►
From YouTube: IETF108-HRPC-20200728-1410
Description
HRPC meeting session at IETF108
2020/07/28 1410
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/108/proceedings/
A
A
A
Everybody
to
the
human
rights
and
protocols
considerations,
research,
group
meeting.
We
are
going
to
start
briefly
just
letting
everybody
get
in
the
room
and
settled
if
you're
presenting
so
gershabod
ava.
If
you're
here
I'd
be
really
happy.
If
you
wanted
to
test
your
video,
your
my
your
audio,
I'm
going
to
try
to
present
your
slides
for
you,
but
if
we
can
do
your
own
video
or
screen
share
that'd
be
ideal.
A
A
C
A
You
right
so
welcome
to
human
rights
protocols,
considerations,
research
group
meeting.
We
have
the
agenda
in
front
of
you.
We're
gonna,
have
two
talks,
followed
by
two
discussions
and
updates
on
group
drafts
and
then,
at
the
end,
we'll
also
have
an
update
on
an
ongoing
discussion
that
this
group
has
had
around
its
publication
of
research
within
the
group.
A
But
before
we
begin
I'd
just
like
to
ask
if
anybody
wouldn't
mind
checking
the
jabber,
which
is
very
helpfully
in
meat
echo,
so
I
don't
know
if
we
have
to
monitor
it
too
closely,
but
if
folks
could
just
help
by
getting
in
the
queue.
If
there
is
discussion
on
the
jabber
that
needs
to
be
set
at
the
mic,
that
would
be
very
helpful
and
what
I
really
need
is
a
note
taker
if
somebody
could
indicate
in
the
chat
that
they'd
be
willing
to
lead
on
notes,
I'd
appreciate
it.
A
A
In
the
first
place
and
I've
already
gone
over
the
agenda,
I
need
to
sort
out
my
tech.
There
we
go.
The
notewell
applies
in
the
irtf
as
well
as
the
iadf,
so
please
make
sure
that
you
read
it.
We've
got
it
helpfully
broken
down
into.
I
think
three
main
chunks.
First
on
intellectual
property
and
the
second
on
privacy
and
code
of
conduct.
A
Actually
they're
just
two
chunks,
so
I
wanted
to
reiterate
the
goals
of
the
irtf,
which
are
the
same
as
goals
of
the
hrpc.
Since
we
are
a
research
group,
we're
looking
at
the
long-term
effects,
both
ways:
human
rights
and
protocols,
and
so
we
align
with
these
goals
the
human
rights
and
protocols
considerations.
Research
group
was
chartered
to
research.
How
protocols,
strengthen
and
threaten
human
rights
is
defined
both
in
the
universal
declaration
on
human
rights
and
on
the
international
covenant
on
civil
and
political
rights.
A
You
can
read
more
about
past
products,
including
a
video
and
and
other
blogs,
and
things
on
hrpc.io,
which
is
now
a
static
site,
I
believe,
and
specifically
within
the
charter.
We
have
the
objectives
to
expose
the
relation,
because
there
is
a
relation,
it's
often
just
hidden,
between
protocols
and
human
rights,
by
focusing
specifically
on
two
rights:
the
right
to
freedom
of
expression
and
opinion
and
the
right
to
freedom
of
association
and
assembly.
A
There
are
other
human
rights,
of
course,
but
these
are
the
two
that
we
focus
on.
We
treat
others
as
well
as
they
come
up.
We
also
have
been
working
to
propose
guidelines
that
protect
the
internet
as
a
human
rights
enabling
environment
we've
taken
inspiration
from
others.
Who've
done
this
work
from
very
long
time
in
the
ietf,
especially
on
privacy
considerations.
A
So
those
guidelines
which
we'll
talk
about
later
in
the
meeting
today
are
really
meant
to
help
authors
and
protocol
developers
think
about
what
might
be
the
human
rights
considerations,
so
yeah
grocery
bar
will
give
us
more
on
that
later,
and
then
we
want
to
increase
awareness
in
both
ways,
which
is
often
why
we
have
talks
at
the
beginning
of
all
of
our
meetings
about
human
rights,
the
human
rights
community
into
the
technical
community
and
for
sure
we
often
talk
about
the
irtf
hrpc
and
the
ietf
in
human
rights
spaces.
A
In
the
past,
we've
worked
on
all
of
these
things
that
are
listed
in
on
this
slide.
We've
done
internet
drafts
we've
even
published
outside
in
policy
academic
papers
about
the
work
like
I
mentioned
before,
there's
a
film
based
on
interviews.
A
And
there's
also
some
data
analysis
and
visualization
and
protocol
analysis.
These
are
all
ongoing
products
of
ours.
A
I
won't
go
over
this
too
much,
but
just
to
say
that
our
our
last
milestone
was
in
october
2017
when
rfc
8280
was
published.
This
is
sort
of
the
baseline
for
a
lot
of
the
work
we
we
are
doing.
It
was
sort
of
the
you
know,
inaugural
research,
into
human
rights
protocol
considerations.
A
We
have
two
current
drafts,
we're
going
to
hear
about
both
of
them
today
and
where
they're
at
which
is
very
exciting,
and
then
that's
it
as
far
as
the
intro
slides
just
checking
the
queue
and
the
chat.
I
know
that
one
of
our
speakers
is
having
a
hard
time
getting
into
data
tracker.
I
don't
know
how
to
resolve
that
and
also
share
and
facilitate
this
meeting,
but
if
there's
a
meat
echo
person
on
the
line,
if
you
could
try
to
help
with
that,
that
would
be
great
niels.
A
D
Now,
yeah
great
great,
so
I
thought
maybe
we
could
add
the
adoption
of
later
drafts,
such
as
draft
association
and
draft
political
and
and
draft
guidelines
to
the
milestones
as
well,
and
also
mention
them
on
hrpci.io,
because
the
latest
blog
on
hiv
I
o
is
the
is
the
fact
that
you
became
co-chair,
which
is
already
a
while
ago.
So
it
might
be
nice
if
that
be
updated.
A
That's
a
good
point.
I
think
there
was
actually
sort
of
a
plan
to
make
that
website
static,
but
I
think
if
we
view
it
as
still
being
a
useful
place
to
continue
publishing,
we
certainly
can
do
that.
A
Okay,
so
because
our
first
speaker
is
having
login
issues,
I
think
that
we
should
just
go
to
our
second
talk
so
simon.
I
hate
to
spring
this
on
you,
but
would,
if
you'd
be
ready
if
you're
ready,
we
could.
We
could
have
you
present
now.
A
A
Great
so
simon,
we
can
see
you
do
you
want
to
also
share
your
own
slides
or
shall
I
do
that,
for
you.
B
I
I
I'll
I'll
say
next
slide,
it's
probably
easier
that
I
don't
attempt
three
forms
of
media
streaming
all
at
once.
I
suspect
that's
beyond
my
capacity
as
we
would
all.
A
I
can
tell
you
that
it's
a
lot,
but
I
do
want
to
just
shout
out
to
the
meet
echo
folks,
because
this
is
so
great
to
have
everything
in
one
place.
It's
just
a
lot
of
like
toggling
around
all
right.
I
think
we're
I'm
gonna
share
my
screen
in
a
sec
and
then
we'll
be
ready
to.
A
B
Now
here
we
are,
here
are
the
opening
things
so
probably
a
little
bit
of
explanation
as
to
who
I
am
and
what
it
is
that
I
was
thinking
of
when
I
was
going
through
this
simon
gar
is
my
name.
I
have
a
consultancy
firm,
called
data
compliance
europe,
but
my
other
hat
is
that
I'm
a
practicing
solicitor
in
dublin
in
ireland
and
on
using
that
hash.
B
I've
been
representing
digital
rights,
ireland,
before
the
irish
and
european
courts
in
their
various
cases,
it's
four
poor,
nearly
what
is
a
decade
a
half
now,
and
so
one
of
the
issues
that
has
come
up
recently
is
the
question
of
applying
data
protection
law,
ensuring
that
we
can
build
some
sort
of
a
a
trustworthy
app
environment
to
covert
tracing
apps.
B
So
I
thought
I'd
take
it
through
some
of
the
theory
that
we
use,
but
also
some
of
the
practical
things
that
we
that
were
done
in
ireland
to
try
and
advocate
for
a
good
outcome
and
also
the
framework
work
that
we
used
to
advocate
to
the
state
as
to
what
a
good
outcome
would
look
like
and
what
we
asked
them
to
to
ask
them
to
come
up
to
the
mark
on
which
to
give
them
their
due
spoiler
near
the
end.
They've
done
pretty
well,
and
so
let's
go
for
the
next
slide.
B
So
first
of
all,
tracing
apps
might
be
good,
there's
a
a
requirement
to
try
and
do
contact
tracing
as
quickly
as
possible.
B
There's
a
very
significant
and
and
well
cited
recent
piece
of
research
published
by
nature,
which
suggested
that
one
contact
tracing
was
going
to
be
particularly
difficult,
using
covert
19
as
its
basis,
because
the
effectively
the
disease
would
be
more
infectious,
then
there
you
could
throw
enough
people
at
it
to
to
find
all
the
contacts
and
therefore,
what
was
key
was
making
the
distance
between
notifying
people
that
they
should
self-isolate
and
and
the
moment
when
you
became
aware
of
that
problem
as
short
as
possible.
B
So
the
idea
was
create
a
contact
tracing
app
framework
inside
the
country
where
everyone
would
install
it
on
their
phones,
and
they
would
then
learn
by
way
of
a
beep
and
a
notification
that
someone
that
their
phone
had
been
near
using
bluetooth
had
been
diagnosed
with
covet,
and
they
would
then
be
asked
to
put
themselves
into
self-isolation
and
go
get
tested
themselves.
And
this
was
the
model
and
that's
a
good
idea
if
it
works
and
there's
a
very
large
asterisk
over
the
question.
