►
From YouTube: IETF110-HRPC-20210311-1600
Description
HRPC meeting session at IETF110
2021/03/11 1600
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/110/proceedings/
A
We've
got
a
lot
of
last
minute,
joiners,
so
welcome
to
the
human
rights
protocol
considerations
session,
the
ietf
110
meeting,
it's
going
to
be
a
really
good
meeting,
but
we
have
two
hours.
We
have
two
great
talks
and
we
have
two
drafts
to
discuss
so
we're
gonna
not
delay
any
further
and
go
ahead
and
get
started.
A
A
At
the
end,
we
have
quite
a
chunk
for
aob
because
there's
been
some
list
activity,
maybe
in
the
last
six
weeks
that
kind
of
goes
beyond
our
current
work.
It
talks
about
some
possibilities,
so
we
wanted
to
make
sure
we
left
time
for
that
and
aubrey
is
going
to
share
that
section
yep.
I
need
to
inform
you
all
of
the
notewell
for
this
meeting.
What
applies
for
all
ietf
scheduled
session
applies
to
this
session
as
well.
A
Even
though
we're
in
the
irtf
the
first
one,
that's
important
to
note
within
the
notewell
is
on
intellectual
property
and
then
the
second
part
of
the
notewell
that
we
wanted
to
highlight
specifically
is
the
code
of
conduct.
It
also
includes
issues
around
personal
information
and
also
on
that
note
just
to
remind
you
that
this
session
is
recorded.
It'll
go
up
on
youtube
next
week
or
before
so.
A
Please
consider
these
things
in
the
irtf,
so
the
human
rights
protocol
considerations,
research
group
is
part
of
the
irtf
and
we,
along
with
the
other
research
groups,
support
the
irtf
and
its
focus
on
longer
term
research,
issues
that
are
related
to
the
internet
and
and
then
specifically
I'll
get
into
it
later.
But
we
are
looking
at
human
rights
impacts
in
both
directions.
A
We
are
conducting
research.
Our
drafts
represent
information
that
can
be
useful.
It's
we're
not
developing
standards
here,
and
we
often
then
take
this
to
mean.
We
also
want
to
invite
research
being
done
elsewhere
outside
the
rtf
to
come
into
the
irtf,
where
it's
relevant
as
you'll
see
with
the
two
presenters
from
from
today.
A
So,
within
the
irtf
we
have
this
research
group,
that's
been
chartered
for
a
few
years
now
to
look
at
how
protocols
strengthen
or
might
put
in
danger
actually
threaten
human
rights,
and
we
take
the
universal
declaration
of
human
rights
in
the
iccpr
as
our
baselines
for
those
standards
and
our
objective
specifically
on
our
charter
is
just
to
first,
you
know,
establish
and
expose
the
relationship
between
protocols
and
human
rights.
We've
focused
like
we
have
one.
A
A
So
we
do
drafts,
we
do,
reviews
again
inside
and
outside
we've
talked
about
this
several
times
in
terms
of
the
any
you
know,
the
aob,
the
you
know,
expanding
the
scope
like
how
we
actually
want
to
do
more
than
just
drafts,
so
the
last
four
bullet
points
are
an
attempt
to
capture
some
of
those
ideas.
There's
a
you
know,
there's
a
film
that
was
done
some
years
ago
that
you
can
watch
that
sort
of
talks
about
hrpc's
work.
A
A
These
are
the
major
milestones
to
date,
we'd
like
to
add
some
more
of
these
as
our
as
work
on
draft
association
draft
guidelines,
you
know,
really
starts
to
pick
up
and
the
big
bang
is
also.
I
think
we
should
add
big
bang
to
this
at
some
point
with
a
date,
because
that's
been
a
major
milestone
and
then
just
to
remind
everyone
of
where
we
are
now.
A
Good,
we
have
two
active
drafts
that
we're
going
to
talk
about
today,
they're
out
of
order
for
the
way
that
we're
going
to
address
them
in
the
agenda,
but
we're
going
to
be
talking
about
the
guidelines
for
human
rights
protocol
considerations
that
gershwin's
been
leading
on
and
then
we'll
also
talk
about
the
freedom
of
association
draft
that
niels
has
been
leading
on,
but
that
has
had
several
offers
and
a
lot
of
well
both
actually
have
had
quite
a
lot
of
list
discussion.
Lately.
I'll.
A
Just
make
a
note
that
those
on
the
list
will
have
noticed.
There's
been
a
great
deal
of
activity
this
week,
I
would
admit,
as
a
co-chair,
I've
not
been
able
to
keep
up
with
those
discussions,
as
I
would
like
have
liked
to
given
their
volume.
But
it's
just
because
it's
ietf
week
and
I've
been
in
a
lot
of
sessions.
A
So
if
you're,
all
still
with
me,
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
introduce
our
first
speakers
really
excited
about
this.
So
joanne
yates
is
sloan
distinguished
professor
of
management
emerita
at
the
mit
sloan
school
of
management.
She
studied
the
history
and
contemporary
use
of
communication
and
information
technology
in
firms
and
craig
and
murphy.
The
co-author
of
the
book
engineering
rules
is
betty.
A
Freyhof
johnson
1944,
professor
of
political
science
at
wellesley
college
he's
the
author
of
he's,
a
scholar
of
global
governance
and
international
relations,
who
focuses
on
the
long
connections
between
intergovernmental
organizations
and
industrial
development
together,
yates
and
murphy.
Recently
co-authored
engineering
rules,
global
standard
setting
since
1980,
which
I
read
really
liked
it,
and
I'm
really
appreciative
of
the
authors
for
responding
to
my
request
to
have
them
speak
today,
because
I
think
you
all
will
also
find
it
extremely
fascinating
from
a
variety
of
perspectives.
B
Today,
it's
based
on
our
new
book,
the
engineering
rules,
global
standard
setting
since
1880,
and
this
book
focuses
in
particular
on
it.
It
starts
in
1880.
It
comes
clear
up
to
the
the
present
and
I'll
get
back
to
that,
but
it
focuses
particularly
on
private,
voluntary,
consensus-based,
standardization,
so
non-governmental
and,
if
you
think
of
it,
as
if
you
think
of
standardization,
as
on
a
continuum
with
the
market
at
one
end
and
the
government
regulation
at
the
other
private
voluntary
standards
bodies
are
right
in
the
middle
and
they're
incredibly
important.
B
B
So
today,
what
we're
going
to
talk
about.
I
will
start
by
giving
you
a
little
history
about
the
birth
of
the
standards,
movement
and
notice,
the
term
movement,
because
it
was
more
than
just
just
happenstance.
It
was
a
movement
and
and
then
I'll
jump
up
to
the
near
the
present
and
talk
briefly
about
the
emergence
of
ietf
and
w3c
and
then
I'll
hand
off
to
craig.
Who
will
talk
about
standardizing
around
social
issues.
B
So
the
birth
of
the
standards
movement,
the
br,
the
standards
movement
basically
came
out
of
the
professionalization
of
engineers
in
the
19th
century.
So
in
industrializing
nations
of
europe,
the
us,
japan,
more
and
more
engineers
were
playing
a
bigger
and
bigger
role
and
they
started
forming
engineering
societies.
B
So
they
not
only
formed
these
societies,
but
they
also
sought
ways
to
serve
the
public
interest
because
they
saw
that
lawyers
and
and
doctors
in
some
way,
sir
tried
to
serve
the
public
interest
and
to
and
that
that
was
part
of
being
a
professional.
So
the
the
way
they
came
up
with
for
making
themselves
clearly
serving
the
public
interest
was
through
standards,
so
the
first
in
the
19th
century.
B
There
were
three
sets
of
standards
that
emerged,
that
these
were
before
the
first
associations
that
were
purely
for
standard
setting,
but
they
they
covered
a
set
of
issues
that
are
typical.
Even
now.
The
first
set
was
around
steam
boilers.
If
you
look
at
the
picture
of
the
exploding
steamboat
in
the
lower
left
corner,
there
were
horrendous,
horrendous
accidents
through
the
19th
century,
around
steam
boilers
exploding
and
and
doing
just
terrible
damage,
killing
many
people
in
horrible
ways.
B
So
it
was
clearly
a
safety
issue
that
needed
to
be
addressed
so
in
the
us,
the
a
bunch
of
scientists
and
engineers
at
the
franklin
institute,
which
is
a
proto
engineering
society,
came
together
and
they
worked
out,
spent
a
lot
of
time
doing
research
and
came
up
with
a
standard
for
making
steam
boilers
strong
enough
that
they
would
not
explode,
and
these
ultimately
made
it
into
law
and
and
did
immensely
improve
this
problem.
