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

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

Human Rights Protocol Considerations Research Group         N. ten Oever
Internet-Draft                                                ARTICLE 19
Intended status: Informational                               A. Sullivan
Expires: April 25, 2018                                           Oracle
                                                         A. Andersdotter
                                                              ARTICLE 19
                                                        October 22, 2017


                      On the Politics of Standards
                    draft-tenoever-hrpc-political-02

Abstract

   This document aims to outline different views on the relation between
   protocols and politics and seeks to answer the question whether
   protocols are political.

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 April 25, 2018.

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
   (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




ten Oever, et al.        Expires April 25, 2018                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                   politix                    October 2017


   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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Literature and Positions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Technology is value neutral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.2.  Some protocols are political some times . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.3.  The network has its own logic and values  . . . . . . . .   4
     3.4.  Protocols are inherently political  . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Examples and approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Competition and collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  More legacy, more politics? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  Layers of politics  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   8.  How voluntary are open standards? . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   9.  The need for a positioning  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   10. The way forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   13. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   14. Research Group Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   15. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     15.1.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     15.2.  URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Introduction

    "we shape our tools and thereafter they shape us"

                             -John Culkin

   The design of the Internet through protocols and standards is a
   technical issue with great political and economic impacts [RFC0613].
   The early Internet community already realized that it needed to make
   decisions on political issues such as Intellectual Property,
   Internationzalization [BramanI], diversity, access [RFC0101] privacy
   and security [RFC0049], and the military [RFC0164] [RFC0316],
   governmental [RFC0144] [RFC0286] [RFC0313] [RFC0542] [RFC0549] and
   non-governmental [RFC0196] uses, which has been clearly pointed out
   by Braman [BramanII].

   Recently there has been an increased discussion on the relation
   between Internet protocols and human rights [hrpc] which spurred the
   discussion on the political nature of protocols.  The network
   infrastructure is on the one hand designed, described, developed,



ten Oever, et al.        Expires April 25, 2018                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                   politix                    October 2017


   standardized and implemented by the Internet community, but the
   Internet community and Internet users are also shaped by the
   affordances of the technology.  Companies, citizens, governments,
   standards developing bodies, public opinion and public interest
   groups all play a part in these discussions.  In this document we aim
   to outline different views on the relation between protocols and
   politics and seek to answer the question whether protocols are
   political, and if so, how.

2.  Vocabulary Used

   Politics  (from Greek: Politika: Politika, definition "affairs of the
      commons") is the process of making decisions applying to all
      members of a group.  More narrowly, it refers to achieving and
      exercising positions of governance or organized control over a
      community.  Furthermore, politics is the study or practice of the
      distribution of power and resources within a given community as
      well as the interrelationship(s) between communities. (adapted
      from )

3.  Literature and Positions

   While discussion the impact of protocols on human rights different
   positions could be differentiated.  Without judging them on their
   internal of external consistency they are represented here.

3.1.  Technology is value neutral

   This position starts from the premise that the technical and poltical
   are differentiated fields and that technology is 'value free'.  This
   is also put more explicitly by Carey: "electronics is neither the
   arrival of apocalypse nor the dispensation of grace.  Technology is
   technology; it is a means for communication and transportation over
   space, and nothing more."  [Carey] In this view technology only
   become political when it is actually being used by humans.  So the
   technology itself is not political, the use of the technology is.
   This is view sees technology as instrument; "technologies are 'tools'
   standing ready to serve the purposes of their users.  Technology is
   deemed 'neutral,' without valuative content of its own.'" [Feenberg].
   Feenberg continues: "technology is not inherently good or bad, and
   can be used to whatever political or social ends desired by the
   person or institution in control.  Technology is a 'rational entity'
   and universally applicable.  One may make exceptions on moral
   grounds, but one must also understand that the "price for the
   achievement of environmental, ethical, or religious goals...is
   reduced efficiency."  [Feenberg]





ten Oever, et al.        Expires April 25, 2018                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                   politix                    October 2017


3.2.  Some protocols are political some times

   This stance is a pragmatic approach to the problem.  It states that
   some protocols under certain conditions can themselves have a
   political dimension.  This is different from the claim that a
   protocol might sometimes be used in a political way; that view is
   consistent with the idea of the technology being neutral (for the
   human action using the technology is where the politics lies).
   Instead, this position requires that each protocol and use be
   evaluated for its political dimension, in order to understand the
   extent to which it is political.