The
phrase
if
it
works.
B
But
really
we
want
to
look
at
the
question
of
not
only
not
does
it
work,
but
how
would
it
work?
So,
let's
push
on
to
the
next
slide.
B
Thanks
a
million-
and
we
run
into
this
question
so
in
the
eu,
you
may
only
process
data
with
a
legal
basis
to
do
so
and
those
legal
bases
are
set
out
in
articles
six
and
nine
of
the
gdpr
and
they're
derived
from
the
case
law
from
the
court
in
luxembourg,
the
cju
and
from
the
charter
of
fundamental
rights.
The
consequence
of
the
charter,
fundamental
rights
being
incorporated
in
by
the
treaty
of
lisbon
into
eu
law,
is
that
it
is
the
fundamental
law
of
the
entire
eu.
B
Any
piece
of
law
which
is
enacted
by
either
a
member
state
or
a
or
even
the
european
commission
or
an
institution
of
the
eu
can
be
rendered
invalid
if
it
conflicts
with
that
human
right,
and
in
this
case
the
right
that
we're
considering
is
the
right
to
data
protection,
which
is
a
a
right
alike.
B
But
in
addition
to
the
right
to
privacy,
and
so
you
have
to
choose
a
legal
basis
and
the
state
here
and
states
elsewhere
were
having
to
choose
which
one
of
the
legal
bases
would
they
choose,
and
you
could
choose
legislative
requirement.
You
could
make
it
the
law
that
you
had
to
have
it.
You
could
have
it
by
consent.
B
You
could
assert
that
there
was
a
necessity
under
public
health
or
you
could
assert
that
there
was
a
necessity
under
legitimate
interest
and
for
lots
of
reasons
mostly
because
a
liberal
democracies
don't
like
the
idea
that
they,
you
would
install
a
mandatory
tracking
app
in
the
in
the
phones
of
everybody
in
the
country.
They
decided
they
would
go
to
make
sure
that
they
relied
on
consent.
B
So
consent
is
the
model
that
has
been
chosen
for
for
the
eu
and
we
move
on
a
slide
and
we
have
to
find
out
what
consent
means
under
eu
law.
It's
not
just
as
easy
as
tick
a
box
and
say
I
agree.
You
need
four
elements
to
give
valid
consent.
It
has
to
be
freely
given.
It
has
to
be
specific.
B
It
has
to
be
informed.
You
have
to
tell
people
what
it
is
they're
consenting
to
before
they
agree
and
it
has
to
be
unambiguous.
They
really
have
to
know
and
say
yes,
I
agree
to
that
thing.
You
have
proposed,
so
we
move
on
again
and
we
go
into
the
question
of
what
is.
It
is
to
be
freely
to
give
freely
given
consent
slide
number
five
here
we
are
so
one
of
the
difficulties
the
state
had.
B
Is
that
the
the
gdpr
recognizes
that
there
is
a
power
imbalance
between
citizens
and
the
state,
and
so
it
generally
says
that
the
state
can't
rely
on
consent
in
order
to
process
data.
Now
here
they
are,
the
public
authorities
said
well,
look
these
people
don't
have
to
access
this
app
if
they
don't
want
to.
They
don't
have
to
install
it,
we
don't
we
don't
make
anything
bad
happen
to
them.
B
B
So
we
don't
think
said
the
state
that
there
is
a
power
imbalance
here
and
we
think
that
there
is
valid
consent
on
balance,
I
think
probably
that's
accurate,
although
there
is
a
danger,
if
you
build
in
other
things,
as
well
as
just
contact
tracking
the
more
you
build
in
on
top
of
the
contract
tracing
the
more
likely
it
is
that
you've
now
made
the
app
socially
impossible
not
to
have,
and
therefore
you've
now
made
the
app
not
possible
to
give
free
and
valid
consent.
B
Thank
you,
that's
recital
43,
and
it
explains
that
consent
isn't
generally
a
valid
legal
ground
for
processing
personal
data
where
there's
a
data
imbalance.
So
we
can
just
move
past
that
that's
just
to
show
you
how
specific
it
is
now
free
consent
is
granular
consent.
That
means
that
if
I
agree
to
a
certain
thing
happening
in
relation
to
my
data
in
my
in
an
app
particularly
an
app
that
I
need,
I
need
agreement
in
order
to
to
get
it.
B
B
I
don't
like
this
thing
that
you're
suggesting
that
you
would
do
with
my
data,
but
I
am
happy
to
do
this
so,
for
example,
in
the
irish
app
people
were,
get
were,
were
tr
had
tracing
alerts,
but
it
was
their
business
whether
they
wanted
on
receipt
of
the
alert
to
put
in
their
phone
number,
which
would
then
be
passed
on
to
the
state,
so
the
state
could
ring
them
up
and
ask
them
who
they'd
been
nearby.
B
So
this
is
the
contact
tracing
chain,
so
you
have
to
be
able
to
agree
to
the
processing
and
disagree
with
other
bits
of
processing
if
it's
all
bundled
together.
Now
none
of
the
the
agreement
was
valid
and
it
wasn't
valid
consent.
So,
from
the
point
of
view
of
the
people
who
want
to
be
able
to
process
this
data
in
line
with
the
chart
of
fundamental
rights,
you
actually
have
a
benefit
for
splitting
it
out
and
giving
people
those
choices.
Let's
move
on
now.
B
B
I
told
you
that
I
would
use
it
for
so
that's,
okay,
in
this
case,
the
state
was
so
that
the
european
data
protection
board
has
issued
a
set
of
guidance
in
relation
to
these
apps
and
one
of
the
pieces
of
guidance
that
they
said
was
this
app
should
just
do
one
thing:
it
should
only
do
contact
tracing
and
nothing
else,
and
so
they
said.
Therefore,
if
you
get
consent
to
that,
that's
the
only
thing.
B
It's
doing
you
don't
have
to
try
and
worry
about
the
specific
purpose,
because
it's
only
one
purpose
now,
of
course,
the
state
being
the
state
and
the
other
state
is
not
the
worst
at
this,
but
then
again
all
states
have
the
similar
pulls
once
they
discovered
that
there
was
a
chance
of
installing
a
piece
of
software
on
everybody's
phone
and
that
they
could
get
information.
B
I
mean
who
doesn't
like
information
on
the
citizens,
so
there
were
a
couple
of
additional
kind
of
curly
cues
that
they
added
to
the
app
where
they
would
as
well
as
the
contact
tracing.
They
also
wanted
to
know.
I
wonder
if
you'd,
if
you
tell
us
what
your
symptoms
are
internally,
we
refer
to
this
as
the
snuffulometer,
because
this
was
an
entirely
self-assessed
question
one
once
a
day,
they'd
ask
you:
how
are
you
feeling
do
you
have
any
symptoms
today?
Do
you
think
you're
feeling
good?
B
Do
you
think
you're
feeling
bad
and
people
would
fill
that
in
and
and
really
was
that
going
to
add
anything
to
to
our
knowledge?
Well,
the
epidemiologists
who
wanted
it
said
that
they
thought
it
might
do
and
look
who
are
we
to
argue
in
the
end,
the
state,
the
state
shipped
it
with
more
than
one
purpose,
and
so
that
so
that
was
so.
B
B
B
Well,
while
I
have
you,
why
don't
I
make
this
app
an
identity,
app
or
some
other
purpose
that
the
state
would
love
to
have
once
we've
had
a
mass
take
up
of
a
particular
piece
of
software
controlled
by
the
stage,
so
you
can
see
that
it's
very
important
not
to
allow
function
creep
and
we'll
show
you
later
on
how
we
tried
to
create
a
formula
to
ensure
that
that
would
be
the
case.
B
B
So
you
know
it's
quite
difficult
to
try
and
get
to
the
point
where
you
have
both
informed
consent:
you've,
given
them
all
the
information,
but
also
you've,
got
genuine
free
consent
and
granular
consent,
because
they
understood
all
the
information
and
they
made
their
choices.
And
again
the
irish
app
did
okay
on
this.
It
wasn't
the
worst
wasn't
the
best,
but
it
certainly
was
better
than
the
usual
scroll
down
three
thousand
three
thousand
pages.
Then
click.
Ok.
At
the
end.
Now
on
we
go.
Finally,
I'm
going
to
jump
us
through
the
next
ones.
B
C
B
To
read
them
out,
let's
pop
on
everyone
can
look
at
them
later
if
they're
feeling,
particularly
sleep,
deprived
and
you've,
got
to
say
that
the
consent
is
unambiguous.
Now,
that's
kind
of
interesting,
because
you've
you've
got
to
make
sure
that
the
the
thing
that
you
got
from
them
is
a
very
clear.
B
Yes,
I
want
you
to
do
this
and
that's
pretty
important
if
you're
going
to
use
it
for
the
purpose
of
tracking
people's
health,
because
health
is
treated
as
a
special
category
of
data
under
article
9
of
the
gdpr
and
therefore,
if
you're
going
to
track
health
data,
you've
got
to
be
really
clear
because
you
need
to
get
extra
high
levels
of
dem
to
be
able
to
demonstrate
high
levels
of
consent
and
high
levels
of
compliance
with
the
requirements
to
get
consent.
B
Now,
when
we
go
withdrawing
consent,
it's
gotta
be
easy
to
say
no,
as
it
was
to
say
yes,
you're
allowed
to
change
your
mind,
you
can
have
the
data
deleted.
You
also
have
lots
of
rights
under
the
data
protection
act.
If
it
is
that
there
is
to
be
a
centralized,
a
centralized
store
of
all
of
this
information,
then
what
will
happen
is
that
the
the
the
the
individual
has
the
right
to
say
what
information
are
you
collecting
on
me?
I
want
to
have
a
copy
of
it.