German
standard
setters
also
turned
to
steam
boilers
as
their
first
activity
later
in
the
century.
B
The
second
area
was
screw
threads
compatibility
issues
as
it
turns
out
at
that
time.
You
know
if
you've
got
a
piece
of
machinery
that
was
made
by
a
particular
machine
shop
it
and
you
stripped
one
of
the
threads
on
a
bolt
or
something
you
couldn't
replace
it
from
something
you
had
from
someone
else.
You
had
to
go
back
to
the
original
place
and
have
them
make
another
one,
because
every
company's
screw
threads
were
different.
B
B
Both
of
these
were
fairly
widely
developed
and
they
were,
and
engineers
and
societies
helped
publicize
them,
but
they
weren't.
They
were
made
by
individuals,
not
by
groups.
So
the
next
issue-
the
performance
of
steel
whales
on
which
the
railroads
ran.
That
became
the
really
critical
issue
where
you
start
bringing
together
multiple
types
of
engineers
to
work
on
the
same
problem,
because
you
had
to
have
mechanical
and
chemical
engineers
involved.
B
You
had
to
have
mining
engineers
as
well
as
railroad
engineers,
so
multiple
engineering
societies
came
together
and
developed
the
the
proposed
standard
specs
for
steel
rails
that
you
see
on
the
right,
they're
they're
rfc.
So
this
was
the
closest
to
what
soon
emerged
as
societies
created
solely
for
making
standards.
So
we
get
the
birth
of
both
national
and
international
standards,
bodies
around
1900
sort
of
this
big
bang
and
they
all
all
of
a
sudden
came
at
once.
B
The
first
national
body
was
in
great
britain,
founded
by
john
wolf,
berry
mechanical
engineer,
a
civil
engineer
who,
who
built
bridges
actually
and
he
brought
to
they,
brought
together
people
from
five
different.
They
brought
together
five
different
engineering
societies
and
created
a
committee
with
all
of
them,
and
they
developed
a
set
of
principles
about
how
to
arrive
at
standards.
B
They
create
the
notion
of
technical
committees
in
specific
areas
they
set
up
and
they
came
up
with
a
norm
such
as
you
had
to
have
a
balance
of
stakeholders,
so
you
wanted
some
of
them
to
be
from
the
manufacturing
firms.
Some
of
them
could
be
from
the
purchasing
firms
and
some
of
them
to
be
unaffiliated
with
either
so
you
wanted
to
have
all
three
of
those
types
represented
and
none
of
them
over
50.
B
They
also
came
up
with
processes
that
would
lead
to
consensus
and
and
and
in
particular,
due
process
that
guaranteed
that
everyone's
ideas
got
heard.
They
may
not
ultimately
have
been
adopted,
but
everyone's
ideas
were
heard,
and
this
was
very
important
and
it
it
lengthened
the
process,
but
it
was
important
because
it
helped
achieve
voluntary
adoption
of
standards,
which
was
ultimately
their
goal
to
get
companies,
manufacturers
and
users
to
adopt
them.
That
way
so-
and
this
became
this
british
body
became
the
model
for
all
the
other
national
bodies.
B
The
other
national
bodies
were,
there
was
a
little
delay
first
and
then
around
world
war.
One
a
whole
slew
of
other
countries
started
developing
national
bodies
modeled
on
the
british
one,
but
only
five
years
after
the
british
one
was
founded.
The
first
ongoing
international
body
was
created
by
electrical
engineers.
B
They
were
at
the
the
cutting
edge
of
engineering
at
this
point
and
they
decided
they
needed
to
organize
on
on
a
an
international
level
and
they
had
to
come
up
with
some
new
rules
because
it
worked
differently
when
you
were
in
international
than
national
one
of
the
things
was
they
figured
out.
You
had
to
have
delegations
from
each
nation.
That
was,
but
you
wanted
those
delegations
not
to
represent
the
government.
They
were
very
clear
on
this
and
had
big
discussions
about
it
and
it's
all
documented.
B
Well,
they
didn't
want
governments,
they
wanted
standards
bodies
to
be
national
standards
bodies,
in
this
case
the
electrical
engineering
body
from
each
country
to
say
who
should
be
the
delegation.
They
also
came
up
with
the
notion
of
one
vote
per
country
which
iec
still
uses
today,
and
the
picture
there
is
is
colonel
crompton.
Who
was
the
engineer
who
started
this
one
now,
with
these
two
bodies,
we
now
have
the
birth
of
the
standardization
movement
standard
standardizers
formed
a
transnational
community.
B
That
is,
they
were
talking
to
each
other
across
country
lines
they
weren't
just
being
national.
They
were
being
an
international
community
and
charles
le
maestro
was
perhaps
the
head
of
all
of
this.
That's
charles
le
maestro
right
there
he
was
a
secretary
of
the
british
body
from
the
very
beginning.
He
was
quite
young
at
this
point
and
in
that
capacity
he
convened
meetings
of
the
secretaries
of
all
the
national
bodies
for
several
years
in
a
row
so
that
everyone
was
exchanging
views.
B
The
the
body
that
they
formed
would
not
survive
world
war
ii,
and
it's
not
important,
but
at
this
point,
but
this
was
the
first
attempt
at
that,
so
these
people,
the
leaders
of
these
organizations
and
and
particularly
charles
lemaistra,
shared
beliefs
that
standards
promoted
both
national
and
international
values.
You
know
prosperity
and
national
interests
on
the
one
hand,
and
humanities
interests
and
world
peace,
even
on
the
other.
So
we
can
see
sir
john
wolfeberry,
the
the
man
who
started
the
british
group.
B
He
felt
that
this
organization
would
help
them
in
keeping
the
trade
of
our
colonial
empire
in
the
hands
of
british
manufacturers,
so
that
was
a
national
value,
comfort,
adams,
who
was
the
head
of
the
american
national
body.
He
was
more.
He
was
worried
about
the
post-world
war,
one
labor
problems
in
the
us
and
the
and
worried
about
what
the
russian
revolution
happening
in
the
u.s.
So
he
thought
the
best
thing
that
could
help.
This
is
productivity
of
labor.
B
On
a
more
on
a
higher
level,
charles
lemaster
himself
saw
that
the
process
by
which
they
arrived
at
international
standards
was
key
also
because
it
to
be
a
good
standardizer.
In
his
view,
you
couldn't
just
go
for
your
own
interest.
You
had
to
sink
much
of
your
personal
opinion
and
work
for
the
benefit
of
the
community
as
a
whole
and
that
he
saw
as
something
that
would
increasingly
benefit
humanity
at
large,
so
he
had
big
a
big
vision.
B
Similarly,
comfort
adams
saw
that
international
standardization
would
help
with
the
removal
of
a
barrier
between
nations
and
it
it
was.
It
would
also
help
them
to
quote
attain
that
lasting
peace
for
which
the
world
longs.
This
is
right
after
world
war
one
and
he
launched
for
peace.
Unfortunately,
that
wasn't
to
be,
but
they
had
great
beliefs
in
the
value
of
standards.
B
To
do
this,
the
the
final
piece
of
the
traditional
standard
system
was
put
in
place
right
after
world
war
ii
when,
during
the
war,
all
the
standardizers
were
focused
internally
on
national
standards
and
military
standards,
but
the
minute
it
the
war,
ended
they
met
in
london.
This
is
a
1946
meeting.
You
see
here
to
create
iso.
The
international
organization
for
standardization,
of
which
iec
would
be
the
international
electrotechnical
commission,
would
be
a
partner
and
sort
of
the
the
electro
technical
division
of
iso
is
how
they
saw
it.
B
B
So
he
thought
it
was
absolutely
critical
to
get
all
the
stakeholders
back
in
both
germany's
japan,
italy
and
also
to
keep
the
soviet
union
and
the
other
countries
in
its
in
its
sphere
of
influence.
Part
of
this
as
well
and
and
iec
and
iso,
did
this
much
better.
Actually
they
did
it
faster
than
the
un
did
that
was
formed.
They
managed
to
bring
everyone
back
in.
So
internationalism
was
a
very
strong
value
by
this
time.
B
So
now
let
me
skip
up
in
time
closer
to
our
current
era
and
and
look
at
how
new
standards
bodies
emerged
around
the
internet.
Here,
you
guys
are
ietf
in
the
1980s.
As
some
of
you
will
know,
the
there
was
a
networking
war
and,
as
various
organizations
were
trying
to
set
standards
and
all
kinds
of
people
were
working
on
it.
