[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 draft-irtf-hrpc-association

Human Rights Protocol Considerations Research Group         N. ten Oever
Internet-Draft                                                ARTICLE 19
Intended status: Informational                          G. Perez de Acha
Expires: December 24, 2017                            Derechos Digitales
                                                           June 22, 2017


                 Freedom of Association on the Internet
                   draft-tenoever-hrpc-association-01

Abstract

   This document aims to scope the relation between Internet protocols
   and the rights to freedom of assembly and association.  The Internet
   increasingly mediates our lives and our ability to excercise human
   rights.  Since Internet protocols play a central role in the
   management, development and use of the Internet, the relation between
   the mentioned rights should be documented and adverse impacts should
   be mitigated.  As there have been methods of protest on the Internet
   -a form of freedom of assembly- that have proven to be harmful to
   connectivity and infrastructure, such as DDoS attacks, this text aims
   to document forms of protest, association and assembly that do not
   have a negative impact on the Internet infrastructure.

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 http://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 December 24, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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



ten Oever & Perez de AchExpires December 24, 2017               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                     FoA                         June 2017


   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   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.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Vocabulary used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Research questions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Cases and examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  Communicating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.1.1.  Mailinglists  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.1.2.  Multi party video conferencing and risks  . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  Peer-to-peer networks and systems . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       4.2.1.  Peer-to-peer system achitectures  . . . . . . . . . .   7
       4.2.2.  Version control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.3.  Reaching out  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.3.1.  Spam, filter bubbles, and unrequested messaging . . .   9
       4.3.2.  Distributed Denial of Service Attacks . . . . . . . .  10
     4.4.  Grouping together (identities)  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       4.4.1.  DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       4.4.2.  ISPs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   9.  Research Group Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     10.1.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     10.2.  URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17

1.  Introduction

   Freedom of assembly and freedom of association are two human rights
   that protect and enable collective action and expression [UDHR]
   [ICCPR].  Both rights ensure everyone in a society has the
   opportunity to express the opinions they hold in common with others,
   which in turn facilitates dialogue among citizens, as well as between
   them and political leaders or government [OSCE].  This is important
   in the process of democratic delibration because causes and opinions
   are more widely heard when a group of people come together behind the
   same cause or issue [Tocqueville].  The rights to freedom of assembly
   and association thus protect any collective, gathered either



ten Oever & Perez de AchExpires December 24, 2017               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                     FoA                         June 2017


   permanently or temporarily for peaceful purposes.  It is indeed a
   "freedom" because it is voluntary and uncoerced: anyone can join or
   leave a group of choice, which in turn means not to be forced to
   either stay or leave.

   The difference between freedom of assembly and freedom of association
   is merely gradual one: the former tends to have an informal and
   ephemeral nature, whereas the latter refers to established and
   permanent bodies with specific objectives.  Nonetheless, one and the
   other are protected to the same degree.

   An assembly is an intentional and temporary gathering of a collective
   in a private or public space for a specific purpose: demonstrations,
   inside meetings, strikes, processions, rallies or even sits-in
   [UNHRC].  It is essentially a gathering.  The right to protest is
   encompassed by this right, and it coincides with the right to freedom
   of expression and the right to hold an opinion.  Nonetheless protest,
   unlike assembly, involves an element of dissent that can be exercised
   individually whereas assembly always has a collective component
   [ARTICLE19].  Association on the other hand has a more formal and
   established nature.  It refers to a group of individuals or legal
   entities brought together in order to collectively act, express,
   pursue or defend a field of common interests [UNGA].  Within this
   category we can think about civil society organizations, clubs,
   cooperatives, NGOs, religious associations, political parties, trade
   unions or foundations.

   Rights to assembly and association are crucial for the Internet, even
   if privacy and freedom of expression are the most discussed human
   rights when it comes to the online world.  It is undeniable that
   communities, collaboration and joint action lie at the heart of the
   Internet.  Even at at linguistical level, the words "networks" and
   "associations" are close synonyms.  Both interconnected groups and
   assemblies of people depend on "links" and "relationships" [Swire].
   One could even argue that as a whole, the networked internet
   constitutes a big collective, and thus an assembly and an
   association.

