[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01

Network Working Group                                          J. Guerra
Internet-Draft                                        Derechos Digitales
Intended status: Informational                                 M. Knodel
Expires: September 12, 2019                                   ARTICLE 19
                                                          March 11, 2019


                         Feminism and protocols
                        draft-guerra-feminism-00

Abstract

   This document aims to describe how internet standrds and protocols
   and its implementations may impact diverse groups and communities.
   The research on how some protocol can be enabler for specific human
   rights while possibly restricting others has been documented in
   [RFC8280].  Similar to how RFC 8280 has taken a human rights lens
   through which to view engineering and design choices by internet
   standardisation, this document addreses the opportunities and
   vulnerabilities embedded within internet protocols for specific,
   traditionally maginalised groups.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 12, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents



Guerra & Knodel        Expires September 12, 2019               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                  Feminism                      March 2019


   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Feminism and protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.2.  Intersectional feminism and diversity . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.3.  Brief history of feminism and the internet  . . . . . . .   3
     1.4.  2. Expression as a framework of understanding . . . . . .   4
       1.4.1.  2.1. Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       1.4.2.  2.2. Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     1.5.  3. Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       1.5.1.  3.1. Access to information  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       1.5.2.  3.2. Usage of technology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     1.6.  4. Economy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       1.6.1.  4.1. Free and open source . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       1.6.2.  4.2. Power and centralisation . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     1.7.  5. Networked  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       1.7.1.  5.1. Freedom of assocation  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       1.7.2.  5.2. Internet governance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     1.8.  6. Embodiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       1.8.1.  6.1. Online violence  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       1.8.2.  6.2. Consent  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       1.8.3.  6.3. Anonymity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       1.8.4.  6.4. Privacy and data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       1.8.5.  6.5. Memory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   2.  References not yet referenced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   3.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   5.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

1.  Feminism and protocols

1.1.  1.  Introduction

   The experiences and learnings of the feminist movement in the digital
   age have extrapolated feminist discourse towards building a more just
   world to invisioning a more just internet, namely one that recognizes
   differences across a variety of lived experience and identity.  The
   framework that is used to analyse and research internet protocols and
   standards through a feminist lens is a document called The Feminist
   Principles of the Internet.  In a series of 17 statements, drafted,
   redrafted and revised by hundreds of activists, the Principles offer



Guerra & Knodel        Expires September 12, 2019               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                  Feminism                      March 2019


   a "gender and sexual rights lens on critical internet-related rights"
   for the purpose of enabling women's rights movements to explore
   issues related to internet technology.  Likewise, this is an attempt
   to bring a conversation on the intersection of feminism and internet
   technology into the technical community.

   Attempts have been made to highlight where terminology occurs in both
   technical standards and feminist discourse and distinguish between
   the two in a meaningful way.  A concept like 'security', for example,
   has differing contextual meanings in internet engineering and
   feminism.  Coming to a shared understanding of concepts and
   terminology is one goal of this document.  With a better
   understanding of concepts and terms, together the technical and
   feminist communities can attempt to recognize and discuss how the
   technical decisions with regard to internet infraestructure,
   standards and protocols, directly or indirectly may affect internet
   users around the world.

   The Principles, like this document, are not designed as a set of
   rules or recommendations, but as an articulation of key issues with
   feminist policies and approaches, in order to begin to investigate.
   They express the kind of internet that feminists would like to have,
   and with whom to collaborate and imagine.

1.2.  Intersectional feminism and diversity

   Why feminism and not gender?  The gender and sexual rights lens on
   critical internet-related rights has been built bottom up by the
   feminist movement.  Feminism treats most prominently people who are
   negatively discriminated against on the basis of their gender and
   sexuality, but not exclusively.  Because the threats to women and
   queer people, whose bodies and manifestations are already under
   strong, albeit sometimes invisible, social, cultural and political
   surveillance, a critical feminist analysis also applies to other
   marginalised groups.  Aiming to use a feminist framework to analyse
   the impacts of internet protocols on society assumes that values are
   inherent to technological design.  What follows are specifics of how
   those values can either support or create barriers for gender justice
   and equity for internet users.

1.3.  Brief history of feminism and the internet

   It is significant to highlight the ways in which feminists have
   understood, used and mobilised on the internet.  Given myriad
   expressions of feminism online and feminist movement building online,
   one thread is perhaps instructive to this exercise.  More about the
   nature of the complex community that created the Feminist Principles
   of the Internet can be found at feministinternet.org.