3.3.  The network has its own logic and values

   While humans create techologies, that does not mean that they are
   forever under human control.  A technology, once created, has its own
   logic that is independent of the human actors that either create or
   use the technology.

   Consider, for instance, the way that the very existence of the
   automobile imposes physical forms on the world different from those
   that come from the electric tram or the horse-cart.  The logic of the
   automobile means speed and the rapid covering of distance, which
   encourages suburban development and a tendency toward conurbation.
   But even if that did not happen, widespread automotobile use requires
   paved roads, and parking lots and structures.  These are pressures
   that come from the automotive technology itself, and would not arise
   without that technology.

   Certain kinds of technology shape the world in this sense.  As Martin
   Heidegger says, "The hydroelectric plant is not built into the Rhine
   River as was the old wooden bridge that joined bank with bank for
   hundreds of years.  Rather the river is dammed up into the power
   plant.  What the river is now, namely, a water power supplier,
   derives from out of the essence of the power station."  [Heidegger]
   (p 16) The dam in the river changes the world in a way the bridge
   does not, because the dam alters the nature of the river.

   In much same way, then, networking technology once created makes its
   own demands.  One of the most important conditions for protocol
   success is that the protocol is incremental deployability [RFC5218].
   This means that the network already deployed constrains what can be
   delployed into it.  Moreover, one interpretation of [RFC7258] is that
   pervasive monitoring is an "attack" in the narrow sense precisely
   because of the network's need not to leak traces of online exchanges.
   A different network with a different design might not have been
   subject to this kind of attack.




ten Oever, et al.        Expires April 25, 2018                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                   politix                    October 2017


3.4.  Protocols are inherently political

   On the other side of the spectrum there are the ones who insist that
   technology is non-neutral.  This is for instance made explicit by
   Postman where he writes: 'the uses made of technology are largely
   determined by the structure of the technology itself' [Postman].  He
   states that the medium itself 'contains an ideological bias'.  He
   continues to argue that technology is non-neutral:

   (1) because of the symbolic forms in which information is encoded,
   different media have different intellectual and emotional biases; (2)
   because of the accessibility and speed of their information,
   different media have different political biases; (3) because of their
   physical form, different media have different sensory biases; (4)
   because of the conditions in which we attend to them, different media
   have different social biases; (5) because of their technical and
   economic structure, different media have different content biases.
   [Postman]

   More recent scholars of Internet infrastructure and governance have
   also pointed out that Internet processes and protocols have become
   part and parcel of political processes and public policies: one only
   has to look at the IANA transition or global innovation policy for
   concrete examples [DeNardis].  Similarly one can look at the Raven
   process in which the IETF after a long discussion refused to
   standardize wiretapping (which resulted in [RFC2804].  That was an
   instance where the IETF took a position that was largely political,
   although driven by a technical argument.  It was similar to the
   process that led to [RFC6973], in which something that occurred in
   the political space (Snowden disclosures) engendered the IETF to act.
   This is summarized in [Abbate] who says: "protocols are politics by
   other means".  This emphasises the interests that are at play in the
   process of designing standards.  This position holds further that
   protocols can never be understood without their contextual
   embeddedness: protocols do not exist solely by themselves but always
   are to be understood in a more complex context - the stack, hardware,
   or nation-state interests and their impact on civil rights.  Finally,
   this view is that that protocols are political because they affect or
   sometimes effect the socio-technical ordering of reality.  The latter
   observation leads Winner to conclude that the reality of
   technological progress has too often been a scenario where the
   innovation has dictated change for society.  Those who had the power
   to introduce a new technology also had the power to create a consumer
   class to use the technology, 'with new practices, relationships, and
   identities supplanting the old, --and those who had the wherewithal
   to implement new technologies often molded society to match the needs
   of emerging technologies and organizations.'  [Winner].




ten Oever, et al.        Expires April 25, 2018                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                   politix                    October 2017


4.  Examples and approaches

5.  Competition and collaboration

   Standards exist for nearly everything: processes, technologies,
   safety, hiring, elections, and training.  Standards provide blue-
   prints for how to accomplish a particular task in a similar way to
   others trying to accomplish the same thing, while reducing overhead
   and inefficiencies.  Formal technical standardisation, then, is the
   process whereby the expected features or functionalities of a
   particular technology are codified in writing.  It is a way of
   ensuring that different technological systems can interoperate, or
   work in tandem and exchange functionality.