   IETF itself, defined as a 'open global community' of network
   designers, operators, vendors, and researchers, is also protected by
   freedom of assembly and association [RFC3233].  Discussions, comments
   and consensus around RFCs are possible because of the collective
   expression that freedom of association and assembly allow.  The very
   word "protocol" found its way into the language of computer
   networking based on the need for collective agreement among network
   users [HafnerandLyon].





ten Oever & Perez de AchExpires December 24, 2017               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                     FoA                         June 2017


   In less democratic or authoritarian countries, online association and
   assembly have been crucial to mobilise groups and people where
   physical gatherings have been impossible or dangerous [APC].
   Throughout the world -from the Arab Spring to Latin American student
   movements- the Internet has also played a crucial role by providing a
   means for the fast dissemination of information that was otherwise
   mediated by broadcast media, or even forbidden by the government
   [Pensado].  According to Hussain and Howard the Internet helped to
   'build solidarity networks and identification of collective
   identities and goals', facilitate protest, 'extend the range of local
   coverage to international broadcast networks' and as platform for
   contestation for the future of 'the future of civil society and
   information infrastructure' [HussainHoward].

   Some of these examples go beyond the use of Internet protocols and
   flow over into the applications layer or examples in the offline
   world whereas the purpose of the following document is to break down
   the relationship between Internet protocols and the right to freedom
   of assembly and association.  We do recognize however that in some
   cases the line between protocols, applications, implementations,
   policies, and the offline world are often blurry and hard (if not
   impossible) to differentiate, since protocols are a part of the
   socio-technical ordering of the world.

   In draft-irtf-hrpc-research the relationship between human rights and
   Internet protocols has been shown, and guidelines for considerations
   of human rights impact in protocol design have been provided.
   Further research is needed to understand the exact impact of Internet
   protocols on human rights, including assembly and association given
   their importance for the Internet, in order to mitigate (potential)
   negative impacts.  This is the aim of this document.

2.  Vocabulary used

   Anonymity  The condition of an identity being unknown or concealed.
      [RFC4949]

   Censorship resistance  Methods and measures to mitigate Internet
      censorship.

   Connectivity  The extent to which a device or network is able to
      reach other devices or networks to exchange data.  The Internet is
      the tool for providing global connectivity [RFC1958].  Different
      types of connectivity are further specified in [RFC4084].  The
      combination of the end-to-end principle, interoperability,
      distributed architecture, resilience, reliability and robustness
      are the enabling factors that result in connectivity to and on the
      Internet.



ten Oever & Perez de AchExpires December 24, 2017               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                     FoA                         June 2017


   Decentralization  Implementation or deployment of standards,
      protocols or systems without one single point of control.

   Pseudonymity  The ability to disguise one's identity online with a
      different name than the "real" one, allowing for diverse degrees
      of disguised identity and privacy.  It is strengthened when less
      personal data can be linked to the pseudonym; when the same
      pseudonym is used less often and across fewer contexts; and when
      independently chosen pseudonyms are more frequently used for new
      actions (making them, from an observer's or attacker's
      perspective, unlinkable)."  [RFC6973]

3.  Research questions

   How does the internet architecture enables and/or inhibits freedom of
   association and assembly.

4.  Cases and examples

   Whereas rights to freedom of assembly and association protect
   collective expression, systems and protocols than enable comunal
   communication between people or between servers allow these rights to
   prosper.  The Internet itself was originally designed as "a medium
   for communication for machines that share resources with each other
   as equals" [NelsonHedlun].  In this sense, decentralized
   architectures that protect anonimity and privacy, assure a resilient
   network of speakers and recipients or receivers and thus ensure
   better conditions for the exercise of such freedoms in the online
   environment.  At the same time, centralized solutions have enabled
   people to group together in recognizable places and helped the
   visbility of groups.  Here we will discuss different cases to bring
   out the affordances of different protocols, technologies and
   architectual features.  This issue is particularly timely since an
   increasing trend of centralization and consolidation on the Internet
   can be observed.  This is trend can be parallely observed on the
   application level, among Content Distribution Networks, hosting
   providers, as well as Internet access providers.  Through the
   discussion of specific case we will try to further understand how
   this impact freedom of assembly, freedom of association as well as
   the distributed nature of the Internet [RFC1287].