Meanwhile
tcpip
became
the
de
facto
standard
because
it
was
up
and
it
was
running
and
people
could
use
it.
B
So
it
became
de
facto
standard,
and
that
meant
that
ietf,
which
had
been
created
in
1986
when,
when
darpa
spun
off
the
internet
from
arpanet,
it
helped
create
ietf
to
help
keep
tabs
of
the
the
protocols,
and
that
became
the
de
facto
standards
body
for
the
internet,
which
is
very
interesting
because
ietf
was
not
directly
influenced
by
these
traditional
standards.
Bodies.
I've
been
talking
about
it's.
You
know.
It
grew
out
of
a
completely
different
tradition
and
it
had
a
very
different
style
from
those
a
very
free
wheeling
style.
B
That
contrasts
with
the
the
men
with
their
high
hats
that
we
saw
in
the
pictures
and,
as
you
all
know,
david
clark
articulated
in
92
the
manifesto.
We
reject
king's
presidency.
We
believe
in
rough
consensus
and
running
code,
and
that
meant
that
there
were
some
unusual
characteristics
of
ietf
compared
to
the
other
standards
bodies.
B
So
ietf
is
open
to
all
individuals
which
feels
very
democratic,
but
it
doesn't
require
stakeholder
balance.
So
there's
there's
not
anything
structural
that
prevents
one
company
from
sending
all
their
people
to
a
meeting.
For
example,
they
value
timeliness
over
complete
consensus
and
over
due
process
they
the
technology,
was
moving
too
fast.
B
It
itf
is
global,
but
it
lacked
national
representation
which
had
some
advantages,
but
some
real
disadvantages
and
in
practice
it
meant
that
for
many
of
the
years
of
the
existence
it
was
dominated
by
western
english-speaking
males,
and
one
final
difference
is
that
there's
lots
of
movement,
energy
I've
discovered
in
in
iepf
people
are
enthusiastic
about
it,
but
they're
enthusiastic
about
the
internet.
The
internet
is
what
they
see
as
helping
create
world
peace,
not
standardization
itself.
B
Soon
we
get
w3c
as
well.
Tim
berners-lee
formed
it.
He
was
familiar
with
ietf
and
the
traditional
model
and
corporate
consortium,
which
also
came
in
during
the
80s,
but
he
created
his
own
hybrid,
where
he
gave
himself
extensive
powers
and
he
strove
for
a
more
robust
consensus
and
provided
limited
due
process
where
he
was.
You
could
appeal
to
him
so
now.
Let
me
hand
this
off
to
craig
who
will
talk
about
standardizing
around
social
issues.
C
Great
thank
you
very
much.
I
wanted
to
have
a
story
that
really
starts
around
the
same
time
as
ietf
and
w3c,
which
is
the
story
of
how
the
traditional
standardization
system
and
then
a
set
of
new
bodies
got
involved
in
things
like
human
rights
and
social
issues
and
environmental
issues
and
there's
a
weird
thing,
because
it
really
starts
with
quality
management
standards.
The
iso
9000
series,
which
were
established
around
1987.
C
iso
9000,
was
the
first
time
that
iso
created
a
standard
that
was
about
a
business
process
rather
than
a
standard
about
something
like
compatibility
of
of
objects.
Iso
9000,
especially
in
the
united
states,
tends
to
be
mocked
by
a
number
of
people,
they're
all
good
sort
of
jokes
about
how
you
can
be
an
iso.
C
It's
mocked,
but
it
actually
is,
has
an
extremely
important
role
in
businesses,
particularly
in
the
developing
world,
where
it's
important
for
businesses
to
be
able
to
show
that
they
have
quality
of
one
form
or
another.
Consequently,
another
reason
for
this
picture
is
the
botswana
university
is
saying
something
to
the
rest
of
the
world.
The
final
thing
that's
really
important
about
this-
is
iso
9000
turned
out
to
be
a
great
money
maker
for
national
standard
settings
bodies.
C
But
you
don't
have
intergovernmental
agreements
to
deal
with
the
social
and
environmental
consequences
of
this
global
manufacturing
economy,
because
the
united
states
will
not
allow
those
agreements
to
be
reached,
starting
really
with
the
reagan
administration
as
a
consequence
for
companies
that
actually
were
doing
things
that
dealt
with.
You
know
supported
social
issues,
environmental
issues,
human
rights
issues.
They
felt
that
it
would
be
a
really
good
idea
to
have
standards
where
they
could
be
certified
for
doing
something
that
lots
of
other
countries.
C
C
E
A
C
The
move
or
the
standard
setting
that
is
considered
to
be
the
most
legitimate
is
actually
that
done
by
iso,
simply
because
the
iso
always
had
assures
throughout
the
balance
process
that
people
from
the
developing
world
are
able
to
take
part.
So
we
want
to
just
conclude
with
some
general
things
of
that.
C
We
think
about
we've
discovered
about
voluntary
standards
and
the
global
good
and
we'll
start
by
saying
the
general
argument
is
standardization,
as
the
old
standardization
movement,
charles
and
maester
people
would
say,
really
has
been
good
for
the
average
person,
but
the
second
and
more
important
thing
I
think
for
our
our
work
is
that
we've
discovered
that
standardization
has
always
had
a
social
movement
logic.
That's
always
been
about
people
trying
to
change
the
world
in
the
public
interest.
C
The
process
itself-
and
this
goes
back
to
the
early
ideology-
really
encourages
people
to
act
in
the
public
interest
to
come
to
pursue
their
ideals,
as
well
as
the
economic
interests
that
they
might
have
as
individuals
or
as
they're.
Confident
and
finally,
if
you
have
further
interest,
please
go,
go
and
find
the
book
it's
recently
out
in
paperback
and
there's
a
a
discount
of
30
during
march.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
A
F
F
F
Different
images
that
you
included
that
all
of
the
people
involved
in
these
early
efforts
seem
to
be
white
men
and
that
to
me
raises
a
question
of
the
extent
to
which
we
can
even
argue
that
these
individuals
in
these
organizations
represented
all
of
the
public
interest
or
very
particular,
geopolitical
one
yeah.
Likewise,
we
talk.
B
About
this
in
the
book,
on
the
one
hand,
yes,
it
was
within
their
time
public
interest,
as
it
was
seen
in
their
time
by
their
class
and
etc.
I
think
that's
all
true,
but
one
of
the
things
that's
been
true
about
most
of
the
literature
on
standardization,
since
it
done
in
the
last
20
years,
has
focused
on
how
self-centered
and
and
non-public
interested
standard
setting
bodies
are,
and
what
we
wanted
to
highlight
in
this
book
is
that
there
really
is
a
a
strong
undercurrent
of
very
positive
values.
C
So
the
other
thing
that
I
I
want
to
add
is
the
the
period
that
we
we
talked
much
less
about
in
this
talk,
which
is
from
1945
onward.
This
was
a
period
of
time
when,
because
of
some
of
the
leadership
of
the
iso
or
at
the
time,
iso
is
actually
leading,
at
least
in
a
time
period,
the
decolonization
of
global
governance.
C
C
C
I
teach
at
a
liberal
arts
college
for
women
is
that
in
the
social,
the
kind
of
post-1990s
social
area,
much
of
the
leadership
of
the
social
standard
setting
outside
the
iso
system
and
some
of
it
within
the
iso
system-
is
done
by
women,
and
it's
certainly
done
by
people
from
the
to
the
developing
world
and
part
of
the
it's.
Something,
I'm
not
sure
is
correct.
A
H
Thank
you
very
much
for
this
presentation
and
for
writing
the
book.
So
you
write
about
the
moral
commitment
of
the
social
movements
and
you
talk
about
the
social,
around
internet
and
web
technology
and
around
their
environmentalism
and
corporate
zones
about
the
responsibility
and
I'm
very
interested
to
see
whether
these
are
different
moral
commitments
and
for
different
groups.
So
do
they
optimize
for
themselves
and
their
customers
or
for
a
larger
understanding.
So
this
connects
to
the
earlier
question
and
I'm
also
very
interested
to
understand.
C
Yeah
I
mean
it's
certainly
the
case
that
that
company
consortia
are
much
more
concerned
about
standardization,
that
is,
is
really
focused
on
the
the
benefit
to
the
companies
that
are
actually
in
the
consortium
and
there
are
no
rules
or
whatever
that
are
that
are
designed
to
to
make
sure
that
that
is
balanced
in
any
way.
The
older
standard
setting
organizations
at
least
have
these
principles
that
are
associated
with
balance
in
the
public,
good,
etc,
etcetera
and
that's
they're
not
always
fought
followed
by
any
stretch
of
the
imagination.