   A formalised standard does not stop competition between entities
   working to realise those standards in practical implementations of
   that technological base.  If the standard is well-crafted, it will
   even help entities cooperate and construct products and services on
   top of the commonly shared technological base.  In these
   circumstances, standardisation is seen as beneficient for competition
   in downstream markets, meaning those markets making used of the
   standardised technologies.  Standards have long been used as a tool
   to lay groundworks, a certain minimal commonality, that helps
   countries, companies or individuals cooperate to reach the next level
   of technological advancements more quickly.

   Standards may not only exist in the form of a formal document laid
   down by an organisation gathering many different parties of different
   backgrounds behind a single, converging process.  We also speak of de
   facto standards: the rules governing a technological base used by
   downstream market actors, such that, even if the rules have not been
   decided by many different entities they still constitute the
   effective boundary within which downstream innovation and development
   occurs.  De facto standards can arise in market situations where one
   entity is particularly dominant, and may or may not lead to technical
   difficulties in challenging the dominant entity's technological base
   [Ahlborn].  Under EU anti-trust law, de facto standards have been
   found to be able to restrict competition for downstream services for
   PC software products [CJEU2007], as well as downstream services
   dependent on health information [CJEU2004].  If such restrictions are
   found to apply, the resolution may entail obligations on the
   restrictive party to grant a license (if a failure to grant a license
   to the standard was the cause of the restriction) or arrange the
   technical solution in such a way that restrictions do not arise.

   Standards development faces a number of economic and organisational
   challenges that are well-studied: the cost and difficulty of
   organising many entities around a mutual goal, as well as the cost of



ten Oever, et al.        Expires April 25, 2018                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                   politix                    October 2017


   research and development leading up to a mutually beneficial
   technological platform.  The first problem may, on the one hand, be
   described as just the sheer organisational costs: how do you create
   platforms, especially global platforms, that are accessible in terms
   of price and time, when implementors affected by the standards
   produced may include any range of entities with different economic
   means and resources (in the specific context of the IETF some issues
   of this nature are considered in [draft-finance-thoughts] and its
   references, but challenges are clearly universal in nature).  It also
   incorporates the problem of too many cooks spoiling the broth: if the
   interests of a large number of entities need to converge around a
   single solution, by which mechnism does one mitigate the
   inconvenience of differing opinions or preferences between the
   parties reducing the over-all utility of the final compromise
   [xkcd927].

   The standards enabling interoperating networks, what we think of
   today as the Internet, were created as open, formal and voluntary
   standards.  With openness, we understand that the standards were
   available at no cost to anyone around the world.  Internet
   standardisation set itself apart from traditional standard bodies by
   not requiring implementors to pay a subscription fee to have access
   to the texts of codified standards.  A platform for internet
   standardisation, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), was
   created in 1992 to enable the continuation of such standardisation
   work.

   On the one hand, this enables anyone willing and able to fulfill any
   standard requirement produced in the IETF.  On the other hand, the
   costs and difficulties of organising many different entities in the
   standardisation process itself do not disappear only by making
   standards open and accessible to anyone seeking to implement them.

   The IETF has sought to make the standards process transparent (by
   ensuring everyone can access standards, mailing-lists and meetings),
   predictable (by having clear procedures and reviews) and of high
   quality (by having draft documents reviewed by members from its own
   epistemic community).  This is all aimed at increasing the
   accountability of the process and the quality of the standard.  The
   IETF implements what has been referred to as an "informal ex ante
   disclosure policy" for patents [Contreras], which includes the
   possibility for participants to disclose the existence of a patent
   relevant for the standard, royalty-terms which would apply to the
   implementors of that standard should it enter into effect, as well as
   other licensing terms that may be interesting for implementors to
   know.  The community ethos in the IETF seems to lead to 100% royalty-
   free disclosures of prior patents [Contreras] which is a record
   number, even among other comparable standard organisations.



ten Oever, et al.        Expires April 25, 2018                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                   politix                    October 2017


   In spite of a strong community ethos and transparent procedures, the
   IETF is not immune to externalities.  Sponsorship to the IETF is
   varied, but is also of the nature that ongoing projects that are in
   the specific interest of one or some group of corporations may be
   given more funding than other projects (see
   [draft-finance-thoughts]).