4.1.  Communicating

   The ability to produce, receive and spread information is an
   essential pre-requisite for discussing and organizing.  Protocols
   that enable private, open, collaborative and non-excluding
   communication models are the best fitted to foster and enable
   assembly and association rights.



ten Oever & Perez de AchExpires December 24, 2017               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                     FoA                         June 2017


4.1.1.  Mailinglists

   Since the beginning of the Internet mailing lists have been a key
   site of assembly and association [RFC0155] [RFC1211].  In fact,
   mailing lists were one of the Internet's first functionalities
   [HafnerandLyon].

   In 1971, four years after the invention of email, the first mailing
   list was created to talk about the idea of using Arpanet for
   discussion.  By this time, what had initially propelled the Arpanet
   project forward as a resource sharing platform was gradually replaced
   by the idea of a network as a means of bringing people together
   [Abbate].  More than 45 years after, mailing lists are pervasive and
   help communities to engage, have discussion, share information, ask
   questions, and build ties.  Even as social media and discussion
   forums grew, mailing lists continue to be widely used
   [AckermannKargerZhang].  They are a crucial tool to organise groups
   and individuals around themes and causes [APC].

4.1.2.  Multi party video conferencing and risks

   Multi party video conferencing protocols such as webRTC [RFC6176]
   [RFC7118] allow for robust, bandwidth-adaptive, wideband and super-
   wideband video and audio discussions in groups.  'The WebRTC protocol
   was designed to enable responsive real-time communications over the
   Internet, and is instrumental in allowing streaming video and
   conferencing applications to run in the browser.  In order to easily
   facilitate direct connections between computers (bypassing the need
   for a central server to act as a gatekeeper), WebRTC provides
   functionality to automatically collect the local and public IP
   addresses of Internet users (ICE or STUN).  These functions do not
   require consent from the user, and can be instantiated by sites that
   a user visits without their awareness.  The potential privacy
   implications of this aspect of WebRTC are well documented, and
   certain browsers have provided options to limit its behavior.'
   [AndersonGuarnieri].

   'The disclosure of network addresses presents a specific risk to
   individuals that use privacy tools to conceal their real IP address
   to sites that they visit.  Typically, when a user browses the
   Internet over a VPN, the only address that should be recorded by
   sites they visit would be that of the VPN provider itself.  Using the
   WebRTC STUN function allows a site to additionally enumerate the
   addresses that are associated with the computer that the visitor is
   using - rather than those of intermediaries.  This means that if a
   user is browsing the Internet on an ADSL connection over a VPN, a
   malicious site they visit could potentially surreptitious record the
   home address of the user.'  [AndersonGuarnieri].



ten Oever & Perez de AchExpires December 24, 2017               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                     FoA                         June 2017


   While facilitating freedom of assembly and association multi party
   video conferencing tools might pose concrete risks for those who use
   them.  One the one hand webRTC is providing a resilient channels of
   communications, but on the other hand it also exposed information
   about those who are using the tool which might lead to increased
   surveillance, identification and the consequences that might be
   derived from that.  The risk of surveillance is also true in an
   offline space, but this is generally easy to analyze for the end-
   user.  Security and privacy expectations of the end-user could be
   made more clear to the user (or improved) which would result in a
   more secure and/or private excercise or the right of freedom of
   assembly or association.