Guerra & Knodel        Expires September 12, 2019               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                  Feminism                      March 2019


1.4.  2.  Expression as a framework of understanding

   With the popularization of the internet, the freedom of expression of
   both women and other gender identities traditionally marginalized
   from public life and social acceptance (whom we will refer to as
   queer) has been greatly enhanced.  In contexts where women do not
   have their rights fully guaranteed, or where sexual and gender
   diversity are socially condemned, the Web has served to meet,
   organize and resist.

   By adding content in formats like text, audio and video, these groups
   have been able to connect with each other, as well as open spaces for
   discussion and visibility of topics that previously seemed vetoed.
   The web has become a space for activism, reclamation and protest
   against injustice and gender inequality.  It has allowed the
   construction of international networks of solidarity, support and
   mobilization, and with this, the strengthening of feminism and other
   movements that fight for equal rights and for a fair recognition of
   difference.

   The political expression of gender has not been limited to voices,
   but has made use of the body and its representation.  However, the
   use of body as a form of political expression on the internet implies
   a series of risks and vulnerabilities for the people involved in
   these movements, especially if they do not understand how internet
   technology works.  In this sense, it is important to recognize that
   freedom of expression on the internet, and in general its use, is
   determined by gender, along with other social, economic, political
   and cultural conditions.

   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, and
   this is the case of most people who struggle for the recognition of
   their gender difference.

   These "use cases" must be known within the IETF, in order to join
   efforts for the elimination of online gender-based violence, which
   today seems to be a rule in digital environments.  In order to
   identify ways and strategies to contribute to this purpose, we review
   below the ways in which both _safety_ and _gender_ have been
   approached in IETF rfcs and drafts.  The following sections consist
   of a preliminary analysis of the terms used in the IETF drafts and
   RFCs archive.



Guerra & Knodel        Expires September 12, 2019               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                  Feminism                      March 2019


   By filtering from specific terms, the analysis consists of
   identifying patterns and regularities in the contexts in which these
   terms are used.  For example, if they are used as an example in "use
   cases" or if they are part of a technical explanation, and if they
   are normally accompanied by other terms.  The analysis presented is
   only an initial revision that must be completed and synthesized.

1.4.1.  2.1.  Safety

   For the last years, there has been criticism of the way in which
   digital security accompaniments, advice and training are developed
   for people who are not directly involved in the development of
   information technology.  It is worth mentioning that digital
   security, unlike cybersecurity, is more geared towards internet users
   [Comninos].  Some of these criticisms refer to the fact that the
   approach to digital security is centred on tools and not on usage
   practices, and "attacks", "adversaries" or "enemies" in a generic
   way, without recognising the specific contexts in which different
   information protection needs are generated.

   Given the common incidents suffered by women and queer people, from a
   gender perspective it has been preferred to use the term _safety_ to
   recognize their main need to be able to inhabit digital environments
   without being the target of attacks such as trolling, harassment,
   stalking, threats, non-consensual dissemination of intimate images,
   among others.  When speaking of _safety_ rather than _security_,
   their participation is recognized as users at the most surface level,
   not as administrators, developers or generators of computer
   knowledge.  In recent years, feminist infrastructure projects have
   begun to appear while the inclusion of women in developers
   communities has been promoted.  However, today there is still a huge
   gender gap in the technical and political development of the
   internet.

   In [RFC4949] _safety_ is defined as "the property of a system being
   free from risk of causing harm (especially physical harm) to its
   system entities", which is compared to _security_ as the "system
   condition in which system resources are free from unauthorized access
   and from unauthorized or accidental change, destruction, or loss".
   But _safety_ has traditionally, especially in the early years of the
   IETF, been referred to human activities [RFC1244], [RFC2122],
   [RFC2310] and human rights [RFC1746], [RFC1941], [RFC3694].

1.4.2.  2.2.  Gender

   As IETF is centered on "identifying, and proposing solutions to,
   pressing operational and technical problems in the Internet" and as
   according to the Tao of the IETF, "we believe in rough consensus and



Guerra & Knodel        Expires September 12, 2019               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                  Feminism                      March 2019


   running code", it is not supposed to concentrate on the particular
   characteristics of internet users, but on the proper functioning of
   the systems [Tao].  In addition, due to the characteristics of the
   type of technologies that are designed in the IETF, many times the
   the "use cases" or implementations refer to the way in which
   companies arrange the infrastructure for their clients, not
   necessarily to the way internet users interact with that
   infrastructure.