6.  More legacy, more politics?

   Roman engineers complained about inadequate legacy standards they
   needed to comply with, which hampered them in their engineering
   excellence.  In that sense not much has changed in the last 2100
   years.  When starting from a tabula rasa, one does not need to take
   other systems, layers or standards into account.  The need for
   interoperability, and backward compatability makes engineering work
   harder.  And once a standard is designed, it does not automatically
   means it will be broadly adopted at as fast pace.  Examples of this
   are IPv6, DNSSEC, DKIM, etc.  The need for interoperability means
   that a new protocol needs to take into account a much more diverse
   environment than early protocols, and also be amendable to different
   needs: protocols needs to relate and negotiate in a busy agora, as do
   the protocol developers.  This means that some might get priority,
   whereas others get dropped.  Thus with the

7.  Layers of politics

   There is a competition between layers, and even contestation about
   what the borders of different layers are.  This leads to competition
   between layers and different solutions for similar problems on
   different layers, which in its turn leads to further ossification,
   which leads to more contestation.

8.  How voluntary are open standards?

   Coordinating transnational stakeholders in a process of negotiation
   and agreement through the development of common rules is a form of
   global governance [Nadvi].  Standards are among the mechanisms by
   which this governance is achieved.  Conformance to certain standards
   is often a basic condition of participation in international trade
   and communication, so there are strong economic and political
   incentives to conform, even in the absence of legal requirements
   [Russell].  [RogersEden] argue: As unequal participants compete to
   define standards, technological compromises emerge, which add
   complexity to standards.  For instance, when working group
   participants propose competing solutions, it may be easier for them
   to agree on a standard that combines all the proposals rather than
   choosing any single proposal.  This shifts the responsibility for
   selecting a solution onto those who implement the standard, which can



ten Oever, et al.        Expires April 25, 2018                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                   politix                    October 2017


   lead to complex implementations that may not be interoperable.  On
   its face this appears to be a failure of the standardization process,
   but this outcome may benefit certain participants-- for example, by
   allowing an implementer with large market share to establish a de
   facto standard within the scope of the documented standard.

9.  The need for a positioning

   It is indisputable that the Internet plays an increasingly important
   role in the lives of individuals.  The community that procuces
   standards for the Internet therefore also has an increasing impact on
   society.  The IETF cannot ordain what standards are to be used on the
   networks, but it does set open standards for interoperarability on
   the Internet, and has does so since the inception of the Internet.
   Therefore the standardization process of the IETF has influence and
   power.  Because of the impact Internet standards have on society, the
   IETF should take into account the political aspects and implications
   of its work.

   The risk of not doing this is threefold: (1) the IETF might make
   decisions which have a political impact that was not intended by the
   community, (2) other bodies or entities might make the decisions for
   the IETF because the IETF does not have an explicit stance, (3) other
   bodies that do take these issues into account might increase in
   importance on behest of the influence of the IETF.

   This does not mean the IETF does not have a position on particular
   political issues.  The policies for open and diverse participation
   [RFC7704], the anti-harassment policy [RFC7776], as well as the
   Guidelines for Privacy Considerations [RFC6973] are testament of
   this.  But these are all examples of positions about the IETF's work
   processes or product.  What is absent is a way for IETF participants
   to evaluate their role with respect to the wider implications of that
   IETF work.

10.  The way forward

   There are instruments that can help the IETF develop an approach to
   address the politics of protocols.  Part of this can be found in
   draft-irtf-hrpc-research as well as the United National Guiding
   Principles for Business and Human Rights [UNGP].  But there is not a
   one-size-fits-all solution.  The IETF is a particular organization,
   with a particular mandate, and even if a policy is in place, its
   success depends on the implementation of the policy by the community.

   Since 'de facto standardization is reliant on market forces'
   [Hanseth] we need to live with the fact standards bodies have a
   political nature [Webster].  This does not need to be problematic as



ten Oever, et al.        Expires April 25, 2018                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                   politix                    October 2017


   long as there are sufficient accountability and transparency
   mecahnisms in place.  The importance of these mechanisms increases
   with the importance of the standards and their implementations.  The
   complexity of the work inscribes a requirement of competence in the
   work in the IETF, which forms an inherent barrier for end-user
   involvement.  Even though this might not be intentional, it is a
   result of the interplay between the characteristics of the epistemic
   community in the IETF and the nature of the standard setting process.