4.2.  Peer-to-peer networks and systems

4.2.1.  Peer-to-peer system achitectures

   Peer-to-peer (P2P) is esentially a model of how people interact in
   real life because "we deal directly with one another whenever we wish
   to" [Vu].  Usually if we need something we ask our peers, who in turn
   refer us to other peers.  In this sense, the ideal definition of P2P
   is that "nodes are able to directly exchange resources and services
   between themselves without the need for centralized servers" and
   where each participating node typically acts both as a server and as
   a client [Vu].  In RFC 5694 it has been defined that peers or nodes
   should be able to communicate directly between themselves without
   passing intermediaries, and that the system should be self organizing
   and have decentralized control [RFC5694].  With this in mind, the
   ultimate model of P2P is a completely decentralized system, which is
   more resistant to censorship, immune to single points of failure and
   have a higher performance and scalability.  Nonetheless, in practice
   some P2P systems are supported by centralized servers and some others
   have hybrid models where nodes are organized into two layers: the
   upper tier servers and the lower tier common nodes [Vu].

   Since the ARPANET project, the original idea behind the Internet was
   conceived as what we would now call a peer-to-peer system [RFC0001].
   Over time it has increasingly shifted towards a client/server model
   with "millions of consumer clients communicating with a relatively
   priviledged set of servers" [NelsonHedlun].  Whether for resource
   sharing or data sharing, P2P systems are a form of enabling freedom
   of assembly and association.  Not only they allow for effective
   dissemination of information, but they also because leverage
   computing resources by diminishing costs allowing for the formation
   of open collectives at the network level.  At the same time, in
   completely descentralized systems the nodes are autonomous and can
   join or leave the network as they want also makes the system
   unpredicable: a resource might be only sometimes available, and some



ten Oever & Perez de AchExpires December 24, 2017               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                     FoA                         June 2017


   others it might be missing or incomplete [Vu].  Lack of information
   might in turn make association or assembly more difficult.

   Additionally, when one architecturally asseses the role of P2P
   systems on can say that: "The main advantage of centralized P2P
   systems is that they are able to provide a quick and reliable
   resource locating.  Their limitation, however, is that the
   scalability of the systems is affected by the use of servers.  While
   decentralized P2P systems are better than centralized P2P systems in
   this aspect, they require a longer time in resource locating.  As a
   result, hybrid P2P systems have been introduced to take ad- vantages
   of both centralized and decentralized architectures.  Basically, to
   maintain the scalability, similar to decentralized P2P systems, there
   are no servers in hybrid P2P systems.  However, peer nodes that are
   more powerful than others can be se- lected to act as servers to
   serve others.  These nodes are often called super peers.  In this
   way, resource locating can be done by both decentralized search
   techniques and centralized search techniques (asking super peers),
   and hence the systems benefit from the search techniques of
   centralized P2P systems." {Vu}}

4.2.2.  Version control

   At the organizational level, peer production is one of the most
   relevant innovations from Internet mediated social practices.
   According to [Benkler], it implies 'open collaborative innovation and
   creation, performed by diverse, decentralized groups organized
   principally by neither price signals nor organizational hierarchy,
   harnessing heterogeneous motivations, and governed and managed based
   on principles other than the residual authority of ownership
   implemented through contract.'  [Benkler].

   In his book The Wealth of Networks, Benkler significantly expands on
   his definition of commons-based peer production.  According to
   Benkler, what distinguishes commons-based production is that it
   doesn't rely upon or propagate proprietary knowledge: "The inputs and
   outputs of the process are shared, freely or conditionally, in an
   institutional form that leaves them equally available for all to use
   as they choose at their individual discretion."  To ensure that the
   knowledge generated is available for free use, commons-based projects
   are often shared under an open license.

   Ever since developers needed to collaboratively write, maintain and
   discuss large code basis for the Internet there have been different
   approaches of doing so.  One approach is discussing code through
   mailing lists, but this has proven to be hard in case of maintaining
   the most recent versions.  There are many different versions and
   characteristics of version control systems.



ten Oever & Perez de AchExpires December 24, 2017               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                     FoA                         June 2017


4.3.  Reaching out

4.3.1.  Spam, filter bubbles, and unrequested messaging

   In the 1990s as the internet became more and more commercial, spam
   came to be defined as irrelevant or unsolicited messages that were
   porsted many times to multiple news groups or mailing lists [Marcus].
   Here the question of consent is crucial.  In the 2000s a large part
   of the discussion revolved around the fact that certain corporations
   -protected by the right to freedom of association- considered spam to
   be a form of "comercial speech", thus encompassed by free expression
   rights [Marcus].  Nonetheless, if we consider that the rights to
   assembly and association also mean that "no one may be compelled to
   belong to an association" [UDHR], spam infringes both rights if an
   op-out mechanism is not provided and people are obliged to receive
   unwanted information, or be reached by people they do not know.