B
What's
the
legal
basis
for
each
piece
of
information,
what's
the
legal
basis
of
each
piece
of
processing
that
you're
using
that
information,
for
I
think
that
information
is
wrong.
If
it's
wrong,
then
it
could
be
corrected
and
you
need
to
have
an
independent
body
which,
in
ireland
is
the
data
protection
commission
and
in
all
the
other
eu
countries
there
are
data
protection
authorities
who
you
can
go
to
if
you're
not
happy
with
how
your
data
is
dealt
with.
B
So,
let's
hop
straight
through
the
next
one-
and
this
is
this
is
where
we
were
looking
at.
What
it
is
you
need
to
get
valiket
said,
I
think,
actually,
I've
ended
up
with
that
slide.
Twice!
Apologies!
So,
let's
move
straight
on
through
that
one.
We
don't
like
that
one,
let's
not
look
at
it
necessary
and
proportionate,
and
then
we
go
straight
to
the
iccl
dri
principle
framework
now.
So
this
was
the
way.
B
This
was
a
a
framework
which
was
developed
by
the
irish
council
for
civil
liberties
and
digital
rights,
ireland
jointly,
and
the
aim
was
to
ensure
that
any
development
that
was
being
done
would
be
able
to
meet
these
requirements.
The
bullet
points
have
been
eaten
by
the
by
the
the
gremlins
of
powerpoint,
but
they
would
have
to
meet
these
requirements
and
we
could
measure
whether
or
not
they've
met
these
requirements
and
given
a
sort
of
scorecard
in
relation
to
how
the
app
could
be
trusted
and
whether
it
met
the
the
rights
framework.
B
So
we
said
that
you'll
you'll
see
that
many
of
them
are
derived
from
the
data
protection
law.
It
has
to
have
a
clear
purpose
necessary
and
proportionate,
and
but
we
also,
we
also
wanted
things
like
that-
would
embrace
transparency
and
would
promote
trust.
You
promoted
trust
and
transparency
because
you
needed
people
to
download
it.
So
this
was
good
for
both
sides,
the
state
and
the
individual,
because
without
that
level
of
trust
you
just
weren't
going
to
get
a
take-up
and
in
most
countries
the
take-up
faltered
somewhere
around
10
to
12
percent.
B
Even
the
most
shall
we
say
obliging
countries
would
would
find
that
they
had
and
they
had
difficulty
trusting
what
they
call.
What
the
state
was
doing
so
building
that
trust
in
and
also
building
the
to
be
able
to
demonstrate
that
they
were
trustworthy,
was
really
key
and
privacy
and
data
protection
by
design.
We
wanted
it
subject
to
a
sunset
clause,
we're
in
a
crisis.
It
was
here
to
meet
the
crisis,
but
we
didn't
want
this
app
to
hang
around
and
morph
into
something
else.
B
So,
for
example,
in
the
in
the
irish
case,
this
app
will
self-destruct
mission
impossible
style
in
november
2020
and
the
we
also
wanted
to
make
sure
that
what
it
was
doing
was
effective.
Now,
dr
farrell
from
trinity
and
his
colleague
did
a
great
deal
of
work
on
the
question
of
effectiveness,
but
it
was
really
important
from
a
legal
point
of
view
and
from
a
rights
point
of
view.
If
the
app
isn't
effective,
then
it
can't
be
necessary
for
any
purpose.
B
If
it
doesn't
do
what
it's
meant
to
do,
then
you
can't
need
it
in
order
to
perform
that
action,
so
you
can,
if
you're,
not
effective,
you
can't
be
necessary
and
if
you're
not
necessary,
it
can't
possibly
be
proportionate.
You
have
to
hit
all
of
those
heads
in
order
for
it
to
be
legitimate,
so
it
really
put
a
lot
of
emphasis
on
testing
and
demonstrating
it
was
both
trustworthy,
but
also
effective.
B
Now,
in
truth,
what
we
have
seen
is
we've
seen
a
pretty
good
accompaniment
in
terms
of
engagement
in
terms
of
the
transparency
they,
the
state
published
the
source
code
on
github
for
everybody,
look
at,
they
publish
the
data
protection
impact
assessment
for
everybody
to
look
at,
and
this
is
a
kind
of
a
process.
B
This
is,
unlike
anything,
the
state
has
ever
done
before,
but
then
again,
we've
never
had
a
situation
where
people's
lives
were
at
stake
on
a
piece
of
software
potentially
and
therefore
hats
off
the
state
really
did
come
up
to
the
mark
in
terms
of
trying
to
get
that
level
of
trust
and
from
the
state's
point
of
view,
they
got
a
reward,
because
ireland,
currently,
as
far
as
we
can
see
from
across
the
world,
has
the
highest
level
of
take
up
it
reached.
B
I
think
it
reached
a
million
downloads
of
the
app
within
the
first
day
day
and
a
half
and
and
that's
in
a
population,
a
total
population
of
about
five
million.
So
you
can
see
that
that's
a
very
significant
proportion
of
the
a
adult
population
and
b
out
of
a
population
who
have
smartphones,
so
they
probably
reached
the
magical
threshold
or
come
very
close
to
it
just
yet
of
reaching
the
magical
threshold
if
we
count
every
download
as
an
active
user
of
about
60
of
of
iphone
or
android
smartphone
holders.
B
So
this
is
a
really
big
win
in
terms
of
in
terms
of
the
irish
state.
If
this
app
works
and
the
jury
is
still
out
on
the
effectiveness,
where
you
know
that
remains
to
be
seen
and
there's,
our
assertions
rather
thinly
explained
assertions
that
the
state
did
its
own
research
and
found
it
was
70
effective.
Now
for
a
value
of
effective
that
you
might
choose,
because
we
haven't
been
given
what
that
value,
what
does
effective
mean,
but
nonetheless,
from
it
is
over
the
first
hurdle,
which
is?
B
Is
it
it
published
the
app
it
published
the
source
code?
It
published
the
data
protection
impact
assessment.
It
published
the
usually
very
confidential
comments
by
the
data
protection
commission,
so
we
could
compare
them
with
what
was
actually
done.
In
other
words,
they
really
made
a
big
effort,
and
I
should
say
from
a
practical
point
of
view,
our
engagement
in
terms
of
civil
society
really
made
a
difference.
B
B
Now
I
suppose,
we'd
bump,
on
to
the
next
one
and
and
by
having
a
framework
like
that,
we
were
able
to
issue
a
kind
of
a
scorecard
where
we
took
each
one
and
we
gave
it
a
kind
of
a
value
to
give
the
the
public
a
sense
of
where
it
was,
and
this
came
out
as
a
c-plus
which,
if
you've
ever
dealt
with
civil
society
privacy
groups,
you'll
recognize
that
that's
pretty
much
the
best
you're
ever
going
to
get
in
terms
of
this
kind
of
project
and
jury
stood
out
on
the
question
of
effectiveness,
but
as
a
framework
and
a
model
for
implementing
rights-based
software
at
a
population
scale.
B
F
Can
you
hear
me,
I
don't
see
any
indication
that
my
mic's
been
turned
on.
Yes,
I
hear
jim
read,
okay,
simon's
great
talk,
wonderful
stuff,
and
I
congratulate
everybody
in
the
island
and
all
the
very
hard
work
to
make
sure
they
get
the
basics
of
all
these
privacy
concerns
and
gdpr
compliance
issues.
Sorted
out
my
I
contrast
that
startling
with
how
things
have
gone
in
the
uk.
You
know-
let's
not,
let's
not
go
over
that,
but
I'll
just
contrast
that
I'll
just
say,
there's
a
radical
different
approach
there.
F
But
one
thing
I
do
wonder
about
the
irish
approach
this:
how
much
of
the
success
of
the
tracing
app
is
down
to
the
policies
of
google
and
apple
and
their
use
of
their
platforms,
because
the
uk
model,
as
I'm
sure
you
know-
is
to
have
the
data
center
centralized
repository
and
that's
something
which
both
google
and
apple
were
not
at
all
keen
on,
and
that's
one
of
the
reasons
why
the
uk
app
has
just
crashed
and
burned.
B
Sorry,
slight
technical,
while
I
worked
it
had
to
say
things:
am
I
audible?
Yes,
okay,
so
this
is
google
in
apple's
world
and
everyone
else
has
just
been
playing
in
it.
B
So
they
have
set
the
ground
rules
for
how
this
may
be
done,
and
if
you
decided
that
you
would
strike
off
on
your
own
as
the
uk
did
well,
you
could
strike
off
on
your
own
and
then
you
can
fall
off
the
edge
of
the
world
and
not
be
seen
again,
which
is
what
happened
with
the
app
because
in
reality
they
can
control.
B
Whether
or
not
a
any
kind
of
framework
has
sufficient
access
to
the
bluetooth
sort
of
underlying
technology
to
allow
it
to
continue
to
track,
even
while,
for
example,
in
the
apple
screen,
whether
or
not
the
phone
was
locked.
I
think
the
at
the
original
model
that
the
irish
app
was
the
one
they
scrapped
and
the
one
which
I
think
the
uk
plowed
on
with.
B
Until
recently,
you
had
to
keep
your
screen
unlocked
at
all
times,
so
you
constantly
have
to
be
giving
it
a
tap
if
you
wanted
it
to
stay
awake
and
therefore
still
tracking.
From
a
practical
point
of
view,
this
was
you
know
madness,
so
that's
so
that
hasn't
really
that
didn't
really
take
take
off
and
in
reality,
the
fact
that
the
irish
state
went
for
a
decentralized
proposition.
Yes,
they
did
so
and
they
cited
data
protection
concerns.
Yes,
they
were
very
audible.
They
were
very.
B
They
really
wanted
people
to
learn
about
how
trustworthy
they
were,
but
at
base.
They
didn't
really
have
a
choice.
