irtf-hrpc / drafts Goto Github PK

"Does your protocol impact permissionless innovation? (See Connectivity)"
Doesn't this section relate to "Open Standards" instead of "Connectivity"?

Syntax/grammar check for the tenses used when talking about the outcome of using each approach; some use future tense (this approach will) while some use conditionals or present tenses. This would increase consistency and readability.

Access to Information could be explicitly mentioned here and across the draft.

From the HRPC 110 meeting:

Action: Strengthen the examples to tie to the past four, highly relevant,
years in freedom of assembly.

"In terms of the scope and the goal of
the paper I think it can be strengthened by really showing 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. So it can be the
relevance of the paper is to strengthen the examples and tie them to what is
actually protected under international human rights law and what is not and to
also really present a disclaimer that this is not a finalized discussion. Where
there's really more awareness and more guidelines for and conclusions for
people working on the internet architecture that are maintaining this super
important digital infrastructure that we know to continue assembling and
convening in digital time so thank you thank you."

"networking protocols" rather implies protocols relating to the network stack. If the actual scope is larger than that, consider changing to "Internet communications/connections protocols" or similar.

draft-terminology: Paul Hoffman's recent DNS terminology RFC explicitly deprecates use of master/slave.

From the HRPC 110 meeting:

Action: Present up front the scope as IHRL, not national laws.

Dear, hrpc,

Thanks so much for all this work!

I was think that it might be interesting to add more concrete categories to the 'Online Violence' section, as a way to further explain it. Listing, for example, these categories:

• Online harassment:

** cyberstalking
** identity theft,
** Threats and intimidating messages
** Repeated unwanted calls and messages
** Defamation
** Extorsion

• Online sexual harassment:

** Non-consensual pornography
** Sexual extortion
** Sexual defamation
** Dissemination of images or videos of sexual assaults
** Grooming
** Child pornography

Mac address randomization could be added/mentioned after "This is why Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6 have been introduced."

Change "Does it downgrade gracefully?" to "Does it have downgrade/fallback mechanisms?"

Fix "that is would be"

draft-terminology: Include a reference to the ISC tweet: https://twitter.com/ISCdotORG/status/943152507211071489?s=20

Update M. Knodel's contact info for CDT

From the HRPC 110 meeting:

Action: definitions and distinction early in the draft for FAA.

"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."

Thank you very much for making this effort, and also for your persistent work on it. We concentrated our comments on the file draft-feminism.md and have attached an annotated version with additional comments. Just to remind you, the comments were discussed and prepared by a group of people gathered at Networks with an attitude, a worksession organised by Constant in April 2019.

Draft commented: 2f01eca#diff-0e54507b7351e55d580bc6fd23625b42

• Probably due to the fact that many people have worked on this document at different moments, it feels that the different elements are disconnected. We tried to make some proposals, but it would be good to re-edit because the document will gain in strength by a better flow.
• We wondered about the audience of this document; it feels there are multiple tones and modes of address. We understand that you are possibly navigating between different communities, but at the moment it is making the text difficult to read.
• We propose to use 'women*' (with star) and add a definition that explains the non-essentialist understanding of the category. (We have made a proposal below)
• The document gives the impression that the authors are outsider commentators, i.e. not part of the development of technical infrastructure. The text would benefit from assuming a clearer standpoint from within the space of technology.
• In general, the document could emphasize more on the way feminist technical work has already had and is having an impact, for example in the history section.
• At several moments, the document seems to assume women do not have technical knowledge by arguing for 'simplification' for example. We think it is especially important in this document to not re-confirm this normative understanding, and to make sure "women*" and "technologies" are not again relegated to separate domains. Some examples:

"The digital gender gap has relegated women and other marginalized groups to be internet users, adding content for the benefit of the platform itself but without a deep understanding of how these platforms work. Promoting transparency {{RFC8280}} and simplifying technical terminology is necessary to bridge this gap" [if you need to speak about simplification, it seems important to signal that this benefits all agents involved in technology, including technologists and not just women*]

"Where women and queer people have traditionally been marginalized, their participation in the internet is rejected through different forms of violence by other users, as well as institutions, platforms and governments. But the effects of these violences, which are nothing more than extensions of the traditional violence that these groups and individuals face in social life, increase to the extent that there is not enough technical knowledge to neutralize them" [again, re-enforcing the impression that 'women and queer people' have a lack of technical knowledge as a general characteristics. Of course knowledge-building can be important for specific groups that feel they lack it, but do not assume it is not already there]

"this document highlights where gender and security related terminology occurs in both technical standards and feminist discourse and distinguish between the two in a meaningful way, in order to find a common understanding of concepts, which allows both the technical and feminist communities ..." [these communities do intersect, so assuming they are disconnected support the status quo that the text is criticizing]

• We think it is important that you bring up the relation between on-line and offline practice, but for now it is not always so clear how you see this interaction. Maybe add an explicit reference?
• We felt the highway-metaphor in the intersectionality chapter is problematic. It brings intersectionality back to some form of flow regulation which is not helpful, it recalls Marchall McLuhan's allegory of the future virtual world which we feel is outdated and man-made. We think the metaphor can be cut or otherwise it will be more useful to reference a figure or concept developed by a female*/lgbtqi+/non-white/not-capitalist author?
• We are glad to see that the paragraph on intersectionality starts the document, and also that it is much better than the version we discussed at Networks with an Attitude in April. We are wondering though how the intersectional lense can be read more clearly through the rest of the text. It might be good to check who you include/exclude when you refer to those that are experiencing a lack of feminism in internet protocols. At the moment, we found many different groupings, some more clearly intersectional than others: 'women and non-binary people', 'women and marginalised people', 'women and queer people', 'specific, traditionally discriminated groups', 'women and other gender identities traditionally marginalized from public life and social acceptance', 'non binary people' ... etc.
• We noticed that the glossary is at this point mainly containing technical terms, but it might be necessary to expand it with terms such as:
  • Global South [how about specifying location not in relation to others but crediting at least the names of the countries but maybe better to credit the contributors of the research that is being referred to?]
  • Woman [For example: By 'women' we mean people that identify as female]
  • Intersectionality
  • Queer
  • Marginalization
  • Difference
  • Female
  • Consent
  • ...