   This leaves us with an interesting case: spam is currently handled
   mostly by mailproviders on behalf of the user, next to that countries
   are increasingly adopting opt-in regimes for mailinglists and
   commercial e-mail, with a possibility of serious fines in case of
   violation.

   This protects the user from being confronted with unwanted messages,
   but it also makes it legally and technically very difficult to
   communicate a message to someone who did not explicitly ask for this.
   In public offline spaces we regularly get exposed to flyers,
   invitations or demonstrations where our opinions get challenged, or
   we are invited to consider different viewpoints.  There is no
   equivalent on the Internet with the technical and legal regime that
   currently operates in it.  In other words, it is nearly impossible to
   provide information, in a proportionate manner, that someone is not
   explicility expecting or asking for.  This reinforces a concept that
   is regularly discussed on the application level, called 'filter
   bubble': "The proponents of personalization offer a vision of a
   custom-tailored world, every facet of which fits us perfectly.  It's
   a cozy place, populated by our favorite people and things and ideas."
   [Pariser].  "The filter bubble's costs are both personal and
   cultural.  There are direct consequences for those of us who use
   personalized filters.  And then there are societal consequences,
   which emerge when masses of people begin to live a filter bubbled-
   life (...).  Left to their own devices, personalization filters serve
   up a kind of invisible autopropaganda, indoctrinating us with our own
   ideas, amplifying our desire for things that are familiar and leaving
   us oblivious to the dangers lurking in the dark territory of the
   uknown."  [Pariser].  It seem that the 'filter bubble'-effect can
   also be observed at the infrastructure level, which actually




ten Oever & Perez de AchExpires December 24, 2017               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                     FoA                         June 2017


   strenghtens the impact and thus hampers the effect of collective
   expression.

   This could be interpretated as an argument for the injection of
   unrequested messages, spam or other unrequested notifications.  But
   the big difference between the proliferation of such messages offline
   and online is the investment that is needed.  It is not hard for a
   single person to message a lot of people, whereas if that person
   needed to go house by house the scale and impact of their actions
   would be much smaller.

4.3.2.  Distributed Denial of Service Attacks

   One of the most common examples of association at the infrastructure
   level are Distributed Denial of Service Attacks (DDoS) in which the
   infrastructure of the Internet is used to express discontent with a
   specific cause [Abibil] [GreenMovement].  Unfortunately DDoS are
   often used to stifle freedom of expression as they complicate the
   ability of independent media and human rights organizations to
   exercise their right to (online) freedom of association, while
   facilitating the ability of governments to censor dissent.  This is
   one of the reasons protocols should seek to mitigate DDoS attacks
   [BCP72].  As described in draft-irtf-hrpc-research: "Uses of DDoS
   might or might not be legitimate for political reasons, but the IETF
   has no means or methods to assess this, and in general enabling DDoS
   would mean a deterioration of the network and thus freedom of
   expression".  This is argued from the vector of freedom of
   expression, but if we would analyze it from the perspective of
   freedom of association the argument could be as follows: If the
   Internet is an association, any attack should be prevented and
   mitigated because it prevents the possibility of exercising a right
   to collective expression, which is consistent with [BCP72].