Once
google
and
apple
had
gone
for
that,
everybody
else
had
to
follow,
and
on
this
occasion
that's
privacy
protecting
and
that's
good
for
privacy,
but
it
does
go
to
show
that
the
concept
of
one
of
our
framework
positions
was
controlled
by
statute,
but
in
truth
we
might
control
some
elements
of
this
app,
but
its
underlying
use
of
technology
is
not
controlled
by
statute
but
controlled
by
cupertino
and
mountain
view.
A
A
Interesting
messages
in
the
chat
that
I
I
wish
I
had
been
able
to
pay
attention
to
at
the
time
I
would
suggest
actually
more
conversation
in
the
hrpc
list.
I
think
there
is
so
much
more
to
say,
and
I
know
that
steven
and
your
team
you've
all
put
out
a
lot
of
really
interesting
research
lately,
so
please
feel
free
to
share
it
there
to
spark
some
more
conversation
thanks.
So
much
simon.
We
really
appreciate
your
your
insights
and
your
presentation
today.
A
All
right,
so
we
have
ava
in
the
house
who's
presenting
on
yep
ava
you're
there
you're
able
to
click
at
the
top
to
share
your
video
and
your
audio.
I
can
let
you
in
to
do
that
and
I
will
stop
sharing
my
screen.
A
G
Hi,
my
name
is
eva
galperin
and
I
am
the
director
of
cyber
security
for
the
electronic
frontier
foundation
and
please
excuse
my
quarantine,
hair.
I
I
am
up
very
early
in
the
morning
in
in
san
francisco,
in
order
to
meet
with
people
who
are
not
getting
up
quite
as
early
in
the
morning
as
me,
and
I'm
a
little
bit
blurry,
but
I
am
here
to
radicalize
you.
G
I
was
essentially
brought
in
to
to
give
you
a
talk
about
whose
internet
is
this.
So
one
of
the
one
of
the
big
problems
that
we
have
right
now
on
the
internet
is
that
it
is
this
fantastic
tool
for
allowing
people
to
communicate
with
one
another
and
share
information
with
one
another,
and
also
a
tool
for
oppression
and
misinformation
and
censorship,
and
it
is
both
of
these
things
at
once.
G
So
let's
talk
about
how
the
internet
can
be
used
for
good
and
how
we
can
build
this
thing
in
a
way
that
encourages
the
good
stuff
and
discourages
the
bad
stuff.
G
So
I
wanted
to
start
with
a
quote
from
my
high
school
history
teacher.
My
high
school
history
teacher
had
a
class
on
the
civil
war
in
which
she
had
no
history
book
and
instead
of
a
history
book,
what
she
did
was
she
had
us,
read
all
original
sources,
so
diaries
and
documents
and
newspaper
articles
and
what
she
said,
and
I
swear
she's,
quoting
howard,
zinn
or
somebody,
but
she
didn't
actually
credit
the
quote
at
the
time.
So
in
my
head,
this
is
sandra
my
history
teacher
from
high
school.
G
G
One
of
the
one
of
the
other
things
that
I
wanted
to
quote
was:
why
should
we
have
a
human
rights
framework
when
I
went
to
boston
university
just
before
before
corona,
when
it
was
still
possible
to
go
places,
and
I
was
giving
a
talk
at
a
symposium
full
of
lawyers
and
they
asked
me
well
what
is
the
whole
point
of
having
a
human
rights
framework?
G
And
specifically,
they
were
asking
about
the
gdpr,
which
is
a
strange,
lengthy
and
mysterious
document
to
many
americans
and
what
I
told
them
was
essentially
an
again
room.
Full
of
lawyers
was
that
human
rights
are
important
because
the
law
is
sometimes
because
the
law
is
not
always
just
because
the
law
is
not
always
right,
and
so
we
need
to
have
the
some
other
sort
of
standard.
G
This
is
one
of
the
reasons
why
you
end
up
with
you
know
things
like
the
u.n
charter
on
human
rights.
You
end
up
with
the
court
of
human
rights.
You
end
up
with
things
like
the
you
know,
united
states
constitution,
which
this
whole
idea
of
you
know.
You
have
rights
that
cannot
be
violated
by
laws
that
are
made
came
from
and
it
is
important
mind
you.
G
One
of
the
biggest
criticisms
of
human
rights
is
that
human
rights
is
just
a
bludgeon
that
the
west
uses
to
to
sort
of
dunk
on
non-western
countries.
China
likes
to
complain
about
this
a
lot
the
soviet
union
before
the
end
of
the
cold
war,
liked
to
complain
about
it
a
lot.
Basically,
the
americans
would
get
up
in
the
u.n
and
they
would
say
russia.
G
Why
are
you
sending
your
dissidents
to
gulags?
This
is
a
violation
of
human
rights,
and
the
soviet
union
would
sit
back
and
go.
Have
you
seen
the
way
you
treat
your
black
people?
G
You
know
human
rights
are
are
not
just
for
the
countries
that
you
don't
like,
and
so
I
I
believe
that
we
should
have
human
rights
in
the
united
states
and
in
in
the
west
as
much
as
we
do
anywhere
else
and
I've
spent.
You
know,
I
would
say
the
last
13
years
at
eff,
putting
my
money
where
my
mouth
is,
which
is
to
say
that
I've
traveled
all
over
the
world
and
tried
to
help
people
come
up
with
ways
in
which
they
can
they
can
defend
their
human
rights.
G
But
one
of
the
things
that
I've
really
seen
is
this
very
depressing
view
of
the
internet.
Once
upon
a
time
I
was
a
political
science
and
international
relations
student
and
the
cold
war
ended
and
francis
fukuyama
wrote
a
wrote,
an
essay
called
the
end
of
history
in
which
he
basically
said.
Capitalism
has
won
party
time,
and
nothing
of
note
has
happened
since
then.
G
We
had
this
idea,
I
would
say
around
the
time
that
I
started
working
at
eff,
that
the
internet
was
going
to
be
a
force
for
good,
that
it
would
allow
people
to
see
around
censorship
that
it
would
allow
people
to
see
through
misinformation.
G
That
would
allow
people
to
communicate
and
connect
with
each
other
like
never
before,
and
that
this
would
be
a
force
for
for
civil
society
and
for
democracy
and
for
transparency
of
government,
and
some
of
that
happened
I
would
say
definitely
some
of
that
happened
at
the
time
when
I
started
doing
internet
activism,
one
of
the
very
first
things
that
I
studied
was
chinese
internet
censorship.
The
reason
that
I
studied
chinese
internet
censorship
was
that
it
was
the
only
censorship
in
town.
G
The
chinese
sort
of
great
firewall
model
was
viewed
as
an
aberration.
The
idea
was
that
there
was
one
great
big
internet
and
that
trying
to
censor
it
was
was
absolutely
not
worth
it
and
a
complete
pain
in
the
ass
and
surely
no
one,
but
the
chinese
will
do
this
now.
The
chinese
model
is
held
up
as
an
example
by
by
russia
by
iran,
who
has
been
trying
to
implement
a
what
they
call
the
halal
internet
for
for
many
years
and
by
by
countries
all
over
the
world.
G
G
The
other
thing
that
the
internet
allows
you
to
do,
which
we
had
not
really
thought
about
at
the
time,
was
that
it
allows
you
to
be
trapped.
I,
when
you
know
I
started
doing
activism
in
the
early
2000s.
We
did
not
all
carry
tracking
devices
connected
to
the
internet
around
in
our
pockets,
but
now
we
do.
We
have
cell
phones,
our
cell
phones
have
internet
access.
G
Our
cell
phones
need
to
know
where
we
are
because
otherwise
our
cell
phones
do
not
work,
and
you
end
up
with
all
kinds
of
very
strange
folk
wisdom
about
the
situations
in
which
you
can
and
cannot
be
tracked
by
the
government,
which
is
you
know,
sort
of
where
this
whole
idea
about
tin,
foil
hats
comes
from
or
putting
your
putting
your
phone
in
the
microwave.
G
Don't
turn
the
microwave
on
if
you're
going
to
put
your
phone
in
there,
so
people
get
all
kinds
of
very
weird
ideas
about
how
you
can
how
you
can
avoid
government
surveillance
and
so
eff
spent
a
lot
of
time
working
on
government
surveillance
issues,
which
is
sort
of
where
we
were
around
2003
through
2007.
G
The
nsa
was
installing
secret
rooms
in
in
telecommunications
centers
all
over
the
united
states
that
were
copying
all
of
the
information
and
all
of
the
traffic
which
at
the
time,
was
largely
unencrypted
and
sending
it
to
the
nsa.
To
you
know,
hoover
up
and
and
search
through
for
for
presumably
national
security
purposes.
G
This
was
we
argued
on
its
face
unconstitutional
because
it
was
a
search
of
everybody's
data
without
any
kind
of
you
know,
warrant
or
subpoena,
and
furthermore,
because
the
nsa
is
not
allowed
to
spy
on
the
communications
of
americans
inside
of
america
and
a
whole
lot
of
these
communications
were
the
communications
of
americans
inside
of
america,
and
there
was
no
way
that
they
were
being
sort
of
filtered
out.
G
This
lawsuit
became,
I
think,
three
different
lawsuits
by
the
eff.
There
are
additional
lawsuits
from
the
aclu.
I
think
we
have
been
suing
the
either
at
t
or
verizon,
or
the
u.s
government
about
warrantless
wiretapping
for
oh
going
on
15
years.
So
quite
some
time
the
wheels
of
justice
move
very,
very,
very
slowly.
G
So
having
said
that,
more
recently,
we
had
spent
a
lot
of
time
explaining
that
we
were
very
worried
about
government
surveillance
and
that
the
reason
that
we
were
worried
about
government
surveillance
is
because
governments
have
the
guns.
Governments
have
the
power
to
to
send
you
to
jail.