Additional annotations: draft-feminism_comments.txt

Referring to these as 'content' might be more reaching/of larger scope

Fix "develop a artistic"

• explicitly note what part of RFC 8280 the guidelines is updating
• add missing explanations where necessary
• address attribution question

"In a worst-case scenario, protocols that leak information can lead to physical danger"
Add "through protocols and practices that enable cross-referencing and tracking of users".

"through information leakage in protocols."
Add ", monitoring and identification."

"present several examples"
Edit to "presents"

From the HRPC 110 meeting:

Action: Get Sandra or another reviewer to suggest language for a concluding
paragraph that points to additional research questions related to national
laws.

"as described below"
Change "below" with "in section 3.3" for clarity.

Change "If IETF wants the Internet to be a global network of networks" to "Keeping in mind the (IETF's) goal of the Internet being a global network of networks" or similar.

Thank you very much for making this effort, and also for your persistent work on it. We concentrated our comments on the file draft-feminism.md and have attached an annotated version with additional comments. Just to remind you, the comments were discussed and prepared by a group of people gathered at Networks with an attitude, a worksession organised by Constant in April 2019.

Probably due to the fact that many people have worked on this document at different moments, it feels that the different elements are disconnected. We tried to make some proposals, but it would be good to re-edit because the document will gain in strength by a better flow.

We wondered about the audience of this document; it feels there are multiple tones and modes of address. We understand that you are possibly navigating between different communities, but at the moment it is making the text difficult to read.

We propose to use 'women*' and add a definition that explains the non-essentialist understanding of the category. (We have made a proposal below)

The document gives the impression that the authors are outsider commentators, i.e. not part of the development of technical infrastructure. The text would benefit from assuming a clearer standpoint from within the space of technology.

In general, the document could emphasize more on the way feminist technical work has already had and is having an impact, for example in the history section.

At several moments, the document seems to assume women do not have technical knowledge by arguing for 'simplification' for example. We think it is especially important in this document to not re-confirm this normative understanding and to make sure "women*" and "technologies" are not again relegated to separate domains. Some examples:
"The digital gender gap has relegated women and other marginalized groups to be internet users, adding content for the benefit of the platform itself but without a deep understanding of how these platforms work. Promoting transparency {{RFC8280}} and simplifying technical terminology is necessary to bridge this gap" [if you need to speak about simplification, it seems important to signal that this benefits all agents involved in technology, including technologists and not just women*]
"Where women and queer people have traditionally been marginalized, their participation in the internet is rejected through different forms of violence by other users, as well as institutions, platforms, and governments. But the effects of these violences, which are nothing more than extensions of the traditional violence that these groups and individuals face in social life, increase to the extent that there is not enough technical knowledge to neutralize them" [again, re-enforcing the impression that 'women and queer people' have a lack of technical knowledge as a general characteristics. Of course, knowledge-building can be important for specific groups that feel they lack it, but do not assume it is not already there]
"this document highlights where gender and security-related terminology occurs in both technical standards and feminist discourse and distinguish between the two in a meaningful way, in order to find a common understanding of concepts, which allows both the technical and feminist communities ..." [these communities do intersect, so assuming they are disconnected support the status quo that the text is criticizing]

We think it is important that you bring up the relation between online and offline practice, but for now, it is not always so clear how you see this interaction. Maybe add an explicit reference?

We felt the highway-metaphor in the intersectionality chapter is problematic. It brings intersectionality back to some form of flow regulation which is not helpful, it recalls Marchall McLuhan's allegory of the future virtual world which we feel is outdated and man-made. We think the metaphor can be cut or otherwise it will be more useful to reference a figure or concept developed by a female*/lgbtqi+/non-white/not-capitalist author?

We are glad to see that the paragraph on intersectionality starts the document, and also that it is much better than the version we discussed at Networks with an Attitude in April. We are wondering though how the intersectional lens can be read more clearly through the rest of the text. It might be good to check who you include/exclude when you refer to those that are experiencing a lack of feminism in internet protocols. At the moment, we found many different groupings, some more clearly intersectional than others: 'women and non-binary people', 'women and marginalised people', 'women and queer people', 'specific, traditionally discriminated groups', 'women and other gender identities traditionally marginalized from public life and social acceptance', 'non binary people' ... etc.

We noticed that the glossary is at this point mainly containing technical terms, but it might be necessary to expand it with terms such as:
Global South [how about specifying location not in relation to others but crediting at least the names of the countries but maybe better to credit the contributors of the research that is being referred to?]
Woman [For example: By 'women' we mean people that identify as female]
Intersectionality
Queer
Marginalization
Difference
Female
Consent
...

Fix "help gain the review gain"