   On the other hand, it must be taken into consideration that DDoS
   attacks are a form of forced assembly when done without the agreement
   -or even knowledge- of the involved parts.  This point was also
   described in draft-irtf-hrpc-research: "When it comes to comparing
   DDoS attacks to protests in offline life, it is important to remember
   that only a limited number of DDoS attacks involved solely willing
   participants.  In most cases, the clients are hacked computers of
   unrelated parties that have not consented to being part of a DDoS
   (for exceptions see Operation Abibil [Abibil] or the Iranian Green
   Movement DDoS [GreenMovement]).""








ten Oever & Perez de AchExpires December 24, 2017              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                     FoA                         June 2017


4.4.  Grouping together (identities)

   Collective identities are also protected by freedom of association
   and assembly rights.  Acording to Melucci these are 'shared
   definitions produced by several interacting individuals who are
   concerned with the orientation of their action as well as the field
   of opportunities and constraints in which their action takes place.'
   [Melucci] In this sense, assemblies and associations are an important
   base in the maintenance and development of culture, as well as
   preservation of minority identities [OSCE].

4.4.1.  DNS

   Domain names allow hosts to be identified by human parsable
   information.  Whereas an IP address might not be the expression of an
   identity, a domain name can be, and often is.  On the other hand the
   grouping of a certain identity under a specific domain, or even a Top
   Level Domain, also brings about risks because connecting an identity
   to a hierarchically structured identifier systems also bring risks
   about.  Risks could be surveillance of the services running on the
   domain, domain based censorship, or impersonation of the domain
   through DNS cache poisoning.  Several technologies have been
   developed in the IETF to mitigated these risks such as DNS over TLS
   [RFC7858], DNSSEC, and TLS.

   The structuring of DNS as a hierarchical authority structure also
   brings about specific characteristic, namely the possibility of
   centralized policy making on the management and operation of domain
   names, which is what (in part) happens at ICANN.  The impact of ICANN
   processes on human rights will not be discussed here.

4.4.2.  ISPs

   In order for edge-users to connect to the Internet, a user needs to
   be connected to a network.  This means that in the process of
   accessing the Internet the edge-user needs to accept the policies and
   practices of the edge network that provides them access to the other
   networks.  This means that in order to users to be able to join the
   assembly of a 'network of networks', they always need to connect
   through an intermediary.

   While access the Internet through an intermediary, the user is forced
   to accept the policies, practices and principles of a network.  This
   could impede the rights of the edge-user, depending on the
   implemented policies and practices on the network and how (if at all)
   they are communicated to the end-user.  In terms of rights infringing
   habits one could think of filtering, blocking, extensive logging or




ten Oever & Perez de AchExpires December 24, 2017              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                     FoA                         June 2017


   other invasive practices that are not clearly communicated to the
   user.

   In some cases it also means that there is no other way for the edge-
   user to connect to the network of networks, and is thus forced into
   accepting the policies of a specific network, because it is not
   trivial for an edge-user to operate its own Autonomous System.  This
   design, combined with the increased importance of the Internet to
   make use of basic services, forces edge-user to engage in association
   with a specific network eventhough the user does not consent with the
   policies of the network.

5.  Conclusions

   -  Internet has impact for on the ability for people to excercise
      their right to freedom of association and assembly.

   -  The Internet itself is a form of an associtation and assembly, and
      should thus be protected.

   -  To get access to the Internet one could argued on is caught in a
      forced assembly with the access network.

   -  It need to be further researched which level of the network is
      responsible for these impacts, and considerations could be
      developed for this.

6.  Acknowledgements

7.  Security Considerations

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

8.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.

9.  Research Group Information

   The discussion list for the IRTF Human Rights Protocol Considerations
   Research Group is located at the e-mail address hrpc@ietf.org [1].
   Information on the group and information on how to subscribe to the
   list is at https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc

   Archives of the list can be found at: https://www.irtf.org/mail-
   archive/web/hrpc/current/index.html




ten Oever & Perez de AchExpires December 24, 2017              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                     FoA                         June 2017


10.  References

10.1.  Informative References

   [Abbate]   Janet Abbate, ., "Inventing the Internet", Cambridge: MIT
              Press (2013): 11. , 2013, <https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/
              inventing-internet>.

   [Abibil]   Danchev, D., "Dissecting 'Operation Ababil' - an OSINT
              Analysis", 2012, <http://ddanchev.blogspot.be/2012/09/
              dissecting-operation-ababil-osint.html>.

