Internet DRAFT - draft-doria-hrpc-report

draft-doria-hrpc-report







Human Rights Protocol Considerations Research Group        A. Doria (ed)
Internet-Draft                                                       APC
Intended status: Informational                            March 21, 2016
Expires: September 22, 2016


                             HRPC - Report
                       draft-doria-hrpc-report-01

Abstract

   This document presents an overview snapshot of the HRPC project to
   map engineering concepts at the protocol level that may be related to
   human rights, with a focus on the promotion and protection of the
   freedom of expression and of association.

   It provides a framework while reporting on the study including:
   theoretical background, results and basic considerations.  It will
   reference the detailed work being done on terminlogy and case studies
   documented in the research draft.  It also folds in discussions from
   the research literature.  The documents, [HRPC-Research] and this
   document, form an interrelated set that may later be combined into a
   single document.

   This draft is still in very early stages and welcomes further
   contribution.  Text is solicited.

   Discussion on this draft at: hrpc@irtf.org //
   https://www.irtf.org/mailman/admindb/hrpc

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 September 22, 2016.





Doria (ed)             Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                HRPC - Report                   March 2016


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Background  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Theory  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Internet
           Architecture  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Link between protocols and human rights . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.3.  Related research  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.3.1.  David Clark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.3.2.  Laura Denardis  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.3.3.  David Post  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       3.3.4.  Jonathan Zittrain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.4.  Related theoretical discussions from the research group .   8
       3.4.1.  Principles from NetMundial Multistakeholder Statement   8
       3.4.2.  "Values and Networks" work by Roland Bless  . . . . .   9
       3.4.3.  Value laden engineering as discussed in A case study
               of codeing rights by Cath . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.5.  Internet protocols as a public good . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   4.  Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.1.  Case Studies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.2.  Methodological Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   5.  Possible areas for protocol considerations  . . . . . . . . .  13
     5.1.  Emergent Issues/Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   6.  Next Steps  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     6.1.  Next steps for this document  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   8.  IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   10. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18





Doria (ed)             Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                HRPC - Report                   March 2016


1.  Background

   Several reports from former United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on
   the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and
   expression, Frank La Rue, have made the relationship between the
   Internet and human rights explicit and led to the approval of the
   resolution "on the promotion, protection and enjoyment of human
   rights on the Internet" at the UN Human Rights Council (HRC).  More
   recently, it led to the resolution "The right to privacy in the
   digital age" at the UN General Assembly.  The NETmundial outcome
   document [Netmundial] affirms that human rights, as reflected in the
   Universal Declaration of Human Rights [UDHR], should underpin
   Internet governance principles.

   Although the application of human rights to Internet policy
   consideratons has a firm rights' basis, a direct relation between
   Internet architecture and protocols and human rights needs to be
   established and requires both exploration and description.  As the
   full range of the interdependent and interrelated human rights would
   be challenging as a starting place for discussions, the research
   group has decided to start with the the rights of freedom of
   expression and freedom of association and assembly.

   An additional challenge in bringing the discussion of human rights
   into Internet engineering discussions is the absence of an agreed
   upon vocabulary for such discussions.  Developing a vocabulary for
   this discussion is a first requirement for the HRPC research effort.

   It has been argued in [Liddicoat] that concerns for freedom of
   expression and association were a strong part of the world-view of
   the community involved in developing the first Internet protocols.
   Whether by intention or by historical coincidence, the Internet was
   designed with freedom and openness of communications as core values.
   But as the scale, as well as internationalization and
   commercialization of the Internet have grown, the influence of such
   world-views has had to compete with other values, such as ease and
   cost of development as well as the costs and difficulties in
   maintaining and upgrading the network and network elements.  The
   purpose of this research is to discover and to document possible
   considerations, that is issues to be considered, involved in taking
   human rights into account when creating protocols.

   Following the lead of work done for RFC 6973 [RFC6973] on Privacy
   Consideration Guidelines, the premise of this research is that some
   standards and protocols can either enable or threaten human rights on
   the Internet.





Doria (ed)             Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                HRPC - Report                   March 2016


   As stated in RFC 1958 [RFC1958], the Internet aims to be the global
   network of networks that provides unfettered connectivity to all
   users at all times and for any content.  Open, secure and reliable
   connectivity is essential for rights such as freedom of expression
   and freedom of association, as defined in the Universal Declaration
   of Human Rights [UDHR].  Therefore, considering connectivity as the
   ultimate objective of the Internet makes a case that human rights are
   core values of the architecture of the network.