   Rather than arguing for the fairly general blanket statement that
   'standards are poltiical' [Winner] [Woolgar] we argue that we need to
   look at the politics of individual standards and invite document
   authorts and reviewers to take these dynamics into account.

11.  Security Considerations

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

12.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.

13.  Acknowledgements

14.  Research Group Information

   The discussion list for the IRTF Human Rights Protocol Considerations
   working 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

15.  References

15.1.  Informative References

   [Abbate]   Abbate, J., "Inventing the Internet", MIT Press , 2000,
              <https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/inventing-internet>.

   [Ahlborn]  Ahlborn, C., Denicolo, V., Geradin, D., and A. Padilla,
              "Implications of the Proposed Framework and Antitrust
              Rules for Dynamically Competitive Industries", DG Comp's
              Discussion Paper on Article 82, DG COMP, European
              Commission , 2006,
              <http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=T-201/04>.



ten Oever, et al.        Expires April 25, 2018                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                   politix                    October 2017


   [BramanI]  Braman, S., "Internationalization of the Internet by
              design: The first decade", Global Media and Communication,
              Vol 8, Issue 1, pp. 27 - 45 , 2012, <http://dx.doi.org.pro
              xy.uba.uva.nl:2048/10.1177%2F1742766511434731>.

   [BramanII]
              Braman, S., "The Framing Years: Policy Fundamentals in the
              Internet Design Process, 1969-1979", The Information
              Society Vol. 27, Issue 5, 2011 , 2010, <http://dx.doi.org.
              proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048/10.1080/01972243.2011.607027>.

   [Carey]    Carey, J., "Communication As Culture", p. 139 , 1992.

   [CJEU2004]
              Court of Justice of the European Union, .,
              "ECLI:EU:C:2004:257, C-418/01 IMS Health", Cambridge, UK:
              Cambridge University Press , 2004,
              <http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-418/01>.

   [CJEU2007]
              Court of Justice of the European Union, .,
              "ECLI:EU:T:2007:289, T-201/04 Microsoft Corp.", Cambridge,
              UK: Cambridge University Press , 2007,
              <http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=T-201/04>.

   [Contreras]
              Contreras, J., "Technical Standards and Ex Ante
              Disclosure: Results and Analysis of an Empirical Study",
              Jurimetrics: The Journal of Law, Science & Technology,
              vol. 53, p. 163-211 , 2013.

   [DeNardis]
              Denardis, L., "The Internet Design Tension between
              Surveillance and Security", IEEE Annals of the History of
              Computing (volume 37-2) , 2015, <http://is.gd/7GAnFy>.

   [draft-finance-thoughts]
              Arkko, J., "Thoughts on IETF Finance Arrangements", 2017,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-arkko-ietf-
              finance-thoughts>.

   [Feenberg]
              Feenberg, A., "Critical Theory of Technology", p.5-6 ,
              1991.







ten Oever, et al.        Expires April 25, 2018                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                   politix                    October 2017


   [Hanseth]  Hanseth, O. and E. Monteiro, "Insribing Behaviour in
              Information Infrastructure Standards", Accounting,
              Management and Infomation Technology 7 (14) p.183-211 ,
              1997.

   [Heidegger]
              Heidegger, M., "The Question Concerning Technology and
              Other Essays", Garland: New York, 1977 , 1977,
              <http://ssbothwell.com/documents/ebooksclub.org__The_Quest
              ion_Concerning_Technology_and_Other_Essays.pdf>.

   [hrpc]     ten Oever, N. and C. Cath, "Research into Human Rights
              Protocol Considerations", 2017,
              <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-hrpc-research-13>.

   [Nadvi]    Nadvi, K. and F. Waeltring, "Making sense of global
              standards", In: H. Schmitz (Ed.), Local enterprises in the
              global economy (pp. 53-94). Cheltenham, UK: Edward
              Elgar. , 2004.

   [Postman]  Postman, N., "Technopoly: the Surrender of Culture to
              Technology", Vintage: New York. pp. 3-20. , 1992.

   [RFC0049]  Meyer, E., "Conversations with S. Crocker (UCLA)", RFC 49,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC0049, April 1970, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc49>.