G
Governments
have
what
what
we
called
in
political
science
class,
the
monopoly
on
legitimate
violence
or
the
monopoly
on
the
legitimate
use
of
violence.
G
And
what
we
discovered
in
the
sort
of
ensuing
years
was
that
governments
are
not
our
only
problem
not
when
it
comes
to
censorship,
not
when
it
comes
to
spying,
not
when
it
comes
to
being
invasive.
Not
when
it
comes
to
misinformation,
and
increasingly
our
communications
happens
on
a
set
of
very
limited
platforms
which
are
controlled
by
a
limited
number
of
country
of
countries
and
a
very
limited
number
of
companies,
and
that
has
caused
great
disturbance
in
the
force
for
a
number
of
different
reasons.
G
G
Furthermore,
if
you
were
working
at
google
or
apple
or
any
of
the
other
large
platforms
that
hold
a
whole
lot
of
this
data,
a
lot
of
them
had
an
increasing
problem,
which
was
that
they
had
us
lawyers.
They
had
people
who
understood
what
to
do
with
requests
for
data
from
from
u.s
law
enforcement
from
law
enforcement,
even
in
most
western
countries,
but
they
did.
G
They
were
increasingly
seeing
requests
from
data
from
governments
that
were
empowered
to
send
subpoenas
or
warrants,
but
where
the
rule
of
law
was
not
particularly
strong
and
where
this
sort
of
data
request
was
being
used
to
unmask
critics
to
de-anonymize
critics
and
also
to
to
silence
them.
So
this
was
kind
of
a
big
deal.
G
I
I
don't
know
if
you
are
familiar
with
cases
and
let's
come
up
with
a
few
one
of
the
sort
of
most
prominent
ones.
That
comes
to
mind.
Is
the
president
of
turkey
erdogan
spent
a
lot
of
time
sending
sending
legal
requests
to
companies
like
google
and
yahoo
in
order
to
find
out
who
was
criticizing
him
and
further
because
they
made
criticizing
the
president
illegal
in
in
turkey
and
spent
a
great
deal
of
time
prosecuting
people
who
made
mean
memes
about
erdogan
this?
G
This
is
the
actual
way
that
he
spent
his
time
and
so
in
the
interest
of
preserving
human
rights,
which
includes
the
ability
to
make
mean
memes
about
your
president.
We
had
to
spend
some
time
thinking
about
how
how
companies
should
properly
respond
to
these
kinds
of
requests
and
what
the
conclusion
that
we
came
to
was
the
transparency
report.
So
companies
would
publish
transparency
reports.
I
think
google
was
the
first
and
then
twitter
followed,
and
now
it's
a
fairly
standard
thing.
G
You
see
from
a
whole
lot
of
companies,
they
publish
quarterly
transparency
reports
which
tell
you
how
many
requests
they
got
from
the
government
and
how
many
of
them
they
actually
complied
with
and
which
government
was
making
these
requests,
and
this
includes
not
just
requests
for
data
about
about
users,
but
also
copyright
data,
because
I
I
don't
know
if
you
are
familiar
with
the
works
of
my
colleague,
corey
doctorow,
but
copyright
law
is
frequently
used
as
a
sort
of
back
door
to
censorship
to
to
censor
political
foes.
G
So
what
I
want
to
propose
sort
of
on
top
of
all
of
this
is
that
we
think
about
what
an
internet
would
look
like
if
it
did
not
center
the
needs
and
the
concerns
of
the
powerful
first,
because
right
now,
when
we
talk
about
privacy-
and
we
talk
about
security
online,
we
talk
about
the
privacy
and
security,
largely
of
of
rich
people
of
people
with
iphones
of
corporations
of
states
and
the
people
who
get
left
out
of
this
conversation
are
usually
the
poor
people
with
less
access
to
to
resources,
minorities,
people
with
unpopular
political
or
religious
views,
dissidents,
journalists,
these
people
very
frequently
get
you
know,
sort
of
left
out
on
the
edge
and
when
I
first
started
bringing
this
sort
of
thing
up
in
in
tech,
I
was
informed
that
this
is
because
these
are
edge
cases
most
of
the
people
that
you're
trying
to
sell
your
products
to
aren't
these
people.
G
You
know,
syrian
dissidents
are
not
going
to
be
buying
a
lot
of
antivirus
tools,
they're
not
going
to
be
buying
a
lot
of
anti
of
enterprise
software
they're.
Actually,
you
know
banned
under
export
control
law
from
doing
so,
and
and
therefore
trying
to
keep
people
like
that
safe
was
simply
not
a
priority
for
companies
and
one
of
the
things
that
I
did
was.
G
I
went
around
to
the
companies
and
I
tried
to
explain
to
them
just
how
much
they
were
hurting
people
by
not
having
high
levels
of
privacy
and
security
working
by
default,
and
this
includes
things
like
two-factor
authentication
https
by
default.
I
had
a.
I
had
a
very
funny
argument
with
a
twitter
engineer
shortly
after
twitter
pushed
everything
almost
well
almost
everything
to
https,
and
it
essentially
went
like
this.
He
said
I
gave
you
95
of
what
you
wanted.
G
G
G
One
of
the
things
that
I
would
really
like
for
everybody
in
this
sort
of
virtual
room
to
think
about
when,
when
we're
making
products
and
when
we
are
making
standards
and
when
we
are
making
laws,
is
how
to
center
the
people
who
need
the
protection
the
most
instead
of
the
people
who
need
the
money
instead
of
the
people
who
are
going
to
be
spending
the
money
instead
of
the
people
with
the
power
and
the
reason
for
that
is
sort
of
the
is
very
similar
to
the
reason
why
my
history
teacher
insisted
that
we
read
a
diary
of
a
slave
girl
and
it's
that,
if
you
start
with
syrian
dissidents,
if
you
start
with
journalists
and
lgbtq
populations
in
in
uganda,
if
you
start
with
blm
activists
in
the
united
states,
you
will
inevitably
create
a
system
which
will
also
be
safe
and
secure
for
the
average
user
or
for
the
average
enterprise.
G
A
So
much
I
think
we
got
to
a
really
interesting
place
at
the
end,
there
was
some
chat
activity,
and
I
saw
a
few
questions.
Do
folks
want
to
come
to
the
mic
with
those.
E
I
I
thought
I
would
maybe
speak
to
to
what
I'd
said
in
the
chat,
which
is
that
this
doesn't
come
for
free
and
the
reason
why
people
choose
not
to
do
it
is
that
the
cost
and
usability
and
the
cost
in
being
competitive
against
the
people
who
don't
do.
It
is
really
significant
if
you
design
something
that
takes
the
extreme
edge
position
on
privacy
and
secrecy
that
trades
off
against
a
bunch
of
usability
that
other
products
have-
and
I
think
that's
been
shown
again
and
again-
that
most
people
go
to
the
lower
privacy
solution.
E
G
The
the
key
to
understanding
privacy
and
security
is
not
the
suggestion
that
we
should
all
go
live
on
a
mountain
I
and
throw
our
devices
into
into
the
nearest
body
of
water.
I
am
not
suggesting
that
we
build
tools
which
are
unusable,
which
which
don't
allow
us
to
communicate
with
other
people,
I'm
not
suggesting
that
we
all
move
immediately
to
pgp
encrypted
email.
I
I
want
people
to
be
able
to
communicate
with
one
another.
G
I
think
that
this
is
extremely
important
and
I
think
that
the
history
of
privacy
and
security
protecting
apps
has
definitely
demonstrated
that
the
usability
question
is
not
trivial.
Having
said
that,
something
like
one
sentence.
G
Oh
yes,
absolutely,
but
I
do
think
it's
important
that
users
be
able
to
give
informed
consent
about.
You
know
what
is
happening
with
their
data,
who
has
their
data
and
when
they
have
it,
and
one
other
thing
that
we
have
shown
over
and
over
again
in
studies,
is
that
users
don't
understand
what
data
they're
producing,
who
has
access
to
their
data
and
the
circumstances
under
which
they
can
get
their
hands
on
it.
A
Great
I'll
just
want
to.
I
wanted
to
point
out
too
that,
within
the
context
of
the
ietf
there's
a
draft
called
for
the
users,
which
is
really
great
and
hopefully
going
to
be
published
soon.
It
was
in
the
last
meeting
with
iab
open.
So
I
think
that
relates
to
this
conversation
a
bit
anyway,
I
want
to
get
niels
in
the
queue
thanks.
Braun.
D
Thanks
so
much
mallory
and
thanks
so
much
ava.
For
that
great
talk,
would
you
have
concrete
ways
for
us
to
to
to
operationalize
this
view?
Do
you
think,
I'm
not
sure
if
you're
very
familiar
with
the
work
of
this
research
group
but,
for
instance,
the
draft
guidelines
or
rfc
82,
or
indeed
the
document
that
mallory
just
referenced
to
the
internet,
is
40
users
or
even
the
u.n
guiding
principles
for
business
and
human
rights?
G
I
think
we're
really
only
just
getting
started
like
I.
I
have
definitely
come
to
this
group
because
I'm
I'm
trying
to
convince
the
convince
you
guys
to
sort
of
go
in
the
right
direction,
starting
with
the
question
of.
Why
should
we
even
bother
with
human
rights
and
and
moving
into
you
know,
should
everything
be
encrypted
by
default?
Should
people
be
required
to
use
their
real
names?
G
Should
people
be
allowed
to
have
anonymity
online?
I
think
that
these
are
still
things
that
we
need
to
hash
out,
but
one
of
the
biggest
problems
we
have
right
now
is
that
the
trade-offs
are
not
clear
and.