   The IETF has determined that an essential part of maintaining the
   Internet as a tool for communication and connectivity is security.
   Indeed, "development of security mechanisms is seen as a key factor
   in the future growth of the Internet as a motor for international
   commerce and communication" RFC 1984 [RFC1984] and according to the
   Danvers Doctrine RFC 3365 [RFC3365], there is an overwhelming
   consensus in the IETF that the best security should be used and
   standardized.

   In RFC 1984 [RFC1984], the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), the bodies which oversee
   architecture and standards for the Internet, expressed: "concern by
   the need for increased protection of international commercial
   transactions on the Internet, and by the need to offer all Internet
   users an adequate degree of privacy."  Indeed, the IETF has been
   doing a significant job in this area [RFC6973] and [RFC7258],
   considering privacy concerns as a subset of security concerns.
   [RFC6973]

   The premise of this work is that it is possible to establish human
   rights consideratons for other human rights, beyond just privacy.
   This research builds on the the idea that protecting all rights is as
   much a security concern in the Internet as is the protection of
   privacy.  The research also intends to document other bases for
   consideration of human rights as core values in Internet
   architectures and protocols.

   This first phase of research focuses on freedom of expression and the
   right to association and assembly online.  In doing so, given the
   interrelationship of all rights, other rights may be touched upon in
   the discussion, but the primary emphasis will be to discover where
   there are considerations that relate specicially to the freedoms of
   expression and of association and assembly.  In the first phase there
   will also be a reliance on arguments based on security
   considerations, though the effect of other values will be considered.







Doria (ed)             Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                HRPC - Report                   March 2016


2.  Terminology

   The terminology being used in this project was defined in
   [HRPC-GLOSSARY] and is applied in [HRPC-Research].

   The process of developing a glossary has involved taking the variety
   of glossaries defined by the IETF in its various RFCs, comparing the
   terms both among the various RFC definitions and with terminology
   used in human rights field to produce a synthesized set of
   definitions after discussion in the research group.  The goal is to
   produce a set of terms, using existing terminology, that can assist
   clear discussion among engineering experts and human rights experts.
   At this point in the research this vocabulary has been provisionally
   accepted in the research group.

   The glossary also includes the definitions of some complex terms,
   such as Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Association, that relies
   of several of the other defined terms.  Some of these complex
   defintions are still under discussion.

3.  Theory

3.1.  Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Internet
      Architecture

   This project is focused on two rights defined in the UDHR [UDHR],
   Article 19 on Freedom of Expression and Article 20 of Freedom of
   Association.

   Article 19  Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and
      expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without
      interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
      through any media and regardless of frontiers.

   Article 20  1 Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly
      and association.

      2 No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

3.2.  Link between protocols and human rights

   [HRPC-Research] includes defintions of the basic human rights in
   terms of the engineering terminology.  For example:

   -  Right to Freedom of Expression builds on definitions of

   -  Connectivity




Doria (ed)             Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                HRPC - Report                   March 2016


   -  Privacy

   -  Security

   -  Content Agnosticism

   -  Internationalization

   -  Censorship resistance

   -  Open Standards

   -  Heterogeneity support

   -  Right to Association builds on the defintions of

   -  Connectivity

   -  Decentralization

   -  Censorship resistance

   -  Pseudonymity

   -  Anonymity

   Detailed defintions of the included terms can be found in
   [HRPC-Research]

   When looking at protocols the considerations can apply from several
   perspectives.

   -  The protocol's direct effects on human rights on the Internet.

   -  The protocol's direct effect on human rights in combination with
      other protocols

   -  The effect of specific protocol elements, separately or in
      combination with other protocol elements on human rights on the
      Internet

   -  The ability to determine when various effects are occurring, i.e.
      transparency

   -  The effect of deployment or non deployment of protocol features.
      While this may be may seem beyond the protocol itself, often the
      design of protocol, its difficulty in implementation and the
      degree to which it contains required elements, poison pills or



Doria (ed)             Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                HRPC - Report                   March 2016


      other protocol artifacts that either encourage or discourse
      implementation or deployment, can be significant in the overall
      human rights affect of a protocol.

   (Editor's note: Several key pieces of research are discussed in this
   section.  Readers/reviewers of the draft who have other recommended
   sources for relevant research that should be discussed in this
   document are invited to submit such for inclusion.)

3.3.  Related research

   This section will look at the theoretical work that has been done in
   the are of rights and protocols.  It will include the academic
   research on the topic including the work of David Post [Post],
   Jonathan Zittrain [Zittrain] and David Clark, among others.