   In this sense, it seems not within the mandate of the IETF to imagine
   the particular needs of users' gender, race or ethnicity.  However,
   in the drafts and RFCs archive there appear subjects with gender as
   well as supposedly universal entities that sometimes represent
   concrete functions of the systems, and other times the voluntary
   actions of the operators.  As a first step in imagining possible
   gender considerations when designing internet protocols, below is a
   very brief description of how gender appears in IETF documents.  This
   is also a very preliminary analysis, which could later be
   complimented and added to the search for entities with cultural and
   phenotypic characteristics that could make them vulnerable on the
   internet.

1.5.  3.  Access

   Internet access is recognized as a human right [UNGA], but its
   effective guarantee depends on different and unequal social,
   cultural, economic and political conditions.  In 2018, barely half of
   the world's population has access to the internet and in 88% of
   countries, men have more access than women [ITU].  Geographical
   location, age, educational and income level, as well as gender,
   significantly determine how people access to the internet
   [WebFoundation].

   The Feminist Principles of the Internet [FPI] enphasizes that access
   must be to a universal, acceptable, affordable, unconditional, open,
   meaningful and equal internet, which guarantees rights rather than
   restricts them.  As some bodies have always been subject to social
   and cultural surveillance and violence because of their gender and
   sexuallity, their access to internet is not satisfied with connected
   devices, but with safety and useful digital enviroments [SmKee].

   In this sense, access must be considered in several dimensions, in
   addition to internet access as a possibility of being connected:








Guerra & Knodel        Expires September 12, 2019               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                  Feminism                      March 2019


1.5.1.  3.1.  Access to information

   Information in one's own language is the first condition, as pointed
   out with the cencept of 'Localization' [RFC8280], referred to the act
   of tailoring an application for a different language, script, or
   culture, and involves not only changing the language interaction but
   also other relevant changes, such as display of numbers, dates,
   currency, and so on.

   But it is also necessary to be able to access relevant information,
   related for example to sexual and reproductive health and rights,
   pleasure, safe abortion, access to justice, and LGBTIQ issues.  Some
   goverments and ISPs block pages with this content or monitor online
   activity by sexual and gender related terminology.  Therefore the
   considerations for anticensorship internet infrastructure
   technologies also consider, and can possibly alleviate, a gendered
   component to using the internet.

1.5.2.  3.2.  Usage of technology

   Beyond content, access implies the possibility to use, which means
   code, design, adapt and critically and sustainably use ICTs.  As
   almost 75% of connected individuals are placed in the Global South
   [WhoseKnowledge], technology is developped mainly in rich countries
   where student quotas and jobs are filled mainly by men.

   The concept of 'Internationalization' [RFC6365] refers to the
   practice of making protocols, standards, and implementations usable
   in different languages.  This is a first step to democratize the
   development of technology, allowing its implementation in non-
   English-speaking countries.

   However, there is still a long way to go in terms of inclusion of
   more diverse populations in the spaces of technology development and
   definition of protocoles and standards for the internet
   infrastructure [RFC7704].  The presence of gendered subjects in the
   IETF RFCs and drafts archive demonstrates stereotyped male and
   feminine roles.  On the other hand, the generalized mention of agents
   - as universal subjects - in those documents, ignores the existence
   of other corporealities, which includes non binary identities or with
   a marked physical difference.

   Building and engineering critical internet technology is a component
   of 'usage'.  There are challenge the cultures of sexism and
   discrimination in all spaces, some of which can be found in existing
   RFCs.





Guerra & Knodel        Expires September 12, 2019               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                  Feminism                      March 2019


1.6.  4.  Economy

1.6.1.  4.1.  Free and open source

   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.  This requires
   shared terminology upon which technology is created to enable
   experimentation and values exchange.  Not only that, but documenting,
   promoting, disseminating, and sharing knowledge about technology is
   at the heart of the long-standing free software community's ethos.
   This aligns with a feminist approach to technology.

   Given the established community of "free software", it is important
   to note that freedom is not freedom for everyone, always.  It is
   important to identify different dimensions of freedom and how it is
   expressed in different contexts.

1.6.2.  4.2.  Power and centralisation

   A feminist approach to technology requires a strong critique of
   capitalist power, centralisation of services and the logic of
   vertical integration while holding nuance for the tensions between
   trust, reliability and diversity.  Centralisation of services is a
   current discussion in the IETF that should be informed by feminist
   critique of capitalist structures [Arkko].