I
B
So
that's
a
really
good
question,
and
so
there
were
cases
where,
indirectly,
that
happens,
so
containers
are
the
most
sort
of
the
iconic
standard
set
dirt
after
world
war
ii.
In
the
decades
following
world
war
ii,
container
standards
opened
up
the
global
market
right
and
in
the
process
of
arriving
at
the
standard.
B
One
company
owned
the
ip
for
the
corners
that
that
you
know
when
you
stack
containers
on
a
ship
corners
hold
them
together,
and
one
company
owned
that
and
they
had
also
lost
out
actually
that
the
standard
that
was
established
did
not
fit
there.
The
length
and
breadth
did
not
fit
there.
What
they
already
had
built
up
an
installed
base
of,
so
they
were
losing
players,
but
they
still
in
the
end
they
gave
up
their
ip.
B
C
This
idea
was
powerful
enough
that,
in
the
early
part
of
the
century,
many
very
lefty
kinds
of
people
like
the
founders
of
the
fabian
society
and
twisted
bedlam.
The
american
of
leftist
economist,
actually
looked
at
these
standard
setting
organizations
as
places
that
were
doing
something
that
was
more
democratic
and
more
in
the
public
interest
than
what
many
governments
were
doing.
A
C
C
A
A
It
was
not
oh
right
we're
battling
for
screen
control.
That's
fine
sebastian!
I
don't
need
the
screen
to
share
your
bio,
so
sebastian
researches
the
political
economy
of
technology,
he's
a
research
fellow
at
the
information
law
institute
at
nyu,
school
of
law
and
the
nyu
agent-based
modeling
lab
he's.
Also
a
research
engineer
on
the
econ
arc
software
project.
He
founded
the
big
bang
software
project
in
2015
heels
of
doctorate
in
information
management
and
systems
from
uc
berkeley,
and
this
work
was
also
done
prior
at
the
hackathon
at
ietf
110.
J
Hi,
can
you
hear
and
see
me
and
see
the
slides
awesome
thanks
so
much
for
having
me
this
is
this
is
super
exciting
and
thanks
for
that
warm
introduction.
I
want
to
briefly
say
what
is
what
is
big?
Bang
big
bang
is
this
software
project
that
we're
talking
about,
and
then
I
want
to
talk
about
what
we
did
at
the
sprint,
the
hackathon
with
this
itf
session
and
then
talk
about
where
we
think
we're
going
with
this
project.
J
K
J
From
a
number
of
different
data
sources,
including
email
and
git
repositories,
and
more
recently,
the
ietf
data
tracker,
and
especially
recently
listserv
as
a
mailing
list
hosting
platform,
and
then
it
combines
those
data
sources
with
data
science
tools,
especially
those
drawing
on
the
the
scientific
python,
stack.
So
tools
for
entity
resolution,
social
network
analysis,
natural
language,
processing,
time,
series,
analysis,
we've
got
plans
to
include
information
extraction
soon.
So
so
all
the
fancy
stuff
you
think
about
with
data
science
applied
to
these
open
collaborative
community
data
sources.
J
And
when
you
pull
that
stuff
together,
you
can
do
things
like
look
at
how
different
sort
of
online
communities
are
connected.
So
this
is
one
of
the
first
studies
done
looking
at
a
subset
of
the
scientific
python
community
and
the
wikipedia
community
and
the
openstreetmap
community,
and
seeing
where
there
were
linkages
between
them.
J
And
it
started
looking
at,
as
I
said,
those
sort
of
open
collaborative
communities
and
then
in
2016
it
was
adapted
to
study
human
rights
advocacy
in
the
itf
and
icann.
I
think
I
clipped
the
the
dates
a
little
bit,
but
you
can
see
this
was
the
timeline
of
commits
to
the
project.
So
then
it
after
2016
it
continued
to
be
used
as
a
teaching
and
research
tool.
J
There's
now
many
different
institutions
involved
with
this
project,
several
different
universities
and
ngos,
and
we
get
some
questions
about
this
project.
So
one
of
the
questions
is:
why
is
this
any
different
than
the
existing
sort
of
data
tracker
exposure
tools
like
rco.coms
rfc
stats,
which
we
love
but
we're
we're
using
a
wider
range
of
data
sets
and
we're
supporting
different
kinds
of
research?
J
So
at
the
sprint,
which
was
last
week,
we
had
a
number
of
new
participants
in
the
project.
There
was
a
lot
of
work
done
on
just
basic
maintenance,
keeping
up
with
changing
the
software
dependencies.
We
produced
instructional
videos
for
installation
and
usage.
We
debugged
a
lot
of
stuff.
That
was,
you
know.
J
You
could
say
well,
given
where
the
meetings
have
been
in
the
past.
You
see
swings.
So
you
know
when
the
meeting
is
in
japan.
You
get
a
lot
more
people
attending
who
are
from
japan,
and
likewise
with
you
know,
europe
and
what's
interesting,
is
that
in
with
remote
attendance
you
stop
getting
those
sorts
of
swings.
J
Let's
see
this
was
presented.
You
know
in,
I
think,
a
clear
way
just
at
the
at
the
itf
plenary
yesterday.
So
you
know
you
get
a
lot
more
people
from
asia
when
you're
meeting
in
singapore,
but
maybe
the
legitimacy
of
the
standard
setting
process
will
improve
if
we're
meeting
more
on
meet
echo,
maybe
the
the
other
thing
that
we
were
very
interested
in
looking
at
was
organizational
involvement.
J
You
know
there's
this
norm
for
itf
that
people
are
showing
up
as
individuals
not
representing
their
companies,
but
everyone
knows
that.
That's
not
exactly
the
case,
and
so,
while
there
is
some
work
already
on
which
organizations
have
been
participating
in
sort
of
drafting
rfcs,
we
we
wanted
to
look
at
email,
partly
because
that
allows
for
comparison
with
with
other
groups
that
don't
have
the
same
data
tracker
system
like
2gpp,
so
digging
into
that
a
little
bit.
J
We
we're
looking
at
the
domains
of
email,
so
you
know
everything
after
the
at
symbol
which
theoretically
could
identify
somebody's
organization
like
an
email
at
nyu.edu.
That
tells
you
who
I'm
affiliated
with,
but
there
are
a
number
of
challenges
so
there's
both
an
itf,
a
lot
of
people
that
have
their
own
personal
email.
J
So
we
developed
a
new
metric,
that's
based
on
information
entropy
talking
about
the
domain
entropy
of
a
of
a
sort
of
email
domain
which
basically
has
to
do
with
how
wide
the
distribution
of
emails
are
within
that
domain,
and
we
made
some.
We
made
some,
oh
sorry,
and
that
was
useful
for
filtering
out
personal
email
domains,
but
we're
still
working
on
this
generic
email
host
problem
I'll
get
back
to
this
in
a
minute.
J
G
J
Community
really,
surprisingly,
supportive
of
the
project
and
that
there's
a
big
appetite
for
what
I
would
call
reflexive
data
science
within
the
ietf
and
an
openness
to
giving.
You
know
big
bang
researchers
like
a
platform
to
communicate
their
results,
and
this
is
all
super
promising
for
for
the
project.
We've
got
a
bunch
of
plans
about
where
you
want
to
take
it
as
a
software
project,
including
you
know,
refactoring
of
a
lot
of
of
the
old
code.
You
know
it's
academic
code,
it
always
can
be.
J
My
go
to
is
julie,
cohen's
between
truth
and
power
and
the
the
argument
there
is
that
networking
standards,
global
governance
is
circumventing
the
rule
of
law
in
various.
You
know,
nation
states
and
the
rule
of
law
is
what
protects
human
rights.
So
we
should
be
somewhat
skeptical
about
the
move,
to
networks
and
states,
global
governance
and
that's,
of
course,
a
debatable
point.
J
J
Why
is
that?
Well
is
domain
entropy.
You
can
think
of
a
sort
of
like
an
area
under
the
normalized
curve
here.
So
when
you
have
many
many
different,
affiliated
individuals
with
gmail
accounts,
many
of
them
are
very
heavily
involved.
Those
those
top
gmail
account
contributors
are
working
for
different
organizations.
There's
one
from
mozilla
there's
one
from
near
forum.
There's
one
from
many
of
them
are
up
acting.
It
seems
more
in
an
individual
capacity
and
there's
major
differences
in
scale.