3.3.1.  David Clark

   TBD

3.3.2.  Laura Denardis

   In Protocol Politics [Denardis09] Denardis discusses "how values
   enter, or should enter, Internet protocol design."  She describes the
   "IETF process itself self-consciously expresses certain values."  The
   discussion goes on to define some examples of of IETF values,
   including:

   -  "Universality and competitive openness - one objective of
      developing a standard is for it to become widely used in the
      marketplace;

   -  "participatory openness in the standards=setting process;

   -  "the end-to-end architectural design principle specifying that
      intelligence should be located at network end points rather than
      in media res."

   To demonstrate the point, she presents a case study where engineers
   at the IETF "identified privacy as a value pertinent to IPv6 address
   design and embedded this design into design choices" with a detailed
   description of the issue of including Ethernet Addresses as part of
   the IPv6 address culminating in the design of IPv6 privacy features
   and changes.  Interestingly she also describes how the IETF
   engineering community was aware of the privacy challenges, the rights
   challenges, before media and government discovered the problem and
   were working on the problem before the fire firestorm began.




Doria (ed)             Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                HRPC - Report                   March 2016


   The description ended with the following: "this episode is a reminder
   that some of the most critical Internet governance questions concern
   individual civil liberties and that design decisions can present an
   opportunity to advance libertarian and democratic values or to
   contain these values.  IPv6 privacy design implications and value-
   conscious design choices reinforce the notion that Internet
   architecture and virtual resources cannot be understood only through
   the lens of technical efficiency, scarcity, or economic competition
   but as an embodiment of human values with social and cultural
   effects."

3.3.3.  David Post

   TBD

3.3.4.  Jonathan Zittrain

   TBD

3.4.  Related theoretical discussions from the research group

3.4.1.  Principles from NetMundial Multistakeholder Statement

   NETmundial was a bell-weather event held in October 2014, where
   stakeholders from academia, business, civil society, governments and
   the technical community came together to discuss Principles and a
   Roadmap for Internet governance.  While the Principles did not
   address protocol development specifically, they did include a
   principle on Open Standards:

   "Internet governance should promote open standards, informed by
   individual and collective expertise and decisions made by rough
   consensus, that allow for a global, interoperable, resilient, stable,
   decentralized, secure, and interconnected network, available to all.
   Standards must be consistent with human rights and allow development
   and innovation."  [Netmundial]

   The NETmundial Roadmap on the other hand was a bit more specific on
   certain topics including digital security and arbitrary surveillance:

   -  "Initiatives to improve cybersecurity and address digital security
      threats should involve appropriate collaboration among
      governments, private sector, civil society, academia and technical
      community.  There are stakeholders that still need to become more
      involved with cybersecurity, for example, network operators and
      software developers."





Doria (ed)             Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                HRPC - Report                   March 2016


   -  "Mass and arbitrary surveillance undermines trust in the Internet
      and trust in the Internet governance ecosystem.  Collection and
      processing of personal data by state and non-state actors should
      be conducted in accordance with international human rights law.
      More dialogue is needed on this topic at the international level
      using forums like the Human Rights Council and IGF aiming to
      develop a common understanding on all the related aspects."
      [Netmundial]

3.4.2.  "Values and Networks" work by Roland Bless

   TBD

3.4.3.  Value laden engineering as discussed in A case study of codeing
        rights by Cath

   This work discusses four basic architectural principles that are
   encoded in Internet Technology:

   -  Openness, Permissionless Innovation, and Content Agnosticism

   -  Interoperability

   -  Redundancy and the Distributed Architecture

   -  The End-to-End Principle

   The work by Cath explores the relationship of the architectural
   principles to the human right of freedom of expression and asks
   whether the IETF has a repsonsiblity toward human rights.  The paper
   shows that that there are numerous references to normative principles
   among the body of work of the IETF.  It argues that this provides the
   necessary indication that ethics are within the purview of IETF
   considerations.  The research question asked by the work is: "Should
   the right to freedom of speech be instantiated in the protocols and
   standards of the Internet Engineering Task Force?"  This quetion is
   similar to the questions being asked in this research group.

   Despite this ethical basis in Internet potocols, in Cath's work the
   threat of fragmentation by countries that do not accept human rights
   suggests that an answer to the normative research question is
   negative: support for human rights should not be intitiated in the
   Internet in order to avoid fragmentation.  This can be understood to
   mean that care must be taken to turning protocols into political
   targets.  On the other hand the principles that are encoded in the
   Internet do make it better at enabling rights.  This encourages work
   such as the work done for privacy consideration in the IETF and the
   research being done on protocol consideration for the freedoms of



Doria (ed)             Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                HRPC - Report                   March 2016


   expression and association, as long as these are just considerations
   and not requirements.  The paper cautions against using protocols to
   achieve advocacy goals.