1.7.  5.  Networked

1.7.1.  5.1.  Freedom of assocation

   Given the shrinking of civic space offline, the internet provides a
   global public space, albeit one that relies on private infrastructure
   [tenOever].  For social causes that push for equality, it is
   therefore critical that the internet be maintained as a space for
   alignment, protest, dissent and escape.  In the scope of this
   document, this is a call to maintain and enable the creation of
   spaces for sustained feminist movement building.  Elements of freedom
   of assocation as explained in the UDHR include individual and
   collective rights to privacy and anonymity, as discussed in more
   detail below.  At the same time, the internet provides new and novel
   ways for communities to come together across borders and without
   limits of geolocation.  However this positive aspect of internet
   communications is threatened by centralised systems of control and
   cooptation, specifically surveillance and other online repression.




Guerra & Knodel        Expires September 12, 2019               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                  Feminism                      March 2019


   Association of system architectures is a concept that overlaps neatly
   with the ideals of real-world associations of organisations and
   communities.  "The ultimate model of P2P is a completely
   decentralized system, which is more resistant to speech regulation,
   immune to single points of failure and have a higher performance and
   scalability [tenOever]."

1.7.2.  5.2.  Internet governance

   While there is no agreement regarding the ability of the internet to
   negatively or positively impact on social behaviors, or shape
   desirable practices [RFC8280], more women and diverse populations'
   participation in technical development and decision-making spaces
   will lead to greater possibilities for ICTs to reflect greater
   inclusiveness and enable less risky and harmful interactions
   [RFC7704].

   It is critical for groups who represent civil society interests,
   social change and the larger public interest to challenge processes
   and institutions that govern the internet.  This requires the
   inclusion of more feminists and queers at the decision-making table,
   which can be achieved through democratic policy making.  Greater
   effect will be possible through diffuse ownership of and power in
   global and local networks.

1.8.  6.  Embodiment

   Most of the threats women and non binary people face on line, occur
   on the user levels of application and content.  Most adversaries are
   other users, but also include institutions, platforms and
   governments.

   For a long time, perhaps since the internet became popular, its use
   ceased to be a functional matter and became emotional.  The access to
   chat rooms to connected with people at huge distances, the
   possibility of having personal e-mails, the appearance of social
   networks to share music, photos and then video, determined not only
   the social use of a new tool but also the configuration of digital
   sensitivities, understood by some as sensory extensions of the body.

   The internet connections embedded have also meant a radical
   transformation in the way people access the internet.  Much more,
   considering that today most internet connections, especially in the
   global south, are mobile connections.  People build their own public
   digital identities, use private communications to disseminate
   information, explore their sexuality in text, image and video, share
   their initmity with others.  In internet-connected devices, it has




Guerra & Knodel        Expires September 12, 2019               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                  Feminism                      March 2019


   become much easier for leisure and work to mix, which implies
   different risks for users.

   Sharing personal information, and often sensitive data, through
   platforms that are synchronized with email accounts and other
   platforms where information considered non-sensitive is published,
   implies losing control over such information.  Much more, considering
   that each platform hosts the information of its users according to
   their own terms and conditions in the treatment of data.  For women
   and other groups marginalized by race or gender, these risks are
   greater.

   Just as the internet connection can be considered an extension of the
   body, social problems such as discrimination and exclusion have been
   projected into the digital environment- sometimes intensified,
   sometimes reconfigured.  And once again, women, queers, racialized
   people are the most vulnerable.  Most of the threats they face on
   line, occur in the user level.  Most of their "adversaries" are other
   users, who also act at the user level, with technical or social
   skills that threaten participation and expressions.  Institutions,
   platforms and governments who are adversarial have great advantage.

   At this point, what level of autonomy do these people have as
   internet users?

1.8.1.  6.1.  Online violence

   The security considerations to counter online violence are critical.
   There is opportunity in a connected world for those who would
   perpetuate violence against women and other marginalised groups
   through the use of internet-enabled technologies, from the home to
   the prison.

   Privacy is a critical component of security for populations at risk.
   The control of information is linked to privacy.  Where some would
   like privacy in order to live privately, others need privacy in order
   to access information and circumvent censorship and surveillance.
   The protection of privacy is critical for those at risk to prevent
   vicimisation through extortion, doxxing, and myriad other threats.
   Lack of privacy leads to risks such as stalking, monitoring and
   persistent harrassment.