J
J
You
know
people
that
send
one
message
from
a
gmail
account
and
then
one
guy
with
a
gmail
account,
that's
responsible,
for
you
know
eighty
percent
of
the
messages
from
gmail:
okay,
contrast
that
with
google.com,
where
you've
got
a
lot
of
area
under
this
curve,
because
you've
got
you
know
ten
or
so
people
all
participating
at
comparable
rates,
which
is,
if
you
do
a
lot
of
data
analysis
like
this.
You
you
see
that,
and
you
say
that's
a
very
unnatural
pattern
that
indicates
a
kind
of
corporate
strategy
of
involvement.
J
That's
different
from
individual
involvement,
and
that's
I'd
argue
quite
interesting.
So
suppose
we
could
track
corporate
power's
influence
with
the
ietf
and
where
that's
in
friction
with
the
norm,
that
participants
should
be
engaging
in
their
individual
capacity,
not
as
company
representatives
now
and
it's
clear
that
there
are
people
that
are
participating
as
individuals
and
there
are
others
that
may
be
more
detectively
acting
as
company
representatives
and
what?
If
what?
If
someone
represent,
were
to
present
that
at
the
plenary,
what
impact
would
that
make
so
there's
a
lot?
J
J
So
those
are.
Those
are
exciting.
Research
questions,
other
exciting
research
and
questions
involve
patents.
You
know,
where
can
we
anticipate
patenting
moves
by
looking
at
by
looking
at
this
data,
but
incorporating
patent
data
with
email
address
data?
It's
especially
the
case
in
other
standard
spots,
where
there's
more
ip
stuff
going
on?
J
So
I
guess
the
vision
is
we
get
in-depth
qualitative
research
and
experience
in
the
standard
setting
domains
which
is
really
essential
to
making
sense
of
patterns
in
the
data,
but
then,
once
we
get
a
a
good
looking
sort
of
signature
of
activity,
that's
of
interest
we
can.
We
can
do
a
more
active
monitoring,
standard,
setting
activity
and
say:
okay,
this
is
where
it
looks
like
you
know,
you
know,
microsoft
or
erickson
is
making
a
move
here,
and-
and
so
ideally,
we
could.
G
J
Who's
making
moves,
and-
and
if
we
continue
to
you
know,
get
traction
within
the
itf
community.
Those
results
could
be
presented
to
itf
as
interventions
and
that's
itself,
a
very
interesting.
You
know
at
the
very
least
qualitative
probe.
If
not,
you
know
effective
advocacy.
These
are.
These
are
all
issues
on
which
I'm
not,
I
opt
to
say,
I'm
not
an
expert,
but
this
is
what
this
is.
What
we're
talking
about
within
the
big
bank
community,
about
where
we
want
to
move
forward.
J
So
I
I
think
what
what
we'd
really
like
to
see
is
we'd
love
to
get
continued
support
from
ngos
to
maintain
a
regular
presence
at
iatf
hackathons
and
then
use
the
those
hackathons
to
push
forward
the
idea
of
a
sort
of
a
vehicle
of
data-driven
advocacy
within
technical
communities.
Maybe
you
know
submitting
more
data
visualizations
to
the
plenary
talks
to
increase
the
profile
of
the
project
and
and
then
also
to
do
comparative
analysis
between
different
standards
groups
to
inform
scholarship
and
new
approaches
for
human
rights
initiatives.
J
That's
the
idea,
if
you'd
like
to
get
involved,
there's
information
about
how
to
join
the
mailing
list
on
the
github
repository
page.
The
mailing
list
is
probably
where
we
have
most
of
the
discussion.
There's.
Also,
it's
also
a
good
idea
to
reach
out
to
niels
who
does
a
lot
of
the
you
know
organizing
around
this,
and
you
can
also
just
purchase
look
work
with
the
github
issue,
tracker
directly.
That's
where
having
most
of
the
the
technical
conversation
with
that?
A
L
Yeah,
thank
you
for
being
here
bringing
the
data
and
you're
kind
of
preaching
the
choir
here,
because
I
think
the
ietf
is
a
community
that
loves
data
and
wants
to
understand
what's
going
on
and
we
have
all
these
interfaces.
But
we
don't
make
good
use
of
the
data
and
we
try
a
little
better,
but
it's
it.
L
We
depend
on
volunteers,
actually
making
sense
of
the
data
so
you're
more
than
welcome
here,
just
like
because
I'm
part
of
leadership-
and
we
talk
very
often
about
what
kind
of
data
we
need
and
like
how
to
understand.
What's
happening
and
one
of
the
big
questions
we
have,
there
is
usually
how
how
get
new
people
involved
in
the
itf.
How
long
do
they
stay
in
the
itf?
What's
the
motivation
to
stay
or
leave
the
itf?
So
are
we
a
healthy
organization?
L
You
know
that
is
kind
of
future
proof
in
the
sense
that
we
get
new
people
in
and
and
and
make
them
work
in
the
ietf
and
make
them
like
make
have
them
to
make
progress
in
the
ietf.
So
maybe
that's
a
question
that
if
you
take
that
on
I'm
I'm
sure
there
are
a
lot
of
open
ears
and
would
be
interested
in
that.
A
Anyone
else
want
to
jump
in
the
queue
we
can.
This
will
also,
as
I
said
before,
after
japan's
talk,
that
this
will
be
online
next
week
for
others
to
watch
folks
missed
it.
So
we'll
probably
do
a
round
of
promotion
to
that
hrpc
list
about
that
next
week.
I
thought
it
was
a
really
useful
talk
and,
of
course,
your
slides
are
up.
Folks
can,
of
course,
interact
with
this
on
the
hrpc
list.
I
think
you're
subscribed
to
that
right
sebastian.
A
If
not,
you
know
they
have
your
email,
because
I
ccd
on
the
message
to
the
list
about
this
and
also
then
there's
github.
Where
folks
can
ask
questions,
you
know,
add
issues
or
things
like
that.
So
thank
you
thanks.
So
much
really
appreciate
you
coming
and
talking
to
us
today
about
that.
Thank
you
of
super,
so
we're
going
to
continue
with
the
agenda.
A
M
A
A
G
And
so
this
document
sort
of
went
into
last
call
in
december,
but
we
received
a
lot
of
reviews
and
comments.
So
just
to
recap:
this
is
a
document
sort
of
proposing
guidelines
that
network
protocol,
designers
and
and
developers
can
keep
in
mind
to
broadly
be
in
in
line
with
human
rights.
And
this
the
document
is
practice
based
and
practice
oriented.
So
we
want
all
the
language
to
be
aimed
at
people
designing
protocols.
O
G
A
a
version
of
these
guidelines,
so
there
were
a
lot
of
reviews
and
and
while
making
this
presentation,
I
thought
I'd
summarize
some
changes,
but
there
was
no
easy
way
to
there
sort
of
all
over
the
place,
but
but
I
I
did
send
in
detailed
sort
of
responses
to
the
reviews
by
joey
curran
for
zannah
and
bill.
So
please
do
check
those
out
on
on
the
meeting
list.
G
If
you
haven't
now
there's
this
like
we,
we
do
need
more
additional
work
on,
and
this
is
something
that
was
the
aim.
But
perhaps
we're
not
meeting
very
clearly
now,
which
is
all
the
questions
will
now
be
aimed
at
protocol
developers
and
they'll,
be
solution,
oriented
and
as
bill
said.
So
some
of
these
guidelines
still
read
and
explanations,
read
as
criticism
of
existing
practices
rather
than
guidance
and
there's
also
very
detailed
review
by
professor
sandra
brahman.
O
G
Which
ask
a
lot
of
critical
questions
about
the
theoretical
framework
we've
chosen
and
and
how
we
chose
to
represent
certain
documents.
So
so
this
is
coming
in
the
next
version
and
one
of
the
open
questions
where
at
least
for
me,
it
was
hard
to
guess
where
the
group
consensus
was
was
on
a
section
on
attribution
and
legal
remedy
and
currently
in
in
the
last
update.
O
G
G
So
while
this
was
in
last
call,
I
mean
we're
still
very
open
to
feedback
and
in
case
you
want
to
send
that
to
the
list
or
step
to
the
mic
after
I
stopped
speaking
and
there's,
there's
lots
of
drafts
that
are
having
a
human
rights
consideration
section
and-
and
I
I'm
have,
if
you're
one
of
those
I
may
have
approached
you
informally
for
feedback.
But
still
very
I
mean
we'd
love
feedback,
especially
from
you
and
after
the
last
sort
of
detailed
review,
which
is
professor
sandra
brahman.
G
E
I
guess
john
curran
was
the
first
one
to
to
say
something
and
and
then
it
started
so
hopefully,
next
time
we
have
a
last
call.
