
ensured
that
only
people
who
were
available
to
develop
the
internet
were
white
people.
C
C
But
there's
been
some
things
that
people
don't
talk
about
the
gi
bill,
how
the
gi
bill's
promise
was
denied
to
millions
of
black
world
war
ii
veterans
next
and
it
was
denied
in
in
many
spaces,
but
we're
going
to
specifically
talk
about.
It
was
denied
in
housing.
It
was
denied
in
the
wealth,
wealth
accumulation,
but
specifically
we're
going
to
talk
about
here:
education,
black
veterans,
in
search
of
education.
C
They
have
been
guaranteed
f,
fair,
no,
better.
Many
black
men
returning
home
from
war
didn't
even
try
to
take
advantage
of
the
bill's
educational
benefits
they
could
not
afford
to
spend
time
in
school
instead
of
working,
but
those
who
did
were
at
a
considerable
disadvantage
disadvantage
compared
to
their
white
counterparts.
C
Public
education
provided
poor
preparation
for
black
students
and
many
lacked
much
educational
attainment
at
all
due
to
poverty
and
social
pressures.
This
is
political.
So
when
we
talk
about
who
got
to
decide
who
built
the
dip
who
built
the
internet
when
these
soldiers
came
back
because-
and
I'm
talking
about
this
specifically
because
those
individuals
who
who
left
bletchley
park,
who
were
at
mit,
who
were
at
all
these
great
illustrious
universities,
they
had
a
different
first
of
all
they
had.
C
This
is
why
equality
we
have
to
be
mindful
of
equality,
and
it's
we're
looking
for
equity,
we're
not
looking
for
equality,
because
in
this
very
paragraph
it
says
that
black
students,
because
of
the
lack
of
education
because
of
the
communities
that
they
came
from,
they
weren't
even
educated,
as
many
weren't
ready
to
work
at
that
college
level.
They
just
weren't
there.
C
C
As
veterans
applications
flooded,
universities,
black
students
often
found
themselves
left
out.
Northern
universities
dragged
their
feet
when
it
came
to
a
meeting.
Black
student
and
southern
colleges
barred
black
students
entirely
and
the
va
itself
encouraged
black
veterans
to
apply
for
vocational
training
instead
of
university
admission
arbitrarily
denied
educational
benefits
to
these
students.
So
again,
I'm
trying
to
show
you
a
through
line
of
why
there
are
only
white
people
white
males,
because
you
can't
even
say
white
women
white
males
in
these
universities
who
were
getting
to
make
the
decisions
on
the
internet.
C
C
Those
students
who
did
attend
college
found
doors
closed
at
every
turn.
A
full
85
of
black
veterans
were
shunted
off
to
black
colleges,
institutions
that
were
underfunded
and
overwhelmed
by
the
influx
of
new
students.
Most
were
unaccredited
and
with
a
massive
influx
of
applications,
they
had
to
turn
away
thou
tens
of
thousands
of
veterans.
So,
first
of
all,
I
want
to
make
sure
that
I
am
clear
there's
there
was
absolutely
nothing
wrong
with
black
colleges
and
universities,
except
for
in
the
united
states.
C
We
had
a
thing
of
separate
but
equal,
and
these
things
were
not
actually
equal.
The
universities,
white
universities
had
far
more
resources
and
facilities
and
and
qualified
educators
than
on
black
universities.
Next.
C
Through,
though,
congress
granted
all
soldiers
the
same
benefits,
theoretically
the
segregationist
principles
of
almost
every
institution
of
higher
learning,
effectively
disbarred,
a
huge
proportion
of
black
veterans
from
earning
college
degrees.
So
this
is
why
again,
why?
I
love
history,
because
people
again
have
these
binary.
They
weren't
there
because
they
made
choices
not
to
be
there.
They
weren't
there
because
they
weren't
good
enough.
There
were
systems,
institutions
and
policies
in
place
that
kept
blacks
out
of
the
university
system.
C
C
C
A
Thank
you
kim
thanks.
So
much
so
typically,
we
have
discussion
q,
a
after
presentations,
we're
not
going
to
do
that
today,
but
there
may
be
an
opportunity
to
take
the
the
lessons
the
discuss
or
the
you
know
the
discussion.
I
think
that
kim
has
raised
and
started
and
feed
it
into
a
conversation
about
potentially
draft
political.
That
is
still
you
know
a
research
group
draft,
but
we're
going
to
put
that
all
the
way
towards
the
end
I
just
want
to
before
kim
leaves
just
really
thank
her.
Thank
you
for
coming
kim.
A
It's
been
really
great
to
have
you
engaged
in
our
space.
I
hope
we
get
to
have
more
of
your
engagement
in
the
future,
so
we'll
definitely
keep
in
touch
and
yeah.
