Internet DRAFT - draft-tenoever-hrpc-political
draft-tenoever-hrpc-political
Human Rights Protocol Considerations Research Group N. ten Oever
Internet-Draft University of Amsterdam
Intended status: Informational A. Andersdotter
Expires: December 20, 2018 ARTICLE 19
June 18, 2018
On the Politics of Standards
draft-tenoever-hrpc-political-05
Abstract
The IETF cannot ordain which standards or protocols are to be used on
network, but the standards developing process in the IETF has a
normative effect. Among other things the standardisation work at the
IETF has implications on what is perceived as technologically
possible and useful where networking technologies are being deployed,
and its standards output reflect was is considered by the technical
community as feasible and good practice. Because mediates many
aspects of modern life, and therefore contributes to the ordering of
societies and communities, the consideration of the politics and
(potential) impact of protocols should be part of the standardization
and development process.
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 December 20, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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 & AndersdotterExpires December 20, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft politix June 2018
(https://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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Research Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Technology and Politics: a literature review . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Technology is value neutral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Some protocols are political some times . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. All protocols are political sometimes . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.4. The network has its own logic and values . . . . . . . . 5
4.5. Protocols are inherently political . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IETF: Protocols as Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Competition and collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. IETF standards setting externalities . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2.1. Finance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2.2. Interoperability and backward compatability . . . . . 9
5.2.3. Competition between layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3. How voluntary are open standards? . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. The need for a positioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. The way forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12. Research Group Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
13.1. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
13.2. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction
"Science and technology lie at the heart of social asymmetry.
Thus technology both creates systems which close off other
options and generate novel, unpredictable and indeed
previously unthinkable, option. The game of technology is
never finished, and its ramifications are endless.
- Michel Callon
ten Oever & AndersdotterExpires December 20, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft politix June 2018
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,
Internationalization [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 [RFC8280] which spurred
the discussion on the political nature of standards. The network
infrastructure is on the one hand designed, described, developed,
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 standards and
politics and seek to answer the question whether standards 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 diverse group with conflicting interests. 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
[HagueHarrop])
Affordances The possibilities that are provided to an actors through
the ordering of an environment by a technology.
Protocols 'Protocols are rules governing communication between
devices or applications, and the creation or manipulation of any
logical or communicative artifacts concomitant with such
communication.' [Sisson]
Standards 'An Internet Standard is a specification that is stable
and well-understood, is technically competent, has multiple,
independent, and interoperable implementations with substantial
operational experience, enjoys significant public support, and is
ten Oever & AndersdotterExpires December 20, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft politix June 2018
recognizably useful in some or all parts of the Internet.'
[RFC2026]
3. Research Question
Are protocols political? If so, should the politics of protocols
need to be taken into account in their development process?
4. Technology and Politics: a literature review
In 1993 the Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility stated
that 'the Internet should meet public interest objectives', similarly
[RFC3935] states that 'The Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither
is the IETF.'. Ethics and the Internet was already a topic of an RFC
by the IAB in 1989 [RFC1097]. Nonetheless there has been a recent
uptick in discussions around the impact of Internet protocols on
human rights [RFC8280] in the IETF and more general about the impact
of technology on society in the public debate.
This document aims to provide an overview of the spectrum of
different positions that have been observed in the IETF and IRTF
community, during participatory observation, through 39 interviews
with members of the community, the Human Rights Protocol
Considerations Research Group mailinglist and during and after the
Technical Plenary on Protocols and Human Rights during IETF98.
Without judging them on their internal of external consistency they
are represented here, where possible we sought to engage with
academic literature on this topic.
4.1. Technology is value neutral
This position starts from the premise that the technical and
political 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
protocols 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 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
ten Oever & AndersdotterExpires December 20, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft politix June 2018
that the "price for the achievement of environmental, ethical, or
religious goals...is reduced efficiency." [Feenberg].
4.2. 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.
4.3. All protocols are political sometimes
While not an absolutist standpoint it recognizes that all design
decisions are subject to the law of unintended consequences. The
system consisting of the Internet and its users is vastly too complex
to be predictable; it is chaotic in nature; its emergent properties
cannot be predicted. This concept strongly hinges on the general
purpose aspect of information technology and its malleability.
Whereas not all (potential) behaviours, affordances and impacts of
protocols can possible be predicted, on could at least consider the
impact of proposed implementations.
4.4. The network has its own logic and values
While humans create technologies, this 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.
From this perspective, technologies can shape the world. 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 the same way -in another and more recent example- the very
existence automobiles impose 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
ten Oever & AndersdotterExpires December 20, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft politix June 2018
conurbation. But even if that did not happen, widespread automobile
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.
In much same way, then, networking technology, such as protocols,
creates its own demands. One of the most important conditions for
protocol success is its incremental deployability [RFC5218]. This
means that the network already contains constrains on what can be
deployed into it. In this sense the network creates its own paths,
but also has its own objective. According to this view the goal of
the network is interconnection and connectivity; more connectivity is
good for the network. Proponents of this positions also often
describe the Internet as an organism with its own unique ecosystem.