More
people
will
jump
in
quickly.
I'm
of
the
opinion
that
you
know
you're
really
really
close,
and
in
fact
I
was
thinking
that
I
would
be
suggesting
another
last
call
at
this
meeting,
because
but
but
with
a
few
things,
and
especially
with
you
now
addressing
some
of
of
sandra's
issues,
I
think
your
next,
you
know
your
next
release
would
be
the
one
that
I
would
look
to
do.
E
Another
last
call
on
it
and
because
there's
been
significant
change
and
significant
conversation,
I
would
like
to
do
one.
I
would
like
to
do
one
that
was
short
and
and
force
myself
to
actually
obey
the
two-week
type
of
notion
and
not
let
it
drag
on
for
a
month
or
more
hoping
that
people
will
comment
and
what
I'll
really
be
asking
is
those
of
you
that
commented,
you
know
has
been
dealt
with.
Are.
E
That
sort
of
discusses
many
of
the
issues
behind
some
of
these
and
goes
into
the
the
great
detail
and
the
learning
that
people
have
gotten
over
the
last
couple
years
of
using
the
guidelines
and
such,
but
but
that's
something
more
for
our
later
conversation
than
this
one.
But
I
do
want
to
not
burden
this
document
too
much
by
considerations
at
salt
that
fall
out
of
that.
You
know.
Motivation
on
this
document
that
it
is,
it
is
to
be
thought
of,
as
is
it
usable
as
a
guideline.
You
know
we're
not
providing
a
guideline.
E
You
know
so
much
as
as
providing
that.
So,
if
that's
okay
with
people
that's,
and
especially
if
it's
okay
with
with
the
editors,
that's
kind
of
the
approach
I'd
like
to
take
moving
forward-
and
I
don't
know
if
other
people
have
other
comments,
but
I
just
wanted
to
get
that,
and
I
really
do
appreciate
the
fact
that
you
you,
you
did
not
yell
at
me
for
for
for
leaving
the
the
last
call
open.
As
long
as
I
did
and
again
thank
the
people
that
commented
thanks.
G
Do
we
have
people,
and
I
I
mean
glad
as
anyone
else
I
I
think
during
the
last
two
three
meetings-
there
were
no
comments
and
feedback
coming
in
so
so
glad
to
have
received
that
volume
in
the
past
few
days.
I
I
think
the
idea
of
going
to
last
call
after
we
address
sanders
comment.
Sound
sounds
good
to
me,
but
I'll
also
let
needs
come
in
if
he
has
any
thoughts.
G
H
E
You
know
it
was
me
articulating
with
a
w
with
a
closed
microphone.
Apologies.
I
I
said
I
very
much
appreciated
your
slide
about
how
difficult
it
is
to
do
the
synthesis
of
of
these
comments.
I'm
sort
of
been
doing
one
of
those
in
the
background,
because
it'll
be
a
necessary
part
of
the
write-up
that
gets
submitted.
E
You
know
when
it
gets
sent
to
the
irs
g
discussing
this
is
the
document.
These
are
the
discussions.
This
is
where
it
came
out.
You
know,
etc.
The
group
went
through
its
process.
The
group
went
from
so
so
I
am
trying,
but
I
totally
sympathize
with
you
of
sort
of
the
the
difficulty
of
putting
them
in
in
a
chart
in
a
nice
sneak
boxes,
but
but
it's
one
of
the
things
that
I've
been
looking
at
as
well.
E
A
H
Are
is
okay
and
there
will
be
a
last
call
after
we
address
the
comments,
but
it
would
be
great
if
we
could
make
use
of
our
session
time
to
cut
to
build
a
consensus
around
that
text,
because
that
part
is
particularly
contentious
and,
as
we
all
know,
this
is
a
research
group
document,
so
we
all
have
change
control.
So
if
we
all
make
suggestions,
we
can
only
make
a
document
better.
G
A
P
P
Sort
of
went
to
the
zoo
trying
to
trying
to
address
the
concern
that
that
that
he
raised,
and
I
I
was
looking
for
the
minimalist
change
that
would
that
would
accomplish
the
same
thing
so
that
that,
just
as
by
way
of
explanation,
I
you
know
the
the
fewer
changes
the
better.
If
I
you
know,
if
I
can,
as
long
as
it's
understandable
and
comprehend,
you
know
comprehensible
to
the
reader.
C
G
E
A
Yeah,
I
think
I
my
suggestion
would
be
characterized
and
I
don't
remember
exactly
what
I
wrote.
We
can
look
at
that
on
the
list,
but
that
it
should
lead
to
future
work.
That's
I
agree
with
aubrey.
I
think
it
needs
like
this
draft
probably
can't
go
into
depth
on
all
these
sort
of
nuanced
debates,
and
we
should
have
those
nuanced
debates
in
the
context
of
another
draft.
A
M
A
Gerschabot
is
just
asking
a
really
direct
question
to
farsi
and
if
you
want
to
continue
in
the
chat,
that's
fine,
but
if
the
text
proposed
by
elliot
is
fine
we
need
to.
I
think
everyone
agrees
perhaps
except
we
want
clarity
on
your
position
on
that
before
it
gets
adopted
fully,
and
we
can
do
that
here.
We
can
do
it
on
the
list,
but
that's,
I
think,
the
only
remaining
open
question
about
that
point.
E
Yeah
we
can,
but
we
need
to
be,
you
know
if
we
need
to
prepare
for
it
yeah.
The
farziness
quest
comment
was
I've.
Extensively
objected
to
that
specs
attribution
and
people
said
I
was
not
in
the
rough,
so
I
like
mallory's
approach
to
be
taken
into
consideration
of
of
the
fruit
and,
and
I'm
certainly
very
supportive
of
that,
assuming
we
have
people
that
really
want
to
work
on
that
beyond
the
email
messages.
H
O
Yes,
hello,
sorry,
I
managed
to
make
this
work,
so
I
don't.
I
actually
responded
to
that
email
about
like
elliot
and
john
crank.
To
be
honest,
I
am
I
I
don't
know.
I
have
been
like
very
vocal
on
having
attribution
with
the
text
that
we
have
now
is
not
is
not
optimal.
It's
not
even
in
the
interest
of
and
uphold,
it
doesn't
uphold
human
rights,
but
I
I
responded
to
that.
I
don't
know
how
many
changes
elliot
elliot
made.
O
O
O
E
G
H
Question
in
the
meeting
to
facilitate
the
discussion,
I
put
the
text
in
the
chat
and
I
think
the
addition
that
goshiwal
is
talking
about
is
towards
the
end
that
that
explicitly
says
considering
the
adverse
impact
of
attribution
on
the
right
to
privacy
and
freedom
of
expression,
enabling
attribution
on
an
individual
level
is
probably
not
consistent
with
human
rights.
So
I
think
this.
H
That's
there,
and
I
think
that
was
your
opinion
right
far,
so
we
can
add
a
sentence
that
we
should
do
more
work
on
it,
but
I'm
not
sure
that
way
make
will
make
this
work.
This
document
clearer,
so
I
can
definitely
say
we
can
put
it
on
the
work
plan
to
do
more
work
on
it.
I'm
not
sure
adding
that
to
this
document
will
make
it
clearer
but
happy
to
consider
any
other
text
that
you'd
like
to
have
in
there.
E
P
Okay,
so
I
just
put
the
proposed
change
in
the
list
and
there
are
two
changes:
if,
if
you
take
a
look
right,
the
first
is
we
we
take
out.
The
word,
probably
I
think
probably,
is,
is
probably
problematic,
because
either
something
is
supported
or
it's
not
supported,
and
we
can
say
may
as
in
the
idea
of
this
this
this
might
be
a
problem
that
is
worthy
of
further
research,
or
we
can
say
it
is
in
which
case
we
can
cite
it,
and
we
can
take
out.
P
The
word
may
and
just
say
it
is,
and
and
that's
fine
too.
The
second
part
of
this
is
that
we
didn't
want
us
to
over
generalize
in
terms
of
that
attribution
impacts,
all
human
rights.
It's
these
particular
human
rights
that
we
were
talking
about,
and
that
was
the.
So
those
were
the
two
changes.
I
don't
think
the
latter
change
is
at
all
controversial.
P
I
think
the
former
change
is
easily
resolvable
as
well.
All
we
have
to
do
is
if,
if
you
can
cite
that
yet
attribution
is
problematic
and
I
could
perfect,
I
could
perfectly
reasonably
believe
that
it
is
problematic.