   [AckermannKargerZhang]
              Ackerman, M., Karger, D., and A. Zhang, "Mailing Lists:
              Why Are They Still Here, What's Wrong With Them, and How
              Can We Fix Them?", Mit. edu (2017): 1. , 2017,
              <https://people.csail.mit.edu/axz/papers/
              mailinglists.pdf>.

   [AndersonGuarnieri]
              Anderson, C. and C. Guarnieri, "Fictitious Profiles and
              webRTC's Privacy Leaks Used to Identify Iranian
              Activists", 2016,
              <https://iranthreats.github.io/resources/webrtc-
              deanonymization/>.

   [APC]      Association for Progressive Communications and . Gayathry
              Venkiteswaran, "Freedom of assembly and association online
              in India, Malaysia and Pakistan. Trends, challenges and
              recommendations.", 2016,
              <https://www.apc.org/es/system/files/
              FOAA_online_IndiaMalaysiaPakistan.pdf>.

   [ARTICLE19]
              ARTICLE 19, "The Right to Protest Principles: Background
              Paper", 2016,
              <https://www.article19.org/data/files/medialibrary/38581/
              Protest-Background-paper-Final-April-2016.pdf page 7>.

   [BCP72]    IETF, "Guidelines for Writing RFC Text on Security
              Considerations", 2003, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/
              bcp72/>.

   [Benkler]  Benkler, Y., "Peer Production and Cooperation", 2009,
              <http://www.benkler.org/
              Peer%20production%20and%20cooperation%2009.pdf>.





ten Oever & Perez de AchExpires December 24, 2017              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                     FoA                         June 2017


   [GreenMovement]
              Villeneuve, N., "Iran DDoS", 2009,
              <https://www.nartv.org/2009/06/16/iran-ddos/>.

   [HafnerandLyon]
              Hafnerand, K. and M. Lyon, "Where Wizards Stay Up Late.
              The Origins of the Internet", First Touchstone Edition
              (1998): 93. , 1998, <https://doi.org/10.1111/misr.12020>.

   [HussainHoward]
              Hussain, M. and P. Howard, "What Best Explains Successful
              Protest Cascades? ICTs and the Fuzzy Causes of the Arab
              Spring", Int Stud Rev (2013) 15 (1): 48-66. , 2013,
              <https://doi.org/10.1111/misr.12020>.

   [ICCPR]    United Nations General Assembly, "International Covenant
              on Civil and Political Rights", 1976,
              <http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/
              CCPR.aspx>.

   [Marcus]   Marcus, J., "Commercial Speech on the Internet: Spam and
              the first amendment", 1998, <http://www.cardozoaelj.com/
              wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Marcus.pdf>.

   [Melucci]  Melucci, A., "The Process of Collective Identity", Temple
              University Press, Philadelphia , 1995.

   [NelsonHedlun]
              Minar, N. and M. Hedlun, "A Network of Peers: Models
              Through the History of the Internet", Peer to Peer:
              Harnessing the Power of Disruptive Technologies, ed: Andy
              Oram , 2001, <http://library.uniteddiversity.coop/REconomy
              _Resource_Pack/More_Inspirational_Videos_and_Useful_Info/
              Peer_to_Peer-
              Harnessing_the_Power_of_Disruptive_Technologies.pdf>.

   [OSCE]     OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights,
              "Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly", page 24 ,
              2010, <https://www.osce.org/odihr/73405?download=true>.

   [Pariser]  Pariser, E., "The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized
              Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think", Peguin
              Books, London. , 2012.

   [Pensado]  Jaime Pensado, ., "Student Activism. Utopian Dreams.",
              ReVista. Harvard Review of Latin America (2012). , 2012,
              <http://revista.drclas.harvard.edu/book/student-activism>.




ten Oever & Perez de AchExpires December 24, 2017              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                     FoA                         June 2017


   [RFC0001]  Crocker, S., "Host Software", RFC 1, DOI 10.17487/RFC0001,
              April 1969, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1>.