In this position it is not necessarily clear where the 'social' ends
and the 'technical' begins, and it could be argued that the
distinction itself is a social construction [BijkerLaw] or that a
real-life distinction between the two is hard to be made [Bloor].
4.5. Protocols are inherently political
This position argues the opposite of 'technological neutrality'.
This position can be illustrated with 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.
Recent scholars of Internet infrastructure and governance have also
pointed out that Internet processes and standards have become part
and parcel of political processes and public policies. Several
concrete examples are found within this approach, for instance, the
IANA transition or global innovation policy [DeNardis]. The Raven
process in which the IETF refused to standardize wiretapping -which
resulted in [RFC2804]- was an instance where an international
governance body took a position that was largely political, although
driven by a technical argument. The process that led to [RFC6973] is
similar: the Snowden disclosures which occured in the political
ten Oever & AndersdotterExpires December 20, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft politix June 2018
space, engendered the IETF to act. This is summarized in [Abbate]
who says: "protocols are politics by other means", emphasizing the
interests that are at play in the process of designing standards.
This position further holds 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].
5. IETF: Protocols as Standards
In the previous section we gave an overview of the different existing
positions of the impact of Internet protocols in the Internet
community. In the following section we will consider the standards
setting process and its consequences for the politics of protocols.
Standards enabling interoperating networks, what we think of today as
the Internet, were created as open, formal and voluntary standards.
A platform for internet standardisation, the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), was created in 1992 to enable the continuation of
such standardisation work. 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 which is a record number, even
among other comparable standard organisations [Contreras].
ten Oever & AndersdotterExpires December 20, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft politix June 2018
5.1. 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 for
others that are trying to accomplish the same thing, while reducing
overhead and inefficiencies. Although there are different types and
configurations of standards, they all enhance competition by allowing
different entities to work from a commonly accepted baseline.
On the first types of standards than can be found are "informal" ones
-agreed upon normal ways of interacting within a specific community.
For example, the process through which greetings to a new
acquaintance are expressed through a bow, a handshake or a kiss. On
the other hand "formal" standards, are normally codified in writing.
The next subsection will ---
Within economy studies, _de facto_ standards arise in market
situations where one entity is particularly dominant; downstream
competitors are therefore tied to the dominant entity's technological
solutions [Ahlborn]. Under EU anti-trust law, de facto standards
have been found to restrict competition for downstream services in PC
software products [CJEU2007], as well as downstream services
dependent on health information [CJEU2004].
Even in international law, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) uses
standards, although it recognises a difference between standards and
technical regulations. The former are voluntary formal codes to
which products or services may conform, while technical regulations
are mandatory requirements to be fullfilled for a product to be
accessible on one of the WTO country markets. These rules have
implications for how nation states bounded by the WTO agreements can
impose specific technical requirements on companies. Nonetheles,
there are many standardisation groups that were originally launched
by nation states or groups of nation states. ISO, BIS, CNIS, NIST,
ABNT and ETSI are examples of institutions that are, wholly or
partially, sponsored by public money in order to ensure smooth
development of formal standards. Even if under WTO rules these
organisations cannot create the equivalent of a technical regulation,
they have important normative functions in their respective
countries. No matter what form, all standards enhance competition
and collaboration because they define a common approach to a problem.
This potentially allows different instances to interoperate or be
evaluated according to the same indicators.
The development of formal standards faces a number of economic and
organisational challenges. Mainly, the cost and difficulty of
organising many entities around a mutual goal, as well as the cost of
ten Oever & AndersdotterExpires December 20, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft politix June 2018
research and development leading up to a mutually beneficial
technological platform. In addition, deciding what the mutual goal
is can also be a problem. These challenges may be described as
inter-organisational costs. Even after a goal is decided upon,
coordination of multiple entities requires time and money. One needs
communication platforms, processes and a commitment to mutual
investment in a higher good. They are not simple tasks, and the more
different communities are affected by a particular standardisation
process, the more difficult the organisational challenges become.
5.2. IETF standards setting externalities
In spite of a strong community ethos and transparent procedures, the
IETF is not immune to externalities.
5.2.1. Finance
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]). The IETF has faced three periods of
decreased commitment from participants in funding its meetings in the
past ten years, leading, naturally, to self-scrutiny, see for
instance [IAOC69], [IAOC77], [IAOC99].
5.2.2. Interoperability and backward compatability
The need for interoperability, and backward compatability makes
engineering work harder. And once a standard is designed, it does
not automatically mean it will be broadly adopted at a 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.
5.2.3. Competition between layers
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.
ten Oever & AndersdotterExpires December 20, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft politix June 2018
5.3. 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 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."
6. The need for a positioning
It is indisputable that the Internet plays an increasingly important
role in the lives of individuals. The community that produces
standards for the Internet therefore also has an impact on society,
which it itself has recognised in a number of previously adopted
documents [RFC1958].