   [RFC0101]  Watson, R., "Notes on the Network Working Group meeting,
              Urbana, Illinois, February 17, 1971", RFC 101,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC0101, February 1971, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc101>.

   [RFC0144]  Shoshani, A., "Data sharing on computer networks",
              RFC 144, DOI 10.17487/RFC0144, April 1971,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc144>.

   [RFC0164]  Heafner, J., "Minutes of Network Working Group meeting,
              5/16 through 5/19/71", RFC 164, DOI 10.17487/RFC0164, May
              1971, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc164>.

   [RFC0196]  Watson, R., "Mail Box Protocol", RFC 196,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC0196, July 1971, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc196>.

   [RFC0286]  Forman, E., "Network Library Information System", RFC 286,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC0286, December 1971, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc286>.




ten Oever, et al.        Expires April 25, 2018                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                   politix                    October 2017


   [RFC0313]  O'Sullivan, T., "Computer based instruction", RFC 313,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC0313, March 1972, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc313>.

   [RFC0316]  McKay, D. and A. Mullery, "ARPA Network Data Management
              Working Group", RFC 316, DOI 10.17487/RFC0316, February
              1972, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc316>.

   [RFC0542]  Neigus, N., "File Transfer Protocol", RFC 542,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC0542, August 1973, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc542>.

   [RFC0549]  Michener, J., "Minutes of Network Graphics Group meeting,
              15-17 July 1973", RFC 549, DOI 10.17487/RFC0549, July
              1973, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc549>.

   [RFC0613]  McKenzie, A., "Network connectivity: A response to RFC
              603", RFC 613, DOI 10.17487/RFC0613, January 1974,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc613>.

   [RFC2804]  IAB and IESG, "IETF Policy on Wiretapping", RFC 2804,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2804, May 2000, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc2804>.

   [RFC5218]  Thaler, D. and B. Aboba, "What Makes for a Successful
              Protocol?", RFC 5218, DOI 10.17487/RFC5218, July 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5218>.

   [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, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc6973>.

   [RFC7258]  Farrell, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Pervasive Monitoring Is an
              Attack", BCP 188, RFC 7258, DOI 10.17487/RFC7258, May
              2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7258>.

   [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>.

   [RFC7776]  Resnick, P. and A. Farrel, "IETF Anti-Harassment
              Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 7776, DOI 10.17487/RFC7776, March
              2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7776>.






ten Oever, et al.        Expires April 25, 2018                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                   politix                    October 2017


   [RogersEden]
              Rogers, M. and G. Eden, "The Snowden Disclosures,
              Technical Standards, and the Making of Surveillance
              Infrastructures", International Journal of Communication
              11(2017), 802-823 , 2017,
              <http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/5525/1941>.

   [Russell]  Russell, A., "Open standards and the digital age: History,
              ideology, and networks", Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
              University Press , 2014.

   [UNGP]     Ruggie, J. and United Nations, "United Nations Guiding
              Principles for Business and Human Rights", 2011,
              <http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/
              GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf>.

   [Webster]  Webster, J., "Networks of Collaboration or Conflict? The
              Development of EDI", The social shaping of inter-
              organizational IT systems and data interchange, eds: I.
              McLougling & D. Mason, European Commission PICT/COST A4 ,
              1995.

   [Winner]   Winner, L., "Upon openig the black box and finding it
              empty: Social constructivism and the philosophy of
              technology", Science, Technology, and Human Values 18 (3)
              p. 362-378 , 1993.

   [Woolgar]  Woolgar, S., "Configuring the user: the case of usability
              trials", A sociology of monsters. Essays on power,
              technology and dominatior, ed: J. Law, Routeledge p.
              57-102. , 1991.

   [xkcd927]  Randall Munroe, ., "Standards", xkcd.com, a web comic ,
              2011, <https://xkcd.com/927/>.

15.2.  URIs

   [1] mailto:hrpc@ietf.org

Authors' Addresses

   Niels ten Oever
   ARTICLE 19

   EMail: niels@article19.org






ten Oever, et al.        Expires April 25, 2018                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                   politix                    October 2017


   Andrew Sullivan
   Oracle

   EMail: andrew.s.sullivan@oracle.com


   Amelia Andersdotter
   ARTICLE 19

   EMail: amelia@article19.org









































ten Oever, et al.        Expires April 25, 2018                [Page 15]


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