Thanks
again,
I
found
this
to
be
really
really
helpful
and
I
hope
other
people
did
too
so
with
that
we're
just
gonna
take
a
pause.
I
need
to
flip
slides.
A
And
I
think
we're
gonna
go
straight
on
in
to
draft
association.
So
if
I
could
just
one
more
time-
oh
right,
jonathan,
sorry
thanks
jonathan
for
volunteering
to
do
notes
if
somebody
if
others
could
also
help
jonathan
and
aubry,
I
know
that
they
would
appreciate
that.
A
We
should
all
be
on
the
same
page,
cool,
very
good,
good
yeah,
I'm
hap
thanks
for
everyone,
also
encouraging
kim
and
thanking
her
for
coming
to
the
talk.
I
think
she's
still
around
she'll
see
those
messages
anyway,
moving
into
draft
association,
you've,
probably
all
read
the
draft.
It's
just
been
updated
recently.
Niels
is
the
other
co-author.
That's
on
that's
in
the
meeting.
I
don't
believe
stefan
or
gisella
are,
but
if
they
are
like
feel
free
to
turn
your
mic
on
and
jump
in
and
correct
me.
A
If
I
make
mistakes
in
this
presentation,
but
it's
quite
simple:
we
have
updated
it.
Just
as
we
said
we
would
at
the
last
hrpc
meeting
ietf108.
A
Great,
but
for
those
who
weren't
at
that
meeting,
I
will
just
go
ahead
and
go
over
the
draft
itself
and
talk
about
where
it's
come
from
and
where
we're
headed.
So
it's
like,
I
said
in
the
the
the
welcome
introduction
the
hrpc
was
chartered
to
focus
on
human
rights
and
protocol
considerations,
but
two
specific
human
rights,
namely
freedom
of
expression
and
freedom
of
association
assembly.
So
this
draft
is
a
specific.
You
know
it
was
part
of
a
specific
road
map
for
this
research
group.
A
Niels
and
gisela
de
accio
were
the
first
authors.
They
gave
us
a
completed
draft
actually
from
beginning
to
end
well
researched
and
everything,
but
there
were
some
changes
that
were
needed,
so
we
asked
for
some
additional
editors
along
the
way.
So
joe
hall
at
some
point,
was
an
editor.
Stephen
couture
from
university
of
montreal
also
was
an
editor
up
until
very
recently,
and
in
that
period
of
just
sort
of
revising
the
draft,
we
actually
held
three
interims
just
to
talk
about
this
draft.
A
It
was
mostly
around
doing
redoing
a
literature
review
and
then,
at
the
end,
the
conclusion
of
that
literature
review.
Stefan
moved
on
as
editor
and
then
but
but
not
before,
identifying
a
handful
of
sub-questions,
the
sub-questions
we
stopped
there
and
we
thought
we
needed
to
really
answer
the
sub-questions,
with
case
studies
from
ietf
protocols
and
so
niels,
and
I
have
done
that
since
then
right
so
we've
also
changed
the
research
question
a
few
times
actually
meals.
A
Could
you
help
me
out
by
reading
the
actual
research
question,
because
I
think
it
changed
again?
I
apologize.
A
E
Yeah
putting
me
on
the
spot,
no
problem
whatsoever.
The
the
research
question
was
what
are
the
considerations
of
the
right
of
freedom
of
assembly
and
association
for
protocol
development,
and
that
has
now
changed
into.
E
What
are
the
protocol
development
considerations
for
freedom
of
assembly
and
association,
so
we
made
it
tighter
to
stick
more
closely
to
the
to
the
to
the
charter
of
of
the
research
group,
and
we
also
tried
to
make
the
draft
more
tighter
to
answer
the
question
so
where
the
research
was
first
aimed
at
trying
to
establish
more
relations
in
a
in
a
similar
manner
to
rfc
82
8280.
E
We
now
try
to
narrow
it
down
and
make
it
tighter,
also
based
on
the
structure
proposed
by
the
literature
review,
and
now
we
try
to
answer
the
questions
in
a
more
structural
way,
which
would
then
also
allow
us
to
better
answer
the
research
questions
and
the
sub
research
questions.
So
now,
okay,
over
to
you.
A
Awesome,
thank
you
so
much
so
yes
and
originally
as
well.
The
draft
did
not
plan
on
offering
overall
conclusions.
As
far
as
I
understood,
we
wanted
to
keep
those
in
sort
of
guidelines
and
out
of
this
draft,
but
because
it
appears
to
be
a
full.
You
know
piece
of
research
with
a
literature
review,
sub
questions,
case
studies,
etc.
It
may
also
make
sense
for
us
to
finish
this
draft
by
giving
some
conclusions.
So
that's
you
know
a
tvd
on
that,
but
let's
go
into
it
first.
A
So
here's
where
we
landed
with
the
literature
review
here
are
some
highlights.