The IETF cannot ordain which standards are to be used on the
networks, and it specifically does not determine the laws of regions
or countries where networks are being used, but it does set open
standards for interoperability on the Internet, and has done so since
the inception of the Internet. Because a standard is the blue-print
for how to accomplish a particular task in a similar way to others,
the standards adopted have a normative effect. The standardisation
work at the IETF will have implications on what is perceived as
technologically possible and useful where networking technologies are
being deployed, and its standards output reflect was is considered by
the technical community as feasible and good practice.
This calls for providing a methodology in the IETF community to
evaluate which routes forward should indeed be feasible, what
constitutes the "good" in "good practice" and what trade-offs between
different feasible features of technologies are useful and should
ten Oever & AndersdotterExpires December 20, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft politix June 2018
therefore be made possible. Such an analysis should take societal
implication into account.
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 to the detriment 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 proof of this.
Nonetheless, 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.
7. Conclusion
Economics, competition, collaboration, openness, and political impact
have been an inherent part of the work of the IETF since its early
beginnings, by its nature as standards developing organization,
through the contributions of the members of the Internet community,
and because the ordering effect the Internet has on society. Whereas
there might not be agreement in the Internet community on what the
specific political nature is of technological development, it is
undispited that standards and protocols are both product of a
political process, and they can also be used for political means.
Whereas there is no need for a unified philosophy of Internet
protocols, it is in the benefit of the IETF, the Internet and
arguably society at large to take this into account in the standards
development process.
8. The way forward
There are instruments that can help the IETF develop an approach to
address the politics of standards. Part of this can be found in
[RFC8280] 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 & AndersdotterExpires December 20, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft politix June 2018
long as there are sufficient accountability and transparency
mechanisms 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.
Instead of splitting hairs about whether 'standards are political'
[Winner] [Woolgar] we argue that we need to look at the politics of
individual standards and invite document authors and reviewers to
take these dynamics into account.
9. Security Considerations
As this draft concerns a research document, there are no security
considerations as described in [RFC3552], which does not mean that
not addressing the issues brought up in this draft will not impact
the security of end-users or operators.
10. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
11. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Andrew Sullivan, Brian Carpenter, Mark Perkins and all
contributors and reviewers on the hrpc mailinglist. Special thanks
to Gisela Perez de Acha for some thorough editing rounds.
12. 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 [2]
Archives of the list can be found at: https://www.irtf.org/mail-
archive/web/hrpc/current/index.html [3]
13. References
13.1. Informative References
[Abbate] Abbate, J., "Inventing the Internet", MIT Press , 2000,
<https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/inventing-internet>.
ten Oever & AndersdotterExpires December 20, 2018 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft politix June 2018
[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>.
[BijkerLaw]
Bijker, W. and J. Law, "Shaping Technology/ Building
Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change", Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press , 1992.
[Bloor] Bloor, D., "Knowledge and Social Imagery", London:
Routeledge & Kegan Paul , 1976.
[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.
ten Oever & AndersdotterExpires December 20, 2018 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft politix June 2018
[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.
[HagueHarrop]
Hague, R. and M. Harrop, "Comparative Government and
Politics: An Introduction", Macmillan International Higher
Education. pp. 1-. ISBN 978-1-137-31786-5. , 2013.
[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>.
[IAOC69] IAOC, ., "IAOC Report Chicago", 2007,
<https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/
IAOC-Report-Chicago-69.pdf>.
[IAOC77] IAOC, ., "IAOC Report Anaheim", 2010,
<https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/
IAOC-Report-Anaheim-77.pdf>.
[IAOC99] IAOC, ., "IAOC Report Prague", 2017,
<https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/
IAOCReportinAdvanceofIETF99.pdf>.
[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.
ten Oever & AndersdotterExpires December 20, 2018 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft politix June 2018
[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>.
[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>.
ten Oever & AndersdotterExpires December 20, 2018 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft politix June 2018
[RFC1097] Miller, B., "Telnet subliminal-message option", RFC 1097,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1097, April 1989,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1097>.
[RFC1958] Carpenter, B., Ed., "Architectural Principles of the
Internet", RFC 1958, DOI 10.17487/RFC1958, June 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1958>.
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026>.
[RFC2804] IAB and IESG, "IETF Policy on Wiretapping", RFC 2804,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2804, May 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2804>.
[RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3552, July 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3552>.
[RFC3935] Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF",
BCP 95, RFC 3935, DOI 10.17487/RFC3935, October 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3935>.
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
ten Oever & AndersdotterExpires December 20, 2018 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft politix June 2018
[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.
[Sisson] Sisson, D., "Standards and Protocols", 2000,
<https://philosophe.com/design/standards/>.
[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.
13.2. URIs
[1] mailto:hrpc@ietf.org
[2] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
[3] https://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/hrpc/current/index.html
Authors' Addresses
ten Oever & AndersdotterExpires December 20, 2018 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft politix June 2018
Niels ten Oever
University of Amsterdam
EMail: mail@nielstenoever.net
Amelia Andersdotter
ARTICLE 19
EMail: amelia@article19.org
ten Oever & AndersdotterExpires December 20, 2018 [Page 18]