G
We
are
not
even
having
the
discussion
about
what
those
trade-offs
might
be
or
talking
about
the
sort
of
cost
to
human
rights,
when
you
have
say
a
real
names
policy
and
part
of
the
reason
for
that
is
because
legally
they're
they're
allowed
to
do
this,
it's
it
is
in
fact,
perfectly
legal
for
a
company
to
have
a
real
names
policy
with
you
know,
with
its
internet
platform,
facebook's
real
names
policy
is
probably
the
most
prominent
example
of
of
one
of
these,
and
that
was
a
policy
which
endangered
victims
of
domestic
abuse,
people
who
were
performing
under
pseudonyms
people
who
were
worried
about
stalking
people
who
were
whistleblowers
and
journalists.
G
It
actually
put
people
in
physical
danger
and
I'm
very
concerned
about
it
or
you
know,
also
silenced
them.
So
I
think
that
this
is
actually
so
broad
that
no,
I
cannot.
I've
spent
a
whole
lot
of
time
explaining
to
you
why.
I
cannot
give
you
very
specific
technical
sort
of
advice
or
suggestions,
and
it
is
because
it's
it's
such
a
broad
topic.
I
would
need
way
more
than
half
an
hour.
A
Call
out
a
couple
things
you
said
there
is
a
draft
that
used
to
be
part
of
the
research
group
on
anonymity.
That
has
expired.
It
would
be
great
if
people
wanted
to
pick
that
up
again,
because
I
think
that
would
be
a
really
interesting
one
specifically
for
protocols
related
to
the
real
names
policy.
A
We
don't
have
anything
like
that
going
on
at
the
ietf,
although
shout
out
to
kirshbot
who
did
a
review
of
an
interesting
one
where
it
was
sort
of
a
mechanism
to
allow
registrars
to
request
identity
like
ids
and
identities
before
you
could
get
a
domain
name,
we
sort
of
he
did
a
really
good
job
of
calling
that
out.
A
For
that
particular
thing,
I
think
we
we're
going
to
move
on
now,
but
just
wanted
to
thank
you
for
coming
in
and
talking
to
us
feel
free
to
subscribe
to
our
list,
and
maybe
some
of
this
will
continue
thanks
to
niels
and
braun,
for
asking
your
questions-
and
I
think
I
think
bronze
point
in
particular
could
maybe
have
some
additional
nuanced
debate
just
because
I
do
get
the
point
which
is
like
there
are
these
trade-offs?
A
It's
really
interesting
to
be
able
to
expose
them
and
then
figure
out
what
to
do
because
of
the
potential
consequences
of
of
what
he's
saying,
which
is
to
have
that.
Have
these
protocols
be
bypassed
anyway,
with
that
thanks
again,
stick
around,
we
have
a
couple
more
drafts
to
to
go
over.
We
have
about
30
minutes,
left
all
right,
cool
cool,
I'm
up
next,
okay,.
D
A
A
A
A
I'm
presenting
on
behalf
of
stefan
coter
from
university
of
montreal,
who
has
been
working
on
draft
association
for
the
last
many
months.
I
want
to
go
slower.
Thank
you
great.
So
we've
sorry
s,
stefan
and
with
my
help,
has
made
some
really
significant
changes
that
have
been
sent
to
the
list.
There's
not
been
feedback,
but
I
will
signpost
to
you
what
those
changes
are
and
the
I
think,
the
decision
that
we
need
to
make
to
make
to
to
move
forward.
A
The
reason
why
we're
working
on
draft
association,
just
as
a
reminder,
is
that
after
8280
was
was
rfc'd.
We
wanted
to
dive
deeper
into
the
rights.
The
all
the
human
rights
that
were
treated
in
8280,
specifically
drilling
down
freedom
of
expression
and
freedom
of
association
assembly
and
draft
association
is
the
latter
of
those.
A
So
we
treat
association
assembly
as
one
I
mean
they're,
not
the
same.
We
talk
about
that
in
the
draft,
but
that's
why
the
draft
is
together.
Niels
and
gisella
were
the
original
authors
at
some
point.
Joe
hall
was
also
an
editor
and
then
stefan
was
an
has
been
an
editor,
an
active
editor
for
a
while
now,
but
spoiler
alert.
A
He
wants
to
step
down
so
we'll
get
to
that
at
the
end,
which
is
part
of
the
reason
I
came
in
to
to
help
direct
a
little
bit
in
the
last
couple
of
meetings.
We've
been
talking
about
association
as
needing
to
take
a
different
path.
A
bit
mostly,
it
was
non-controversial
recommendations
to
sort
of
re-uh,
revise
the
literature
review
and
we
discussed
the
details
of
what
that
path.
Looked
like
over
the
series
of
meetings
and
also
interim
meetings.
So
it
was
talked
about
a
lot.
A
There
was
very
clearly
consensus
on
taking
this
move
forward,
which
has
now
been
done
and
we'd
like
to
tell
you
about
what
happened
and
where
we
think
it
needs
to
go
next.
So
stefan
has
reconducted
the
literature
review
and
based
on
that
literature
review,
there
are
some
new
sub
questions.
I
think.
Also
in
order
to
redo
the
literature
review,
it
was
necessary
to
revise
the
research
question
like
the
larger
research
question.
So
that
was
also
done,
and
you
can
see
it
here
so
now.
The
new
research
question
is
a
little
bit
more
clear.
A
What
are
the
considerations
of
the
right
to
freedom
of
assembly
and
association
for
protocol
development?
It's
simple!
It's
straightforward,
it's
clear
and
with
that
we
were
able
to
conduct
a
literature
review
that
attempted
to
answer
what
is
already
out
there
that
might
be
relevant
after
that
lit
review
some,
oh,
this
is
out
of
order
very
sorry.
Some
questions
emerged
and,
and
actually
I'm
going
to
get
to
those
later.
This
is
not
out
of
order.
This
is
exactly
as
planned.
A
I
wanted
to
talk
about
the
difference
now,
as
opposed
to
the
last
version
before
we
and
we'll
go
through
it
point
by
point.
We
because
steven
is
a
sociologist,
you
know
researcher
lots
of
experience
felt
that
there
needed
to
be
sort
of
reformulation
about
the
the
relationships
and
testing
and
establishing,
and
that
was
sort
of
built
into
the
research
question
and
then
how
we
approached
it.
A
Looking
at
the
sub
questions
and
you'll
see
that
as
a
sort
of
general
aim
in
in
what
follows,
the
literature
review
has
changed
that
has
been
sent
to
the
list,
it's
in
the
newest
version,
and
then
these
seven
new
research
sub
questions
that
I
keep
talking
about
but
haven't
yet
shown
you
are.
There
are
two.
There
are
two
ways
to
go
with
this
sort
of
taking
those
research
questions
at
their
at
their
value.
Now
as
a
way
to
conduct
the
rest
of
the
research
on
this
document.
A
It
means
that
the
use
cases
that
were
there
before
also
seven
unrelated,
that's
a
coincidence,
would
maybe
not
be
there
in
their
current
form.
I
think
that
there
are
some
looking
at
the
sub
questions
and
the
use
case.
The
previous
use
cases
side
by
side,
I
can
see
overlap,
and
I
think
that
we
would
use
a
lot
of
that,
but
the
sections
would
be
dictated
by
the
sub
questions,
not
by
the
use
case,
which,
in
this
the
way
that
it
was
done
by
nielsen,
gisella
kind
of
focuses
on
a
piece
of
technology.
A
This
would
be
focused
on
the
question
talking
about
specific
technology
and
protocols,
etc,
sort
of
reversing
that
a
bit
and
then
there's
another
direction.
We
can
go
as
well,
which
is
to
rethink
the
conclusion
so
early
on
in
this
draft.
A
It
was
stated
that
this
draft
did
not
intend
to
give
guidelines
around
association
and
protocols,
because
that's
already
kind
of
done
in
8280
and
the
guidelines
draft
the
gershbot
is
working
on,
I'm
wondering
if
we
shouldn't
revisit
that,
and
I
don't
think
we
should
revisit
it
now.
I
think
we
can.
We
should
actually
get
through
the
next
phase
of
the
research,
which
is
to
look
in
depth
at
the
use
cases
and
then
see
if
our
research
into
these
sub
questions
and
use
cases
actually
then
produces
something
that
we
might
call
conclusions
or
guidelines.
A
I
wanted
to
go
over
what
has
changed
in
the
literature
review,
but
I'm
I'm
mindful
of
time
and
that
I
actually
want
to
stop
talking
so
that
we
have
five
minutes
for
questions.
So
I'm
going
to
just
ask
you
to
read
the
draft
and
if
you
want
to
look
at
the
slides
it
gives
you
some
clear
signposts
on
where
you
can
like
where
things
change
significantly.
A
A
I
can't
quite
recall
where
we
came
down
on
that,
but
nonetheless
I
think
they're
really
interesting,
they're
very
specific,
and
it
means
that
we
have
to
be
okay
with
perhaps
not
covering
the
entire
world
or
universe
of
freedom
of
expression
or
sorry,
freedom
of
association,
assembly
and
protocols,
but
actually
just
trying
to
look
at
these
very
interesting
questions
as
a
patchwork
and
then
getting
some
meaningful
results
from
asking
these
questions.
I'll
just
highlight
a
couple,
because
I'm
not
going
to
read
them
all
out
like
one
is
great.
A
A
So
if
we're
gonna
think
about
this
in
the
context
of
protocols,
we
we
should
consider.
Is
it
possible
to
to
to
distinguish
then
there's
like
further
sub
questions.
A
Of
course
you
know
another
one
is
the
the
end
right
in
general,
what
kind
of
human
rights
impact
assessments
should
be
made
to
incorporate
the
rights
to
freedom
of
peaceful
assembly
and
of
association
when
developing
protocols
that
that
sort
of
nod
to
human
rights
impact
assessments
might
open
a
large
can
of
worms
in
the
you
know,
u.n
guiding
principles
on
business
and
human
rights,
but
it
might
be
worth
noting
it
here
and
that's
why
that
sub
question
is
quite
interesting
because
it
allows
us
then
to
pull
some
of
that
research
forward
and
talk
about
that
a
little
bit
in
this
context.