I
actually
really
don't
want
to
go
over
them,
but
you
can
check
out
the
slides
if
you
want
to
see
what
we
found
to
be
interesting-
and
you
know-
obviously
it's
all
in
the
draft
but
to
to
to
say
that
this
it
was
worth
going
back
and
and
looking
at
the
literature
review.
A
I've
also
had
an
offer
from
folks
who
work
in
the
huma,
like
you
know
just
for
human
rights
organization
to
to
help
strengthen
some
of
this,
the
footnotes
we
have
so
not
to
really
change
the
substance
of
what
we've
said,
but
to
maybe
just
make
some
of
our
pointers
a
bit
better,
so
we'll
follow
up
with
that
in
the
future.
These
were
the
sub
questions
that
came
out
of
the
literature
review,
so
things
that
were
very
clear.
A
Some
of
it
was
on
the
established
side
of
like
this
is
the
nuance
behind
freedom
of
association
and
assembly.
Some
of
it
was
behind
here's.
What
happens
when
you
slap
the
internet
on
top
of
a
society,
doing
its
best
to
adhere
to
human
rights
and
the
things
that
fall
out
of
it.
So
these
were.
These
were
not
necessarily
research
gaps.
They
were
genuinely
things
that
we
felt
we
weren't
wanted
to
be
more
curious
about,
and
so
in
an
attempt
to
keep
moving
the
research
forward.
A
We
elaborated
on
these
questions
and
at
the
last
meeting
at
108,
we
presented
these
questions
and
we
more
or
less
as
far
as
we
can
tell
had
consensus
that
these
were
the
right
questions
to
ask:
no
changes
to
them.
No
additions,
no
subtractions
so
go
ahead
and
try
to
answer
them,
and
that
was
then
the
sort
of
mandate
that
niels
and
I
worked
on.
E
A
It's
not
it's
not
like
that.
Actually,
it
winds
up
using
a
couple
different
in
most
cases,
kinds
of
technologies,
protocols
that
have
been
standardized
in
the
ietf
to
talk
about
a
few
different
themes.
That
then
answer
in
aggregate
the
questions
above
so
it's
not
a
perfect
one
to
one:
it's
not
always
what
we
had
expected.
We
would
do,
but
I
think
it's
quite
interesting
right.
So
this
is
the
this
is
the
outline
of
the
sixth
section.
A
So
first
we
talk
about
the
peace
versus
peaceful
versus
unpeaceful
or
non-peaceful,
as
it's
laid
out
in
freedom
association
assembly.
It's
an
important
element.
There
can
we
distinguish
network
traffic,
as
you
know,
in
its
character,
characteristics
of
being
peaceful
or
unpeaceful
spam
adidas
so
also
on
on
agency.
So
another
really
important
part
of
freedom
of
association
and
assembly
is
the
question
of
of
agency.
Does
you
know
a
member
of
this
assembly
or
this
association
have
agency
to
leave
and
to
join
etc?
A
So
we
looked
at
mailing
lists
and
spam
to
talk
about
those
things
and
then,
generally
speaking,
there's
just
a
lot
in,
as
you
can
imagine,
freedom
of
association
in
civic
space.
So
the
ways
in
which
you
know
assembly
and
public
space
are
used
to
you
know
to
enact
one's
civic
duty
and,
to
be
you
know,
civic
members
of
society
etc.
A
Whatever
so
yeah
we
found
that
the
interesting
cases
there
and
examples
could
come
from
email,
mailing
lists,
irc,
webrtc
and
peer-to-peer
networking,
so
those
are
sort
of
fall
in
that
last
bucket
and
that
one
thing
that
sort
of
joins
them
all
together
is
that
they're?
You
know
really
communications
that
are
happening
between
people
with
agency.
A
So
that's
it.
We
really
encourage
you
to
read
that
section
thoroughly.
I
think
there
it
could
benefit
from
additions
and
corrections
if,
if
the
analysis
is
off
based
on
you
know,
people
who
are
familiar
with
it,
I
would
love
a
bit
more
technical
specificity
in
all
of
those,
but
I
mean
I
think
at
some
point.
A
It
just
needs
to
be,
you
know,
swept
and
and
edited
we
can
take
pull
requests
in
github,
of
course,
for
any
of
that
stuff,
but
moving
forward
thinking
about
where
this
might
go
and
then
I'll
be
done
talking
and
I
want
niels
to
come
in
and
offer
anything
else
that
I've
any
corrections
to
what
I've
said.
We're
thinking
that
we
might
actually
want
to
do
a
conclusion
section
so
to
not
to
not
to
add
more
case
studies,
although
we
could
still
continue
to
do
that.
A
It
just
seems
like
there's
some
interesting
things
that
we
could
maybe
pull
out
and
but
but
to
be
completely
honest
with
you
all
we
have.