You
know
if,
if,
if
somebody
can
tie
back
to
me
some
of
the
things
that
I
said
and
that
are
illegal
in
a
particular
country,
I
could
imagine
that
it's
very
problematic.
P
K
Hi,
yes,
so
I'm
I'm
sure
cersei's
memory
is
accurate,
but
I
I
have
to
admit
to
not
recalling
that
the
specific
comment
that
that
she
was
referring
to
I
mean
for
the
record.
I
I'm
not
waiting
for
any
specific
text
changes
to
this
document
and,
however,
whether
the
chairs
judge
your
consensus,
so
I,
if,
if
I
accidentally,
gave
the
impression
that
I
was
then
then
my
apologies.
E
E
Are
we
so
gosh
about?
Are
you
okay
on
this
and,
as
they
say,
other
people?
Let's
continue
this
discussion
on
the
list?
The
list
gets
deadly
quiet
sometimes
and
then
it
flurries,
and
then
it
gets
deadly
quiet.
So
really,
I
would
like
to
see
this
one
resolve
there
as
much
as
we
can
before
gershabad
and
and
niels
put
out
another
version,
which
I
hope
is
the
one
that
we
can
take.
H
E
E
H
H
I've
been
working
on
this
with
gisela
perez
with
steven
couture
and
with
mallory
nodal,
which
is
funny
because
these
are
people
who
associate
together
with
all
different
mother
tongues,
which
is
interesting.
The
objective
for
this
dog
is
to
expand
and
deepen
relations
between
a
specific
right
and
protocols,
and
this
is
the
explicit
objective
from
the
chat
charter.
H
It
has
been
a
research
group
document
since
september
2018
and
authors
from
academia
and
civil
society
and
from
different
geographies
and
disciplines
have
contributed
to
it
and
that
also
sometimes
shifted
the
structure
and
the
topic
of
the
document,
which
sometimes
made
it
a
bit
like
a
accordion.
But
it
definitely
made
a
good
sound
at
at
times,
and
we
had
many
reviews
from
many
irtf
and
ietf
participants,
as
well
as
legal
experts,
and
we
actually
might
hear
from
some
in
a
bit.
H
So
what
happened
since
zero?
Six
we've
been
reading
more
literature
and
getting
extensive
reviews,
which
is
great,
because
this
is
a
research
group
document.
I
think
we
need
to
keep
in
mind
that
we
all
have
change
control
on
this
document,
and
so
text
suggestions
are
great.
But
if
people
say
go
here,
re
read
these
10
papers
and
divide
design
and
get
a
get.
Something
from
that
that
I
want.
H
H
So
what
we've
been
doing
is
address
the
full
reviews.
We
make
clearer
distinctions
between
the
rights
to
association
and
the
right
to
assembly.
We
added
recent
decision
documents
and
documents
from
relevant
u.n
bodies.
We
added
more
context
and
new
ones
where
there
were
unclarities.
We
added
examples
and
concrete
considerations
and
improved
the
conclusions.
H
So
I'd
like
to
do
that
directly
on
top
and
show
that
they're
different,
then
we
can
discuss
them
in
a
combination
later
because
then
they
are
extended
and
add
an
emphasis
that
the
document
is
about
human
rights
as
per
the
hrpc
charter
and
not
their
implementation
in
national
laws.
But
I
do
think
it
is
very
relevant
to
get
that
stuff,
but
not
maybe
in
this
document,
because
then
this
document
might
never
see
the
the
finish
line.
A
On
top
of
this,
that's
like
it's
incredibly
important
that
we
do
all
the
things,
but
in
sort
of
order,
yes-
and
I
then
my
second
thing
was
to
invite
lisa
to
talk
who's,
given
a
really
great
review
and
is
engaging
on
the
list
currently
as
well,
so
go
ahead.
Lisa
you
should
be
able
to
unmute
yourself.
Q
Hey,
yes,
can
you
hear
me
well
excellent?
Thank
you,
yeah
thanks.
So
much,
I'm
I'm
happy
to
contribute
to
this
discussion
and
was
really
happy
to
look.
Do
a
full
review
of
the
latest
draft
and
contribute
to
the
next
draft,
I'm
very
enchastic
about
the
conclusions
and
the
improvements
and
there's
still
some
improvements
possible
as
niels
just
mentioned,
based
on
like
making
the
the
freedoms
more
explicitly
different
from
each
other.
Q
Q
So
it's
let's
say
that
I
had
a
discussion
about
how
their
how
the
paragraphs
about
freedom
of
association
and
freedom
of
of
assembly
were
written
in
this
paper
and
also
related
to
the
comments
made
by
by
professor
berman.
It's
it
is
possible
to
really
go
in
depth
into
these
these
freedoms,
but
I'm
not
sure
if
it
is
really
worthwhile
for
the
for
the
goal
of
this
paper,
because
well
there
it's
important
to
make
some
of
the
disclaimers.
Q
That
is
an
ongoing
discussion,
especially
how
these
rights
apply
in
in
cyberspace
and
how
digitally
mediated
assemblies
what
that
is,
for
example,
and
how
they
should
protect
it.
This
is
an
ongoing
discussion
and
it's
important
to
have
the
references
to
to
this
discussion,
but
to
really
go
to
inter
juris
burdens
or
interpretations
in
national
laws.
I'm
not
sure
if
that
is
really
helpful
to
make
a
point
in
this
paper.
So
because
I'm
not
a
I'm,
not
a
lee,
because
I'm
not
a
lawyer.
Q
I
focus
a
little
bit
more
on
identifying
and
and
and
really
updating
the
the
normative
language
that
has
been
developed
over
the
time
and
pretty
recently.
Actually
so
I
think
four
years
has
been
a
great
time
to
work
on
this,
because
you
actually
allowed
the
human
rights
committee
to
come
up
with
their
general
comments
on
freedom
of
assemblies
that
was
published
end
of
last
year,
and
they.
Q
G
Q
To
tap
your
knowledge
is
that
I
wanted
to
highlight
some
of
the
this
general
remarks
by
the
human
rights
committee
that
I
haven't
been
able
to
understand
completely
whether
they
are
related
to
something
or
whether
they
are
related
to
protocol
design
or
not.
So
I
just
wanted
to
highlight
three
different
phrases
from
the
from
the
general
comments
and
ask
for
ask
whether
you
have
anything
to
to
add
to
that.
So.
Q
Q
It
also
says
technologies
that
offer
the
opportunity
to
assemble
either
holy
or
partly
online
are
should
be
protected
and
technologies
that
play
an
integral
role
in
organizing
participating
and
monitoring
physical
gatherings.
So
it's
not
I'm
not
I'm
not
able
to
really
translate
that
into
protocol
design.
So
if
someone
they
can
also
like
highlight
this
or
maybe
later
in
the
email.
Q
So
is
that
really
the
opportunity
to
use
your
phone
and
share
videos
on
online
platforms,
or
is
it
something
else
or
really
participate
in
a
mailing
list,
while
you're
at
the
protest
or
preparing
a
protest?
I
find
that
interesting
to
think
about
what
it
means
and
what
it's
what
it
implicates
for
protocol
design.
Q
A
H
I
just
wanted
to
thank
lisa
again
because
the
because
the
comments
were
just
so
good
and
both
in
the
document
and
now
again
so
we
can
take
the
definitions
from
there
without
using
other
sources
that
we
can
use,
authoritative,
human
rights
language
from
the
source,
where
recite
from
that's
that's
great,
and
that
should
definitely
help
make
the
next
steps
for
the
document.
So
thanks
so
much
for
being
here
thanks
so
much
for
commenting
and
thanks
so
much
for
also
conferring
with
your
legal
colleagues
and
making
this
document
better
thanks.
So
much.
E
E
Division
between
what
is
actually
directly
pertinent
to
association
and
I'm
starting
to
think
that
somewhere
or
other
I've
got
a
shepherd's
hat
for
taking
this
through
its
last
call
since
you're
an
author,
but
you
know
have
that,
but
it's
we're
not
quite
there
yet.
So
I
think
there's
room
for
some
further
discussion.
A
Well,
for
one
for
maybe
we
can
just
discuss
like
one
of
the
most
recent
ones
that
neil's
also
talked
about
in
the
slides.
It's
like
here
are
10
primary
source
documents
that
might
inform
you,
I
feel
like
stefan
and
others
did
a
very
comprehensive
lit
review
already
that
spanned
six
to
12
months.
So,
if
there's
that
much
source
material
that
we're
missing,
I
actually
think
we
need
to
get
to
the
heart
of
the
comment
and
start
another
document,
because
it
it
cannot
be.