A
These
are
up
for
debate
and
for
questioning.
So
please
do
that.
A
I
said
already
that
I
think
we
should
pause
after
we
answer
or
try
to
answer
the
research
sub
questions
and
decide
what
to
do
about
the
conclusion
sections.
If
and
when
we
get
there,
and
so
these
are
what
I'm
asking
for
today.
Can
we
agree
that
we're
fine
with
the
revision
so
far?
Can
we
agree
that
the
sub
questions
are
the
right
direction
to
take
this
in
and
that
we
wait
and
see
what
to
do
about
finalizing
the
draft
for
conclusions.
A
Steph,
stefan,
is
stepping
down.
We
need
another
editor,
I'm,
and
this
is
like
sort
of
chair
hat
now.
If
we
can
find
another
editor
that'd
be
really
great
and
then
also
we
need
authors.
So
you
know
if
you'd
like
to
take
one
of
these
sub
questions
or
all
of
them,
please
you
know
reach
out.
We
can
talk
about
that.
A
H
H
Okay
thanks.
Oh
I'm
also
hearing
me
so
I've
got
something
wrong:
okay,
but
anyway
I
I
really
do
appreciate
the
rewrite
and
the
way
you're.
Looking
at
the
questions-
and
I
I
have
done
a
read
through
of
it
but
haven't
taken
the
time
to
come
on
the
list,
so
I
just
say
that
I
certainly
am
very
supportive
of
the
visions
and
the
approach
you're.
Taking
on
this,
I
like
the
idea
of
waiting
to
write
conclusions
until
there's
a
a
draft
conclusions
on
so
I
think
quite
a
clever
solution.
A
D
If
you
want
I'd,
be
happy
to
work
on
the
draft
with
you
and
and
thanks
a
lot
for
you
and
stefan
for
redoing
it
in
this
very
structured
manner,
I
think
it
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
So
now,
let's
see
if
we
structurally
go
through
those
sub
questions,
see
what
we
can
answer
with
what
we
have,
but
I
think
structure
was
what
was
called
for.
Structure
is
what
we
got
so
great
progress
thanks
a
lot.
A
Because
this
is
a
large
part
of
it
is
your
work,
I
think,
and
also
I'm
like
the
least
person
to
be
thanked,
because
stefan
did
almost
all
of
this.
I
just
came
in
sort
of
towards
the
end
one
because
he
couldn't
be
there
be
here
to
present
himself
today,
and
so
I
was
happy
to
take
that
on
and
two
just
towards
the
end
when
it
was
like.
Okay,
we've
done
a
lit
review,
there's
some
really
interesting
stuff
that
fell
out
of
it.
What
do
we
do
now?
A
And
so
that's
why
we
we're
communicating
with
the
list.
I
was
just
sort
of
shepherding
if
anything,
but
it
is
going
to
be
a
group
effort,
because
I
will
say
that
these
questions
are
super
interesting,
but
they're
not
light
they're,
not
easy
or
straightforward.
A
So
we
need
we
need
to
do
some
heavy
lifting
as
a
group,
and
I
think
that
we
care
about
this
draft
a
lot.
So
let's
do
that.
We
also
care
about
another
draft,
a
lot
which
is
the
guidelines
document,
and
I
want
to
queue
that
up
for
gershobad
now,
but
siobhan
has
something
to
say:
first,
go
ahead:
siobhan.
I
Hey
man,
okay,
perfect
yeah,
I
I
agree
with
the
general
sense.
The
you
know.
The
proposed
actions
just
comment
on
the
the
latest
draft
that
I
read
after
a
while.
I
It
does
seem
like
it
talks
a
lot
about
in
places
about
centralization,
and
I'm
just
wondering
if
that
should
be
here,
given
that
you
know
there's
another
draft
around
centralization
elsewhere
or
if
it
if
it
needs
to
be,
if
they
also
feel
like
it
needs
to
be
talked
about,
then
maybe
talk
like
address
that
firmly
about
the
relationship
between
centralization
as
a
principle
and
and
association
and
assembly,
but
especially
in
protocols
and
platforms.
I
A
No
thank
you
for
bringing
that
up
another
one
that
really
surprised
me
in
doing
the
research
or
reading
over.
You
know
what
stefan
did
and
and
helping
through
the
question
making
was
that
there
wasn't
a
lot
on
interoperability,
which
I
feel
like
is
very
similar
to
the
idea
of
centralization
right,
like
interoperability,
and
centralization
are
maybe
two
sides
of
the
same
coin
in
some
ways,
or
one
is
enabler
of
dealing
with
the
effects
of
the
other
anyway.
A
Just
to
note
that
there
is
a
gap
in
what
already
exists
so,
like
the
literature
review,
brought
up
a
lot
of
genuine
research
gaps
that
I
think
that
this
that
this
paper
can
address.
But
I
also
want
to
just
make
sure
we
get
into
the
notes
that
we
shouldn't
be
rewriting
that
we
should
be
referencing
it
when
it's
talking
when
it's
being
discussed
and
talked
about
in
other
parts
of
the
ietf,
which
we
really
hope
to
do.
A
We
really
hope
we
can
reference
an
rfc
on
such
a
thing,
if
not
we'll
reference
a
draft
or
even
when
it
comes
to
centralization,
there's
a
an
actual
publication
in
a
different
journal.
About
such
thing,
we
can
also
think
about
referencing
that
okeydoke
thanks
everybody.
We
will
hear
more,
hopefully
at
the
next
meeting,
although
that
very
much
depends
on
how
much
interest
we
get
from
authors
and
hopefully
an
editor.
So
let
me
queue
up
guidelines
unless
gershabad
you
want
to,
let
me
queue
it
up
for
you.
A
C
Yeah,
thank
you
yes,
so
this
is
a
quick
update
on
guidelines
for
human
rights
protocol,
consider
protocol
and
architecture
considerations,
which
is
a
draft
working
adopted
by
the
working
group
that
niels
and
I
are
co-editing.
So
I
mean
in
this
conversation,
rfc
8280
has
been
referred
to
this.
C
This
drafts
to
update
the
second
part
of
that
rfc,
which
is
the
guideline.
So
it's
a
list
of
questions
that
can
help
document
authors
in
the
iepf
or
the
irtf
answer,
questions
on
how
their
design
affects
human
rights
and
possibly
also
help
draft
a
consideration
section
if
they
would
like
one
for
their
document.
So
where
we're
at
currently
is
that
first,
I
have
to
apologize
that
the
promise
changes
are
not
done
yet.
So
there
are
two
things
we
need
to
address.
C
There
are
certain
explanations
with
guidelines
and
there
are
a
few
guidelines
that
do
not
have
an
accompanying
explanation
which
which
we're
hoping
to
add
in
the
next
update,
and
the
second
thing
to
address,
which
I
think
has
become
more
relevant
recently-
is
the
question
on
the
human
right
of
the
right
to
legal
remedy
and
one
person
articulated
john
curan
on
the
list
articulated
as
the
as
it
may
call
for
a
protocol
element
of
change
that
enables
attribution
to
certain
actors
and
yeah
because
of
the
recent
conversations
about
traceability
and
attribution
in
brazil
and
india.
C
I
think
that
question
has
become
even
more
relevant,
so
those
are
the
two
changes
that
are
coming,
but
hopefully
this
time
we
can
also
use
to
address
another
question,
which
is
that
for
quite
a
while,
we
haven't
received
some
like
substantive
additional
feedback
on
the
draft,
so
wanted
to
also
get
everyone's
thoughts.
C
Maybe
here
on
the
list
or
otherwise
on
whether
after
these
changes
you'd
like
to
see
this
go
to
research
group
last
call
or
if
you
are
already
using
it
and
you
still
sort
of
haven't
shared
your
feedback
with
the
me
nails
or
on
the
list.
That
is
always
welcome.
C
A
C
Yeah,
I
I,
I
think,
I've
sort
of
spoken
about
everything
in
the
slides
as
well,
so
so
yeah,
that's
cool
thanks
man.
A
Okay,
I
mean
for
me
personally.
I
think
that
we
should
move
the
draft
to
last
call
because
there
hasn't
been
much
activity,
and
I
also
think
that
you,
as
the
author
have
been
thinking
very
carefully
about
this
draft
for
a
long
time,
and
you
would
have
picked
up
on
things
that
others
are
not
bringing
forward
but
would
might
have
been
missed.
A
But
one
question
for
you
before
that:
do
you
think
that
you
would
want
to
change
it
in
any
significant
way
before
you
send
it
for
last
call,
because
I
know
that
you
wanted
to
do
an
update
before
this
meeting,
but
didn't.
C
Yes,
so
that's
that's
the
sort
of
update
I'm
hoping
to
push
before
we
go
to
last
call,
and
that
will
just
add
an
explanation
or
two
here
and
there
this
perhaps
the
I
mean
I
do
have
a
draft
of
a
section
on
attribution
that
I
hope
to
publish
in
the
next
update
to
the
draft.
I
hope
that
will
not
be
very
contentious,
but
it
might
be.
I
don't
want
to
make
a
prediction
on
that
front,
but
I
I
think
after
those
two
changes,
I
have
nothing
else
in
mind.
C
So
we
some
part
of
the
role
I
mean,
especially
as
editors,
I
think,
has
been
to
take
feedback
from
people
who
have
been
writing
reviews
or
using
the
draft.
So
I
know
that
the
draft
is
being
still
being
used
for
reviews
etc,
but
we
haven't
had
any
feedback
in
a
while.
So
perhaps
the
that
that's
the
sort
of
motivation
for
perhaps
if
you
want
to
move
to
rg
last
call
after
these
two
changes.