I
have
at
least
I
haven't
done
that
yet
so
you
know
spent
time
writing
out
section
six,
but
I
have
not
yet
you
know
for
me
it
would
be
printing
it
out
on
piece
of
paper
going
through
it
with
a
red
pen
and
actually
trying
to
find
some
of
these
conclusions
and
pulling
them
out
and
making
a
case
for
some
of
these
things.
A
So
if
we
feel
like
that's
an
okay
mandate
for
the
draft
to
have,
we
could
go
ahead
and
do
that
or
I
mean
I
wouldn't
say
we.
I
would
actually
welcome
anyone
in
the
group,
because
this
is
a
research
group
draft
to
step
up
and
offers
do
that
so
yeah
here
are
the
things
that
maybe
need
to
be
done
in
this
in
this
in
this
meeting,
but
yeah
actually
before
I
do
that.
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
were
that.
A
E
No
thanks
so
much
mallory
for
this
for
this
excellent
overview.
I
already
saw
a
question
in
the
chat
about
the
interrelation
with
with
other
rights,
and
this
is
something
we
also
like
reiterated
in
the
draft
that
all
rights
are
are
interrelated,
inextricable
and
interdependent.
E
So
we
also
talk
about
privacy
in
this
draft,
but
the
the
vantage
point
is
also
is,
of
course,
the
right
of
association
and
assembly.
So
what
we've
been
doing
is
really
built
the
draft
up
from
the
ground
on
up,
because
we've
been
working
on
this
in
this
group
for
now
for
quite
a
bit,
and
I
think
we
made
great
progress,
but
I'm
really
curious
to
hear
from
you
all
and
if
you
think
that
the
structure
has
improved.
So
in
the
previous
session
every
week
we
adopted
the
literature
review.
E
B
F
Well,
hi:
this
is
ben
schwartz,
I'm
not
sure
if
I'm
I'm
not
sure
I'll
turn
yet,
but
I
thought
maybe
aubry
said
it
was.
A
F
I'll
just
say,
I
think
I
think
this
is
is
great
work.
This
is
an
important
area.
I
I
think
that
the
idea
of
trying
to
determine
how
to
design
protocols
to
respect
and
support
freedom
of
assembly
sounds
very
challenging.
F
At
least
you
know
it
in
my
simple
interpretation,
where
that
implies
essentially
a
forward-oriented
logic,
where
we
attempt
to
predict
the
outco
the
effects
that
our
protocols
will
have
on
the
world.
I
think
that
that
that
kind
of
prediction
is
is
very
difficult
and
coming
up
with
principles,
for
that
prediction
sounds
even
harder,
so
I
would
in
in
the
course
of
conclusions
that
you're
drawing.
I
would
be
really
interested
if
we
could
see
conclusions
that
are
a
little
bit
more
reactive
yeah.
A
I
think
that's
a
fair
point
that
I
mean
it's
not
necessarily
so
much
about
predicting
or
designing
around
it
as
it
is
for
me
anyway,
just
having
the
curio,
like
the
genuine
curiosity
of
like
what
are
some
of
the
aspects
and
characteristics
of
these
technologies
that
have
either
enabled
or
been
an
issue
for
when
considering
freedom
of
association.
So
I
don't
think
they
will
be
prescriptive
conclusions.
I
think
that
would
probably
not
work.
A
B
Anyone
else
wants
me
to
I'll
jump
in
a
second.
With
of
your
comments.
If
I
can,
this
is
honestly,
I'm
really
quite
impressed
with
it
with
the
direction
this
is
taking
and-
and
you
know
the
way
it
read-
and
I
just
you
know
just
reread
it
again
before
the
meeting
and
while
it
it
it's
it's
still
moving
along.
I
can
see
the
things
that
you
want
to
add,
but
I
think
it's
really
coming
very
close
to
a
point
where
we
have.
B
B
I'm
actually
quite
quite
impressed
with
the
way
it's
going
and
it-
and
I
just
wanted
to
mention
that
while
we
were
talking
about
this
thanks,
I
do
have
some
smaller
points
at
places,
but
mostly
the
issues
I
found
were
more
editorial
and
and
evenness
of
language
and
and
things
like
that
through
the
document,
but
but
nothing
jumped
out
at
me
as
as
being
necessarily
problematic
or
or
you
know,
sort
of
going
in
in
a
problematic
direction.
So
thanks
very
much
to
all
of
you
for
all
you've
done
on
it.
A
Absolutely
well
thanks
for
the
encouragement
audrey,
I
think
I'm
really
pleased
with
it
as
well
and,
like
you
know
so,
thanks
to
thanks
to
everybody
who
stuck
with
it
this
whole
time.