A
I
feel
that
we've
missed
so
very
much
and
are
still
within
the
same
scope
of
the
same
document.
I
think
the
reason
why
it
appears
that
we've
missed
so
much
is
that
there's
a
vision
for
this
document
that
is
different
from
what
the
authors
have
envisioned
and
it's
that's
totally
fine
that
happens
all
the
time
and
it's
actually
a
gift,
because
in
some
ways
we've
got
the
beginnings
of
another
piece
of
research
for
hrpc
to
work
on.
A
But
again
because
this
is
like
trying
to
you
know,
establish
a
sort
of
baseline
relationship
that
it
does
not
out,
doesn't
not
exist
elsewhere
as
a
real
contribution
to
the
space.
I
think
we
should
keep
it
to
achieving
that
very
one,
clear
goal:
that's
in
our
charter
trying
to
make
that
as
solid
as
it
can
be
to
indicate
other
peripheral
work
and
then
follow
that
work
from
the
beginning
properly.
E
Yeah,
I
I
think,
that's
probably
true.
I
think
it's
probably
and-
and
I
very
much
take
niels
comment
of
don't
tell
me
to
go,
read
these
10
books,
but
you
know
give
me
some
specific
text
give
me
some
specific
pointers
for
where
something
that,
as
you
say,
fits
within
the
context.
It's
really
fun
seeing
her.
In
the
background
I
keep
smiling
and
wanting
to
wave
hello,
but
so
I.
E
But
I
I
think
that
trying
to
to
cut
to
get
that
line
because
it
is
a
a
research
group
document
of
where
exactly
is
the
constraining
line
on
this
document
and
the
beginning
line
on
another
is
still
at
least
for
me,
a
little
fuzzy.
So
I'd
really
like
to
try
and
I'd
really
like
to
hear
from
some
other
people
and
I'm
so
glad
to
see
elliot's
name
show
up
and
but
one
thing
before
we
go
there.
E
P
P
In
fact,
and-
and
I
think
that's
okay,
but
what
I
think
a
few-
I
have
to
come
back
to
what
a
few
of
us
have
have
been
scratching
our
heads
about.
There's
no
need
for
these
documents.
If
there's
conflicting
visions,
there's
no
need
for
them
to
be
consensus
documents,
it's
a
perfectly
reasonable
thing
to
go
forward
with,
without
that,
without
going
for
that
strong
consensus,
it
it
you're,
not
under
the
ietf
constraints
and-
and
you
shouldn't
tie
your
hands
in
that
way,
is
my
view.
You
know.
P
Want
to
disagree.
It's
okay!
As
long
as
the
work
is
is
of
a
certain
level
of
scholarly.
You
know
standard
if
it
meets
the
scholarship
standard
good.
If
it's
missing
the
scholarship
standard,
that's
more
of
an
issue
but
but
if,
if
people
have
different
points
of
view
and
they're
they're
expressing
it
through
good
scholarly
work,
just
let
a
thousand
blossoms
you
know
go
as
as
they
say
you
know,
I'd
see
no
reason
to
hold
this
document
up
beyond
that
point.
E
Elliot,
I
think,
there's
a
differentiation
between
two
things.
One
is
what
is
the
purpose
of
the
document
and
how
far
do
we
go
in
it,
and
the
other
is
differences
of
opinion
on
particular
points
that
are
included
in
the
document.
I
think
everyone
pretty
much
accepts
your
view
that
the
document
itself
doesn't
need
to
be
a
consensus
opinion,
but
we
do
need
to
reach
a
certain
amount
of
consensus
about
the
scope
of
the
document
that
the
research
group,
so
it
doesn't
end
up
an
encyclopedia.
E
K
K
Some
documents
are
consensus
documents
and
it's
important
that
their
consensus
documents
and
other
documents
can
cannot
be
consensus,
documents
and
can
express
a
minority
view,
but
providing
it's
clear
what
the
document
is
and
provided
it's.
You
know
a
well
well
reasoned,
well
argument,
well,
argued
view.
K
E
A
Yeah
we
have
it.
I'm
in
the
queue
is
a
as
an
author,
so
I
I
think
that
it
would
be
useful.
I
I
totally
agree
with
you
colin.
I
think
I
said
before,
like
it's
gonna
to
say
it's
out
of
scope.
Isn't
enough
like
we,
we
should
try
to
figure
out
a
way
to
point
to
other
research.
I
think
before
we
can
incorporate
a
sentence
or
a
paragraph
of
that.
A
In
the
current
draft
I
mean
we
can
definitely
strengthen
the
scope,
but
then,
in
terms
of
like
leading
to
other
drafts,
we
would
need,
I
think,
someone,
if
not
sandra
herself,
to
step
in
and
try
to
summarize
what
would
the
research
question
of
that
other
document,
be.
I
cannot,
as
co-author
or
co-chair
of
the
group,
find
the
time
to
help
make
that
document
happen.
So
it's
a
call
and
a
request
to
the
group
to
distill.
A
Q
Thank
you
I'll,
keep
it
short
yeah
in
terms
of
of
the
scope
and
the
goal
of
the
of
the
paper.
I
think
it
can
be
strengthened
by
really
yeah,
I'm
not
sure
if
that's
possible,
but
covet
19
has
shown
that
every
kind
of
form
of
association
and
assembly
has
this
very
important
online
aspect
to
it
much
more
than,
for
example,
two
or
three
or
four
years
ago
now.
So
it
can
be
this.
This
really
hates
the
relevance
of
the
paper,
and
I
think
it's
important
to
really
strengthen.
H
Thanks
so
much,
I
think
the
juliana
made
a
great
point
in
the
chat.
This
is
part
of
an
interdisciplinary
conversation
which
is
always
challenging,
but
what
I
think
it's
even
more,
it's
part
of
a
very
long
discussion,
of
which
some
people
that
came
in
at
the
end
have
not
been
part,
and
we
really
spend
a
long
time
on
building
consensus
in
the
group
on
what
this
scope
of
this
document
should
be.
H
Then
we
completely
reorganized
it
and
worked
on
it
for
a
long
and
hard
time
with
stefan
with
students
with
binding
cases
with
building
the
research
structure,
and
then
we
had
consensus
on
it
and
now
sandra
came
in
and
would
like
to
change
it,
which
I
think
is
great,
but
that
makes
the
discussion
and
the
process
also
a
bit
problematic.
So
I
fully
agree
that
we
should
try
to
make
the
scope
of
this
document
clear,
put
the
definition
at
the
beginning
and
what
it
does
and
what
it
doesn't
do.
H
E
A
I
don't
even
think
I'll
take
three,
but
I
just
I
will
niels
makes
a
really
important
point,
which
is
that
we
actually
one
of
the
ways
that
we
we
decided
to
work
on.
This
draft
was
to
be
genuinely
curious
and
to
conduct
research
to
answer,
questions
that
we
didn't
know
the
answers
to
yet,
and
that
is
what
has
led
to
this
draft
and
I
think
the
reason
why
we
are
including
national
laws
and
things
that
sandra
is
is
because
we
from
the
beginning.
A
We
didn't
look
there
when
we
said
we're
going
to
first
conduct
a
lit
review
and
then
we're
going
to
come
up
with
sub
questions
and
then
we're
going
to
answer
those
sub
questions
with
examples
and
analysis
we
from
the
beginning,
limited
ourselves
to
human
rights
and
international
human
rights
law.
So
that's
why
it's
not
there
and
I
can
totally
understand
why
there
are
some
very
curious
questions
and
issues
that
need
to
be
scratched.
That
touch
on
this
issue
and
I'm
so
glad
that
this
draft
has
inspired
those
questions.
A
But
they
just
simply
are
not
what
we
set
out
to
do,
and
I
think
just
reminding
that
and
then,
as
a
way
to
you,
know,
facilitate
then
that
research
that
has
been
inspired
by
this
draft
like
we
just
need
to
make
that
happen,
and
I'm
really
invested
in
doing
that
as
a
chair.
So
I
think
then
the
end
is
near.
We
had
a
really
great
session,
huge
appreciation
to
all
of
the
presenters,
the
authors,
the
discussants.
A
E
E
Scheduling
a
a
an
intermediate
meeting
so
that
we
can
get
into
the
discussion
of
continuing
work
and
what
work
is
on
our
list,
some
of
the
stuff
in
sandra's
message.
It
was
quite
good,
some
of
the
stuff
that
comes
out
of
the
two
drafts
we've
talked
about
of
what
the
next
step
is
in
those
discussions.
So
again,
thank
you
all
and
you'll
be
hearing
from
me.