A
I
hope
that
answers
your
question
in
the
chat
nick
any
other.
Anyone
else
want
to
weigh
in
on
the
question
of
pushing
to
last
call,
I
think,
it'd
be
great
if
you
did
do
the
updated
draft
and
then
request
on
the
list
exactly
that,
and
we
can,
as
co-chairs
and
with
collins
help
action
that
hopefully
but
any
other
feedback
at
this
time.
C
A
A
I
But
just
wanted
to
say
that
maybe
it's
too
late
to
change
scope
right
now,
but
again
just
going
through
it
again
after
a
long
time.
It's
just
I'm
just
wondering
what
the
updated
version,
the
updating
that
we're
doing
from
8280
is
the
new
is,
is
the
fact
that
we're
adding
some
questions
on
top
of
80
to
80
right.
D
Think
there
is
sorry,
no.
D
So
I
think
it
went
a
bit
further
than
adding
questions.
We
refined
the
questions
based
on
feedback.
We
added
better
examples
and
try
to
improve
the
methodology
of
doing
the
testing,
because
when
we
wrote
rfc
8280
a
lot
of
stuff
was
still
largely
speculative,
because
we
had
only
done
two
reviews
and
then
based
on
a
lot
of
new
reviews.
A
lot
of
new
issues
came
up,
but
also
some
reviewers
thought.
D
Some
questions
were
unclear
or
some
some
examples
were
introducing
ambiguity
and
I
think
we've
removed
as
much
as
we
could
from
there
now-
and
this
is
the
product
of
that
work
and
plus
another
reason
for
doing
this.
While
a
lot
of
people
thought
rsu
80
to
81,
8280
was
too
long
before
getting
there.
This
is
then
the
much
shorter
version
and
then
like
the
adult,
1.0
version
of
the
human
rights
considerations
for
protocols
and
architecture
considerations.
I
Okay,
I
guess
that
makes
sense.
I
mean
I
feel
like
it
is
still
pretty
long.
I
So
if
the
objective
is
to
provide
a
quick
like
a
questionnaire
that
people
can
use
when
they
come
when
they're
coming
up
when
they're
trying
to
review
a
document,
then
I
would
you
know,
then
I
just
feel
like
I
would
take
part
of
this
draft.
But
if
the
the
question,
if
the
like,
the
aim
of
the
document
is
to
be
more
like
a
research
into
a
human
rights
consideration,
which
is
what
8280
was
then,
then
I
would
take
the
whole
of
the
draft.
I
So
I
mean
like
so
I
guess
yeah
so
or
is
it
that
as
it
is
an
updated
research
into
human
rights
considerations,
it
also
fulfills
the
first
purpose?
Yeah
I
mean
I
guess.
In
other
words
I
just
feel
like.
I
I
don't
necessarily
see
these
as
guidelines.
I
see
them
more
as
research,
expanded
research
into
human
rights
considerations
and
in
that
way
it's
an
update
to
innovating.
A
I
think
you're
raising
an
important
point.
No,
I
mean
I
sort
of
see
it
as
like.
8280
was
the
research
it
was
like
the
baseline
setting
scoping
of
where
are
we
gonna
start
right?
Where
does
where
does
one
start
when
they
think
about
protocols
and
human
rights?
Those
are
the
considerations
that
you
need
to
incorporate.
I
think
guidelines
is
just
meant
to
be
the
practical
version
of
that.
A
The
the
thing
that
you
can
take
and
do
something
with
it,
after
learning
all
the
things
that
we
learned
from
8280-
and
I
do
think
that
for
a
checklist
I
I
I
mean-
I
found
really
helpful
something
that
grad
created
and
I
think
it's
posted,
maybe
somewhere
in
github
or
git
lab
it's
like
a
work,
it's
literally
a
worksheet
that
just
takes
all
the
questions
out
of
8280
or
maybe
guidelines
and
just
puts
them
in
a
spreadsheet,
and
you
can
take
off
the
boxes.
If
you're,
you
know
doing
a
review
right.
A
I
You
know
yeah,
I
think,
you're
right.
I
think
that's
just
what
I
was
wondering,
so
I
did
hear
that
framing
that
you
know
it
is
a
checklist,
but
I
just
don't
think
this
current
document
is
a
checklist.
You
know
the
git
lab
thing
that
you
said
like
that's
much
more
of
a
checklist.
So
so
it's
fine.
If
this
is
you
know
and
like
an
80
to
80
2.0,
but
that
should
really
be
the
framing.
I
think.
A
So
there's
a
suggestion
in
chat
to
possibly
add
the
worksheet
as
an
appendix,
which
I
like
that
idea
very
much,
and
I
think
that
we
could
think
of
the
guidelines
draft
as
a
like
a
guide
to
the
checklist
right.
It's
like
here's,
the
checklist,
it's
going
to
be
super
useful
for
you.
If
you
want
to
go
back
and
reference
like
how
we
came
up
with
these
questions
or
the
research
that's
behind
them,
then
you
know
here's
the
rest
of
that.
Here's,
the
rest
of
the
draft
go
ahead,
gershyvan
like
glad
you're
back
from
your
power.
C
Situation-
sorry
about
that,
I
I
I
did
hear
siobhan's
comment
and
yes,
that's
that's
a
that's
a
useful
point.
I
think
so
there
are
two
parts
of
280
right,
and
one
of
them
is,
is,
I
think,
the
more
human
rights
research
part
and
which
links
it
to
protocols
and
then
a
separate
section
on
the
guidelines.
C
So
this
document
was
supposed
to
is
supposed
to
update
just
the
guidelines,
part
of
that
and
it
so
therefore
it
looks
similar
in
structure
and
and
style
in
that
regard,
I
I
still
think
that
the
meat
of
the
document
is
the
the
questions,
but,
of
course
there
are
explanations
appended
with
associated
with
each
question.
Maybe
one
thing
to
do
would
be
to
move
the
explanations
to
an
appendix,
and
I
I
saw
similar
comment
in
the
chat
I
think
so
a
point
well
taken.
C
I
think
we
can
work
with
the
either
of
the
designs.
A
That,
let's
play
around
with
making
a
possible
checklist
as
an
appendix
and
see
if
we
can
make
it
look
nice
any
any
other
points
on
this.
We
do
have
we're
overtime
just
to
acknowledge
that.
So
thanks
for
those
who
are
still
hanging
on,
we
did
have
one
last
agenda
point.
If
we
don't,
if
we
want
to
move
on
from
this,
aubrey
awesome
go
ahead.
H
At
the
at
the
last
meeting,
I
brought
up
the
idea
of
starting
up
a
parallel
track
to
the
internet
draft,
basically
something
that
that
resembled
a
journal
was
published
or
online,
while
there
is
some
concern
about
it
that
it
would
tap
our
strength
or
our
resources.
A
H
It's
probably
me,
I'm
also
hearing
an
echo
that
I
don't
know
how
to
get
rid
of.
So
that's
just
hurting
me
just
slightly
so
anyhow
in
looking
at
this
still
looking
someone
that's
interested
in
taking
it
on
and
publishing
it,
and
I
thought
I
had
someone
I'd
be
able
to
say
something
about
that
today,
but
I
don't
and
also
looking
at
the
idea
of
while
doing
published,
also
looking
at
some
big
web,
I'm
going
to
continue
working
on
this
anybody
that
interested
in
working
with
me
on
it.
H
Please,
let
me
know
my
correctly
or
on
one
of
the
other
I've
got
is
if
doing
it.
What
is
the
time
for
the
first
one
and
I'll
leave
it?
That's
for
over
time
I'll,
try
to
take
questions,
but
you
know
move
it
to
the
list,
and
that
is
is
a
fine
way
to
do
it
and
I'll
follow
up.
Hopefully,
my
life
a
little
bit
more
adjusted
to
taking
time
on
it.
At
the
moment
it's
been
sort
of
bother
lately.
A
Aubrey,
it
kind
of
got
a
little
bit
better,
the
second
time
round
and
I'm
happy
to
just
give
a
really
quick
overview.
I
think
it's
fine,
we,
I
think
we
have
five
more
minutes
until
we're
absolutely
booted
out
of
meat
echo.
But
the
idea
is
the
the
last
point
in
the
agenda
here.
A
We've
been
talking
for
a
while
about
other
avenues
for
publishing
the
research
that
is
has
been
adopted
by
this
research
group
and
one
of
the
possible
options
is
a
journal
and
where
there's
a
call
to
people
who
are
interested
in
working
on
this
idea
to
to
support
aubry
and
looking
for
concrete
places
to
do
so,
and
also,
I
think
you
had
a
question
there
about.
Timing
like
when
the
first
edition
might
come
out
is
that
right,
aubrey.
H
It
wasn't
so
much
when
and-
and
you
know
I
I
figure
it'll
take
us
close
to
a
year
from
the
time
we
say.
Yes,
it's
a
go,
and
so
I'm
really
not
looking
for
something
immediate,
but
basically
to
to
get
to
the
point
where
we
start
working
on
it
and
get
to
the
point
where
I
can
find
a
slot
in
someone's
publication
schedule.
A
A
It's
working
keep
it
up
any
comments
on
this.
Anybody
want
to
weigh.
A
In
okay,
I
think
it's
good
to
set
expectations
around
how
long
it
might
take
to
get
rolling,
but
I
do
want
from
when
it
starts
right,
so
I
do
want
to
just
emphasize
the
call
for
people
who
are
interested
in
pursuing
that
with
avrey
to
reach
out.
I
think
that's
it.
Everyone
we've
had
a
good
meeting.
We
appreciate
our
speakers
and
our
authors
and
hoping
that
we
can
take
some
of
these
to
the
list.
I'm
looking
forward
to
new
versions
of
both
association
and
guidelines
and
wishing
you
all
a
good
rest.