I
think
it's
made
it
a
better
piece,
so
I
think
there's
somebody
so
I'm
looking
at
the
chat
the
protocol
was
asked.
What's
for
asking
questions,
you
can
just
go
ahead
and
your
mic
on
as
far
as
I
can
tell,
we
can
turn
it
off.
That
seems
to
be
about.
A
A
Yeah
it's
hard
to
know,
I
mean,
and
then
there's
a
so
I
don't
know
if
I
should
read
this
question
out
or
if
ch
would
like
to
actually
ask
it
directly,
but
it
says
I
think
the
association
draft
would
benefit
from
a
discussion
of
resource
and
performance.
For
example,
many
services
use
big
and
costly
servers
to
replicate
messages
to
multiple
people.
Replication
can
also
happen
in
a
peer-to-peer
network,
but
it
is
limited
by
resource
bandwidth
of
user
connection,
power
of
user
computers
even
time
availability.
A
G
Yeah
and
it's
something
that
we
we
found
a
lot
actually
doing
the
evolution.
A
G
What's
coming
from
a
server
than
to
try
to
be
the
server
for
multiple
people
from
your
home
connection
on
your
home
computer
or
your
phone
connection
and
your
phone,
there
are
issues
there
and,
and
the
fact
is
that
the
more
you
go
to
the
this
resistance
point,
the
more
you
go
towards
server-based
systems
that
are
inherently
under
the
control
of
whoever
is
putting
up
the
servers
and
and
that
that's
that's
clear
attention
there.
A
Yeah
thanks
for
sharing
that
christian,
I
think
that
is
really
interesting
and
it
also
then
gets
to
some
notion
of
access,
which
I
think
is
mentioned.
Certainly
it's
mentioned
in
the
literature
review.
It'd
be
nice.
If
we
could
elaborate
that
in
the
case
studies-
and
maybe
this
is
one
way
to
do-
that-
access,
meaning
quality.
E
E
E
So
do
you
think,
like
performance
considerations
and
impact,
should
that
be
a
separate
heading
or
you
think
it
should
be
part
of
peer-to-peer
of
web
conferencing
or
or
of
something
else,
because
I
also
understood
that
processor
cycles
also
were
important.
Vis-A-Vis,
encryption
and
stuff,
so
would
performance
and
considerations
are
around
that
be
a
separate
case,
and
so
what
would
that
case
be?
Or
should
we
integrate
it
further
across
the
board.
G
G
And
so
so
that,
and
because
you
end
up
with
these
latencies,
your
system
is
much
less
usable
than
one
that
goes
to
a
big
server
and
back
so
so,
and
the
same
goes
for
video
for
the
the
the
the
frame
rate
of
the
video
or
the
definition
of
the
video
and
things
like
that.
G
A
Jonathan,
if
you
don't
want
to
send
audio,
I
can
read
your
question
out
loud
because
it's
pertinent
to
this
particular
discussion
and
then
we
can
go
down.
The
my
cube,
but
jonathan
says:
is
there
a
technical
reason
that
peer-to-peer
would
be
slower?
It
would
seem
that
it
should
be
possible
to
achieve
lower
latencies
versus
round
trips
to
servers.
A
Okay,
but
chris
lemon's
replied
peer-to-peer
often
creates
a
many-to-many
situation
where
the
total
number
of
connections
and
transmissions
increases
with
the
square
of
the
participants
in
multi-participate
participant
communications.
A
When
a
central
server
is
involved,
often
only
a
single
connection
for
each
person
into
the
server
is
required.
It
varies
by
the
protocol.
Of
course
I
mean
I
need,
I
think
in
just
maybe
to
answer
your
question
nails
or
to
think
more
about
your
question
and
where
to
place
it.
I
do
think
we
need
a
way
of
talking
about
how
the
manner
of
assembly
may
be
very
much
defined
by
the
platform
of
the
protocol
being
used,
and
that
may
be
notable
in
the
analysis
across
all
of
them.
A
It
might
actually
be
worth
talking
about
the
the
quality
and
nature
of
assembly,
that's
possible
and
how
it's
defined
by
the
protocol
or
the
platform,
and
then
that
maybe
would
lead
to
an
overall
conclusion
of
some
kind,
but
we
first
have
to
set
it
up
in
the
analysis.
A
A
B
A
A
H
Can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
yes,
it
worked
hey.
So
thank
you
niels.
So
I'm
wondering
you
know.
I
read
your
draft
and
I'm
wondering
if
there's
any
sort
of
prescriptive
suggestions
that
you
you
could
make
for
protocol
developers
to
to
help
with
association.
I'm
I'm
thinking,
for
instance,
like
let's
say
a
you
know,
on
an
authenticated
key
exchange.