   [RFC0155]  North, J., "ARPA Network mailing lists", RFC 155,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC0155, May 1971,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc155>.

   [RFC1211]  Westine, A. and J. Postel, "Problems with the maintenance
              of large mailing lists", RFC 1211, DOI 10.17487/RFC1211,
              March 1991, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1211>.

   [RFC1287]  Clark, D., Chapin, L., Cerf, V., Braden, R., and R. Hobby,
              "Towards the Future Internet Architecture", RFC 1287,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1287, December 1991,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1287>.

   [RFC1958]  Carpenter, B., Ed., "Architectural Principles of the
              Internet", RFC 1958, DOI 10.17487/RFC1958, June 1996,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1958>.

   [RFC3233]  Hoffman, P. and S. Bradner, "Defining the IETF", BCP 58,
              RFC 3233, DOI 10.17487/RFC3233, February 2002,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3233>.

   [RFC4084]  Klensin, J., "Terminology for Describing Internet
              Connectivity", BCP 104, RFC 4084, DOI 10.17487/RFC4084,
              May 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4084>.

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

   [RFC5694]  Camarillo, G., Ed. and IAB, "Peer-to-Peer (P2P)
              Architecture: Definition, Taxonomies, Examples, and
              Applicability", RFC 5694, DOI 10.17487/RFC5694, November
              2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5694>.

   [RFC6176]  Turner, S. and T. Polk, "Prohibiting Secure Sockets Layer
              (SSL) Version 2.0", RFC 6176, DOI 10.17487/RFC6176, March
              2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6176>.

   [RFC6973]  Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,
              Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy
              Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6973, July 2013,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6973>.





ten Oever & Perez de AchExpires December 24, 2017              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                     FoA                         June 2017


   [RFC7118]  Baz Castillo, I., Millan Villegas, J., and V. Pascual,
              "The WebSocket Protocol as a Transport for the Session
              Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 7118,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7118, January 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7118>.

   [RFC7858]  Hu, Z., Zhu, L., Heidemann, J., Mankin, A., Wessels, D.,
              and P. Hoffman, "Specification for DNS over Transport
              Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 7858, DOI 10.17487/RFC7858, May
              2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7858>.

   [Swire]    Peter Swire, ., "Social Networks, Privacy, and Freedom of
              Association: Data Empowerment vs. Data Protection", North
              Carolina Law Review (2012) 90 (1): 104. , 2012,
              <https://ssrn.com/abstract=1989516 or
              http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1989516>.

   [Tocqueville]
              de Tocqueville, A., "Democracy in America", n.d., <http://
              classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/De_tocqueville_alexis/
              democracy_in_america_historical_critical_ed/
              democracy_in_america_vol_2.pdf p. 304>.

   [UDHR]     United Nations General Assembly, "The Universal
              Declaration of Human Rights", 1948,
              <http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/>.

   [UNGA]     Hina Jilani, ., "Human rights defenders", A/59/401 , 2004,
              <http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/
              view_doc.asp?symbol=A/59/401 para. 46>.

   [UNHRC]    Maina Kiai, ., "Report of the Special Rapporteur on the
              rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of
              association", A/HRC/20/27 , 2012,
              <http://freeassembly.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/
              A-HRC-20-27_en-annual-report-May-2012.pdf>.

   [Vu]       Vu, Quang Hieu, ., Lupu, Mihai, ., and . Ooi, Beng Chin,
              "Peer-to-Peer Computing: Principles and Applications",
              2010, <https://www.springer.com/cn/book/9783642035135>.

10.2.  URIs

   [1] mailto:hrpc@ietf.org







ten Oever & Perez de AchExpires December 24, 2017              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                     FoA                         June 2017


Authors' Addresses

   Niels ten Oever
   ARTICLE 19

   EMail: niels@article19.org


   Gisela Perez de Acha
   Derechos Digitales

   EMail: gisela@derechosdigitales.org







































ten Oever & Perez de AchExpires December 24, 2017              [Page 17]


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