   While making public otherwise private details about a person can
   consitute a form of abuse, the converse is also a risk: Being erased
   from society or having one's online identity controlled by another is
   a form of control and manipulation.  Censorship, misinformation and
   coersion may consitute violence online.  Other forms of non-
   consensual manipulation of online content includes platform "real



Guerra & Knodel        Expires September 12, 2019              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                  Feminism                      March 2019


   name policies", sharing of intimate images and sexual abuse,
   spreading false accusations, flamming and other tactics.

   Key to mitigating these threats is the element of consent.

1.8.2.  6.2.  Consent

   Some elements of consent online include but are not limited to the
   following list of issues, which should be elaborated on:

   -  Data protection * Exposure of personal data

   -  Culture, design, policies and terms of service of internet
      platforms

   -  Agency lies in informed decisions * Real name policies

   -  Public versus private information * Dissemination of personal or
      intimate information * Exposure of intimacy * Unauthorized use of
      photos

1.8.3.  6.3.  Anonymity

   While anonymity is never just about technical issues but users
   protection activities, it becomes more necessary to strenghten the
   design and functionality of networks, by default.  There are several
   considerations for internet infrastructure related to enabling
   anonymity for online users.  This is particularly important for
   marginalised groups and can be ennumerated, and expanded upon,
   thusly:

   -  Right to anonymity

   -  Enables other rights like freedom of expression * Censorship *
      Defamation, descredit * Affectations to expression channels

   -  Breaking social taboos and heteronormativity * Hate Speech,
      discriminatory expressions

   -  Discrimination and safety from discrimination

1.8.4.  6.4.  Privacy and data

   While mentioned at the intersection of previous issues outlined
   above, this section is particularly critical for women, queers and
   marginalised populations who are already at greater risk of control
   and surveillance:




Guerra & Knodel        Expires September 12, 2019              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                  Feminism                      March 2019


   -  Right to privacy

   -  Data protection

   -  Profit models

   -  Surveillance and patriarchy by states, individuals, private
      sector, etc.  Those that enable surveillance, eg spouseware.

1.8.5.  6.5.  Memory

   One's consent and control of the information that is available to
   them and about them online is a key aspect of being a fully empowered
   individual and community in the digital age.  There are several
   considerations that deserve deeper inspection, such as:

   -  Right to be forgotten

   -  Control over personal history and memory on the internet

   -  Access all our personal data and information online

   -  Delete forever

2.  References not yet referenced

   In plain sight, on sexuality, rights and the internet in India, Nepal
   and Sri Lanka https://www.genderit.org/articles/plain-sight-
   sexuality-rights-and-internet-india-nepal-and-sri-lanka

   Human Rights and Internet Protocols: Comparing Processes and
   Principles https://www.apc.org/sites/default/files/
   ISSUE_human_rights_2.pdf

   Principles of Unity for Infraestructuras Feministas
   https://pad.kefir.red/p/infraestucturas-feministas Feminist

   Principles of the Internet https://feministinternet.org The UX Guide
   to Getting Consent https://iapp.org/resources/article/the-ux-guide-
   to-getting-consent

   From steel to skin https://fermentos.kefir.red/english/aco-pele
   Responsible Data https://responsibledata.io

   Impact for what and for whom?  Digital technologies and feminist
   movement building internet https://www.genderit.org/feminist-talk/
   impact-what-and-whom-digital-technologies-and-feminist-movement-
   building



Guerra & Knodel        Expires September 12, 2019              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                  Feminism                      March 2019


   Design Justice https://docs.google.com/presentation/
   d/1J3ZWBgxe0QFQ8OmUr-QzE6Be8k_sI7XF0VWu4wfMIVM/
   edit#slide=id.gcad8d6cb9_0_198

   Design Action Collective Points of Unity
   https://designaction.org/about/points-of-unity

   CODING RIGHTS; INTERNETLAB.  Violencias de genero na internet:
   diagnostico, solucoes e desafios.  Contribuicao conjunta do Brasil
   para a relatora especial da ONU sobre violencia contra a mulher.  Sao
   Paulo, 2017. https://www.codingrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/
   Relatorio_ViolenciaGenero_v061.pdf

   Barrera, L. y Rodriguez, C.  La violencia en linea contra las mujeres
   en Mexico.  Informe para la Relatora sobre Violencia contra las
   Mujeres Ms. Dubravka Šimonović. 2017.
   https://luchadoras.mx/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/
   Informe_ViolenciaEnLineaMexico_InternetEsNuestra.pdf

   Sephard, N.  Big Data and Sexual Surveillance.  APC issue papers.
   2016. https://www.apc.org/sites/default/files/
   BigDataSexualSurveillance_0_0.pdf

3.  Security Considerations

   As this document concerns a research document, there are no security
   considerations.