H
It
would
seem
to
me
that
having
the
property
of
of
deniability
would
be
useful
to
facilitate
freedom
of
association,
and
so
I'm
wondering
if
you
can
create
a
section
that
has
some
prescriptive
instructions
for
protocol
developers
in
the
itf
that
we
could
as
we're
developing
a
protocol.
We
can
look
back
and
say
you
know:
are
we
abiding
by
rfc
xyz
section?
H
You
know
a.z
something
like
that.
I
think
that
would
that
would
make
your
make
and
resulting
rfc
be
much
more
useful
and-
and
I
would
at
least
find
value
in
that.
Thank
you.
A
Yeah
I
can,
I
mean,
I
think,
that
we
we
want
to
be
helpful
and
we
want
to
come
to
conclusions
that
are
useful,
but
I
don't
know
that
we
can
be
prescriptive.
I
don't
think
that's
actually
our
role
in
the
irtf.
I
think
that
just
getting
to
the
point
where
we've
you
know
made
the
connections,
we've
done
analysis
and
it
seems
rather
comprehensive
and
then
we
can
pull
out
lessons
learned.
I
think
that's
actually,
as
far
as
we
need
to
go,
but
you
know
I'd
love
for
this
to
be
referenced.
A
You
know
if
it
is.
If,
if
there's
someone
out
there
developing
a
protocol
that
might
benefit
from
you
know
referencing
the
this
association
work,
then
that's
that's
great,
but
I
don't
think
we
can
be
prescriptive.
Actually,
I'd
be
happy
if
somebody
else
had
a
different
view,
aubrey
or
niels
or
even
colin,.
B
You
know,
and
certainly
can't
be
prescriptive
about
work
being
done
in
the
idea.
You
know
we
can,
you
know,
do
things
as
we've
done
before.
Is
you
know
the
consideration
type
consideration,
type
questions
that
one
can
ask
themselves
and
and
can
even
give
indications
of
of
perspectives
one
can
take,
but
but
yeah
being
prescriptive,
especially
being
prescriptive
about
work
done
in
the
ietf,
we're
probably
going
further
than
we
should
unless
someone
that
does
want
to
say
otherwise,
but
but
I
have
the
same
impression
thanks.
A
I
Hear
you
awesome,
thank
you,
so
I
had
a
few
thoughts
here.
One
is
that,
in
response
to
this
recent
discussion,
it
seems
like
it
may
be
useful
to
kind
of
spell
out
the
different
principles
that
are
in
tension
and
kind
of
frame
it
as
trade-offs
that
need
to
be
made
not
necessarily
always
in
a
protocol,
although
sometimes
that
will
be
the
case,
but
also
in
you
know,
implementation.
I
I
think
that
there
are
a
lot
of
like
values
and
and
principles
that
are
are
in
conflict,
and
it's
not
easy
to
resolve
that
with
a
purely
technical.
You
know
solution
in
terms
of
like
a
digital.
I
You
know
protocol
definition.
That
says
this
is
how
it
must
be
done,
and
I
think
that
part
of
the
way
that
we
get
there
is,
I
think
it
was
ben
earlier.
Who
is
suggesting
that
perhaps,
rather
than
being
prescriptive,
you
know
we.
I
We
have
some
more
considerations
to
how
to
react
to
issues
once
they
are
seen,
and
so
maybe
that's
the
the
way
of
doing
that
is
to
to
think
of
it
in
terms
of
agency
to
react
in
in
terms
of
especially
for
things
like
the
section
on
you
know,
blocking
together
and
like
the
roc
use
case.
I
also
think
of
like
mastodon
in
a
federated
model,
where
you
have
control
at
different
layers,
and
you
can
look
at
that
in
terms
of
agency.
So.
I
I
wonder
if
that
might
be
one
way
that
we
can
keep
it
at
the
level
of
considerations
rather
than
being
really
prescriptive,
but
also
provide
some
some
useful
bits
and
pieces
that
you
can
be
adopted.
A
Yeah
thanks
mike
that's
a
good
idea
is
to
hone
in
on
tensions
and
trade-offs.
I
think
that's
a
really
good
idea
just
to
make
sure
in
each
sort
of
case
study
we've
done
that
and
see.
If
there
are
commonalities
that
can
be
even
conclusions.
I
mean
it's
also
a
very
human
rights
thing
as
well
to
look
at
tensions
and
trade-offs.
I
mean
that
is
you
know
there
are
tensions
and
trade-offs
between.
You
know:
freedom
of
expression,
privacy,
for
example,
and
other
things
like
that.
A
A
If
nobody
else
is
in
the
queue
so
we've
got,
we
actually
may
not
use
our
whole
two
hours,
but
before
we
end
this
particular
section
just
to
let
me
go
back
to
my
last
slide
just
to
ask
for
folks
who
may
have
an
interest
in
this
to
to
work
with
us
or,
if
you've
reviewed
the
draft.
A
If
you've
read
it,
if
you
haven't,
please
do
that
and
then
go
ahead
and
send
any
you
know,
pull
requests
or
or
open
issues
in
our
github
for
hrpc,
which
is
linked
from
our
data
tracker
page.
That
would
be
very
helpful
in
getting
this
text
shined
up
and
ready
for
ietf
110,
in
which,
hopefully,
we
will
have
like
a
fully
completed
from
introduction
to
conclusion
and
everything
in
between
draft
done,
for
you
all
for
final
discussion.
A
What
I'm
I'm
not
hearing
that
there
are
any
issues
really
like
big,
large,
outstanding
ideological.
You
know
thought-provoking
issues
with
the
section
six
on
case
studies
and
examples.
So
I'm
really
happy
about
that,
and
I
think
it
means
that
we
should
go
ahead
and
move
forward
with
concluding
this
work.
So
wonderful,
final
thoughts,
nails.
A
Amazing,
I
knew
I
was
going
to
get
thumbs
up,
I'm
so
grateful
for
that
all
right,
good,
so
yeah
we
have.
We
have
one
other
item
on
our
agenda
that
was
planned
around
draft
guidelines,
but
I
don't
see
gershabad
meals.
Do
you
feel
like
you
can
present.
E
E
Hi
all
thanks
so
much
for
all
for
being
here
and
for
having
this
discussion.
I'm
talking
about
the
latest
revision
of
draft
guidelines.
I
put
the
link
in
the
chat.
If
you
want
to
have
a
quick
look,
but
of
course
you
have
all
read
them
thoroughly.
E
E
It
might
seek
to
to
update
it
because
it
has
more
experience
and
builds
on
that
on
doing
your
human
rights
reviews.
I've
done
that
on
doing
doing,
interviews
on
doing
reviews,
etc.
E
People
were
already
pretty
happy
with
the
draft,
but
then
there
was
one
final
discussion
on
on
attribution
that
we
still
needed
to
rework
and
we
have
done
that
now.
So
in
a
previous
sessions
we've
said
well,
it
is
almost
good
for
last
call,
and
that
is
why
gurshabot
and
I
would
like
to
bring
forward
and
ask
if
you
all
think
this
is
ready
for
last
call
and
hope
we
can
continue
with
this
document
so
rather
short
and
sweet.
E
So
the
only
changes
that
have
been
made
was
2.3.3.20,
which
is
a
very
much
a
on
the
one
hand,
on
the
other
hand,
guidelines
and
consideration,
but
looking
forward
to
discuss
and
hear
what
you
all
think.
So,
thanks
so
much.
A
Niels,
I'm
gonna,
can
you
hear
me
mediocre,
told
me
you
can't.
I.
D
A
E
Before
we
said
it's
ready
to
go,
we
reviewed
the
whole
discussion
on
the
list,
which
were
many
threats,
and
this
was
the
only
threat
we
hadn't
covered.
So
now
it's
covered,
so
we
feel
that
we've
answered
and
covered
pretty
much
everything
that
was
covered
in
hrpc
discussions
and
stuff
that
came
up
in
the
interviews
and
during
the
experience
of
of
doing
human
rights
reviews.
So
this
should
be
a
practical
document
for
people
who
want
to
do
human
rights,
reviews
of
their
own
drafts
or
the
draft
of
others.
A
Yeah-
and
it's
been
because,
like
the
very
first
version
has
been
out
for
quite
some
time
since
2017
it's
been,
it's
been
put
to
use.
I
know
in
practical
ways
by
various
folks
and
yeah
and
it's
on
its
sixth
version.
So
I
mean
I
can't
imagine
it
being
more
ready
to
go.
That's
the
that's
where
I'm
stuck
so
I
in
by
by
that
that
token.
I
think
it
is
ready
to
go,
but
I'm
happy
to
hear
from
my
co-chair
others
all
right
so
aubry's
saying
she
thinks
it's
ready
for
last
call.
A
Which
is
great
so
we
should
do
that
on
the
list,
but
do
others
have
a
response
to
that
as
well?
Open
question.
B
Sorry,
unless
there's
someone
that
says
no
hold
on
with
this
problem,
but
not
hearing
that
through
my
reading,
I
I
thought
yes,
it
was
ready
and
certainly
need
to
do
it
on.
You
know,
put
out
an
announcement
on
the
list
and
and
do
a
timed
and
you
know,
do
the
whole
thing
proper
like
but
yeah.
I
I'm
quite
impressed
with
the
way
it's
gone
so
far,
so
yeah.
Thank
you.
A
A
We
did
have
time
to
talk
about.
We
have
any
other
business.
I
I
mentioned
that
we
might
have.
We
could
talk
about
reviving
draft
political
after
kim's
speech.
We
could,
if
there
are
other
things
to
follow
up
with
respect
to
publishing
documents
in
other
journals
or
other
mediums.