4.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.

5.  Informative References

   [Arkko]    Arkko, J., "Considerations on Internet Consolidation and
              the Internet Architecture.", 2018,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/
              draft-arkko-iab-internet-consolidation>.

   [Comninos]
              Alex Comninos, ., "A cyber security Agenda for civil
              society: What is at stake?", 2013,
              <https://www.apc.org/sites/default/files/
              PRINT_ISSUE_Cyberseguridad_EN.pdf>.

   [FPI]      Association for Progressive Communications, "The Feminist
              Principles of the Internet", n.d.,
              <https://feministinternet.org>.



Guerra & Knodel        Expires September 12, 2019              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                  Feminism                      March 2019


   [ITU]      International Telecommunications Union (ITU),
              "Statisctics. Global, Regional and Country ICT Data.",
              2018, <https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/stat/
              default.aspx>.

   [RFC1244]  Holbrook, J. and J. Reynolds, "Site Security Handbook",
              RFC 1244, DOI 10.17487/RFC1244, July 1991,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1244>.

   [RFC1746]  Manning, B. and D. Perkins, "Ways to Define User
              Expectations", RFC 1746, DOI 10.17487/RFC1746, December
              1994, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1746>.

   [RFC1941]  Sellers, J. and J. Robichaux, "Frequently Asked Questions
              for Schools", FYI 22, RFC 1941, DOI 10.17487/RFC1941, May
              1996, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1941>.

   [RFC2122]  Mavrakis, D., Layec, H., and K. Kartmann, "VEMMI URL
              Specification", RFC 2122, DOI 10.17487/RFC2122, March
              1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2122>.

   [RFC2310]  Holtman, K., "The Safe Response Header Field", RFC 2310,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2310, April 1998,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2310>.

   [RFC3694]  Danley, M., Mulligan, D., Morris, J., and J. Peterson,
              "Threat Analysis of the Geopriv Protocol", RFC 3694,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3694, February 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3694>.

   [RFC4949]  Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2",
              FYI 36, RFC 4949, DOI 10.17487/RFC4949, August 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4949>.

   [RFC6365]  Hoffman, P. and J. Klensin, "Terminology Used in
              Internationalization in the IETF", BCP 166, RFC 6365,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6365, September 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6365>.

   [RFC7704]  Crocker, D. and N. Clark, "An IETF with Much Diversity and
              Professional Conduct", RFC 7704, DOI 10.17487/RFC7704,
              November 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7704>.

   [RFC8280]  ten Oever, N. and C. Cath, "Research into Human Rights
              Protocol Considerations", RFC 8280, DOI 10.17487/RFC8280,
              October 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8280>.





Guerra & Knodel        Expires September 12, 2019              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                  Feminism                      March 2019


   [SmKee]    Jac Sm Kee, ., "Imagine a Feminist Internet.", 2018,
              <http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41301-017-0137-2>.

   [Tao]      Internet Engineering Task Force, "The Tao of the IETF.",
              n.d., <https://www.ietf.org/about/participate/tao>.

   [tenOever]
              ten Oever, N., "Freedom of Association on the Internet",
              n.d., <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/
              draft-tenoever-hrpc-association-05.txt>.

   [UNGA]     United Nations General Assembly, "The promotion,
              protection and enjoyment of human rights on the
              Internet.", 2012, <https://documents-dds-
              ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/G12/147/10/PDF/
              G1214710.pdf?OpenElement>.

   [WebFoundation]
              Web Foundation, "Advancing Women's Rights Online: Gaps and
              Opportunities in Policy and Research.", 2018,
              <http://webfoundation.org/docs/2018/08/Advancing-Womens-
              Rights-Online_Gaps-and-Opportunities-in-Policy-and-
              Research.pdf>.

   [WhoseKnowledge]
              Whose Knowledge, "Decolonizing the Internet, Summary
              Report.", 2018, <https://whoseknowledge.org/wp-
              content/uploads/2018/10/DTI-2018-Summary-Report.pdf>.

Authors' Addresses

   Juliana Guerra
   Derechos Digitales

   EMail: juliana@derechosdigitales.org


   Mallory Knodel
   ARTICLE 19

   EMail: mallory@article19.org










Guerra & Knodel        Expires September 12, 2019              [Page 15]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/