That's
been
another
order
of
any
other
business,
but
yeah
it's
actually
kind
of
an
open
mic
and
we
can
leave
it
open
for
the
next
five
minutes
or
so
and
then
close
it
out.
If
there's
no
comments.
E
A
Can
I
ask
you
so
this
is
maybe
future
work
for
you,
but
it
could
also
be
picked
up
at
any
time.
Can
you
just
give
for
folks
who
aren't
familiar
with
it?
Can
you
just
give
the
broad
overview
of
what
draft
political
is
all
about?
What
it's
trying
to
achieve?
It's
research
objective.
E
E
I'm
just
kidding
what
the
draft
political
is
trying
to
do
is
trying
to
analyze
what
are
all
the
different
aspects
of
of
standard
setting
in
the
ietf
and
so
of
protocols
and
standards
and
the
process
of
protocol
and
standards
making,
and
thereby
to
understand
how
power
and
politics
play
a
role
in
both
the
process
and
the
outputs
of
these
documents.
E
So
it
is,
it
is
a
it
is.
It
is
a
similar,
multiple
case
study,
design,
similar
to
the
to
draft
political
to
a
draft
association,
but
as
draft
association,
draft
political
needs
to
be
cleaned
up
again
so,
but
maybe
we
could
now
now
we
have
more
issues
and
more
things.
We
could
first
do
more,
is
more
parts
and
then
restructure
it
clean
it
up
and
continue
with
that
as
well.
So
that
seemed
to
work
really
well
for
draft
association.
A
Yeah,
I
can
see
that
working
really
well,
like
the
formula
for
draft
association,
seemed
to
work
really
well
once
we
hit
it.
A
The
only
thing
that
I
would
say
is
a
potentially
slight
drawback
is
that,
while
freedom
of
association
and
assembly
are
incredibly
well
defined
because
they're
in
the
universal
declaration
on
human
rights,
political
and
the
nature
of
what
it
means
to
be
political,
is
a
little
bit
more
nebulous,
but
I
think
what
we
can
do
there
is
what
I
think
you
have
done
already,
and
what
many
scholars
in
this
field
would
do,
which
is
to
really
lean
on
the
existing
writing
about
it
and
there's
no
shortage
of
scholarly's
research.
A
That
makes
the
case
for
this
and
what
political
means
may
be
part
of
that
discovery,
trying
to
explain
it
and
talk
about
what
political
means
in
this
context,
in
a
clear
way
for
people
reading,
it
might
actually
be
very
helpful.
E
A
If
we
can
add
that
as
an
explicit
goal
of
this
research
in
some
way
that
we
want
to
actually
unpack
what
it
means
to
be
political,
I
think
that
would
really
help
people
care
about
this
draft.
More
frankly,.
E
A
A
A
Okay,
so
aubrey's
comment
being
the
draft
political
can
look
more
in
the
civil
and
political
rights
aspect.
Yeah,
I
think
that's,
I
think,
that's
fair
for
sure.
I
think
just
even
the
you
know
the
basics
of
one
slide
that
I
remember
kim
had
in
her
talk
in
the
in
the
beginning
of
it
was
just
it's
not,
it
is.
It
is
political
and
it's
not
neutral
and
those
are
actually
two
different
things.
A
I
think
sometimes
draft
political
was
just
trying
to
make
the
case
that
things
were
not
neutral,
but
then
taking
a
step
further
to
talk
about
the
actual
positive
expression
of
civil
and
political
rights.
E
Now
I
also
really
enjoyed
the
the
finding
that
kim
brought
really
clearly
to
light
that
equality
and
equity
are
not
the
same
things,
and
I
think
it
would
be
really
interesting
to
to
to
bring
that
forward
and
and
research
that
deeper
into
in
this
context,.
A
A
We
can
also
take
it
to
the
list
and
would
appreciate
your
feedback
there
as
well
on
all
these
things
and
again
feel
free
to
jump
in
on
this
in
github,
where
we
take
issues
and
pull
requests,
and
I
think
because
we
weren't
able
to
it-
was
just
a
bit
of
an
awkward
time
zone
for
a
lot
of
our
speakers
and
we
weren't
able
to
get
a
second
speaker
as
we'd
hoped
so
we're
just
about
30
minutes
early
and
I'm
sure
no
one
would
complain,
I'm
not
going
to
complain.
A
D
A
A
A
Wonderful
well,
thank
you
so
much
to
kim
creighton
for
the
speech
thanks
to
niels
and
gershabad,
for
the
work
on
the
drafts
and
for
everybody
for
coming.
I
really
appreciate
the
attendance
we
had
for
this
awkward
time
zone
in
the
first
session
of
109.
yeah
welcome
to
109.,
welcome
to
bangkok.