3.5.  Internet protocols as a public good

   While not specifically part of the research, a background theoretical
   discussion in Internet rights involves discussion of whether the
   Internet is a public good.  The economic definitons of a public good
   includes requirements that it be non-excludable, in that it is a good
   that cannot be withheld from any individual, and that it be non-
   rivalous, meaning that its use by some does not preclude its use by
   others.

   Strictily speaking, the Internet does not meet these requirements.
   The fact that much of the world still does not have Internet access
   shows that it is excludable, as many are still excluded.  Addtionally
   the fact that service providers charge for Internet access point to
   access not being a public good.  In terms of rivalry, bandwidth and
   scalability issues give another indication that the Internet does not
   qualify as a public good, one person's usage can interefe with
   another person's usage.  Some have argued that the Internet is a
   Common Pool Resource (CPR), as defined by Ostrum [Ostrum].  This
   claim has yet to be substantiated, as the Interent needs to satisfy
   various design principles to qualify as a CPR.  Discussion of this
   issue is beyond the scope of this draft.  (Editor's note: Though it
   could be included it people felt it would be useful content for
   references' sake.)

   While the discussion on whether the Internet itself, as an
   infrastrucure, is either a public good or CPR, is open and
   contentious, it may be simpler to establish whether the set of core
   Internet protocols is a public good.  This is relavant to the
   research in this group dealing with protocol considerations.  It can
   be argued that for Internet protocols to be non-excludable, it has to
   be possible for everyone to use them.  It is.  Through the use of the
   core Internet protocols, anyone can create a network that connects
   into the Internet.  While some protocols are encumbered by property
   rights and licensing requirements, a core set of protocols that are
   not encumberd, and thus freely avaialble to all, can be described as
   non-excludable.  It also seems clear that one party's proper use of
   the core set of Internet protocols does not have the effect of
   precluding use by others, so protocols can also be called non-
   rivalrous.  One question relevant to the question of Internet
   protocols as a common good will involve determining whether a
   sufficient set of the core protocols essential to the Internet, are
   fully unencumbered.




Doria (ed)             Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                HRPC - Report                   March 2016


   Establising that Internet protocols are a public good adds an
   economic development consideration to the discussions and provides
   possible avenues for basing human rights protocol consideraton on
   more that just security, allowing other bases for discussion of the
   trades off in considerations when designing or deploying a protocol.
   The question still needs further exploriation to determine whether
   Internet protocols as a public good has any effect on the protocol
   considerations to be recommended by this group.

4.  Methodology

   Some compnents of the methodology are defined in detail in Research
   into Human Rights Protocol Considerations [HRPC-Research].

   The purpose of the work is to map the potential relations between
   human rights and protocols so that considerations can be derived.

   -  the first step involved scoping the research problem

   -  Translating Human Rights Concept into Technical Definitions

      o  Mapping protocols and standards related to Freedom of
         Expression and Freedom of Assembly as defined in human rights
         covenants and agreements

      o  Extracting concepts from any and all RFCs that use and define
         these terms

      o  Building the common glossary to be used linking engineering and
         human rights concepts

   -  Discovering cases of protocols that have an effect on human rights

      o  Enablers of rights

      o  Enablers of abuse

   -  Working though the cases to determine and describe the issues that
      affect human rights

   -  Applying the human rights technical definitions to the cases

   -  Derivation of possible considerations








Doria (ed)             Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                HRPC - Report                   March 2016


4.1.  Case Studies

   The case studies and their initial status is being documented in
   [HRPC-Research].

   In each of the case studies, the behavior of the protocols is
   analysed for its positive and negative effects.  In some case these
   effects are due to the design of the protocol itself, in others they
   may be due to existing or absent features.  In protocls with optional
   features, whether a feature is implemented or deployed, can be a
   factor in the protocol's impact on human rights.

   The analysis on the following protocols are currently being discussed
   on HRPC list and being described in [HRPC-Research].

   -  IP

   Covering issues concerning the network visibility of source and
   destination, address translation and mobility

   -  DNS

   -  HTTP

      o  HTTP code 451

   -  XMPP

   -  Peer to peer

   -  VPN

   -  Middleboxes

   -  DDOS

4.2.  Methodological Issues

   The current methodology is based on discourse analysis and
   ethnographic research methods.  This method is explained in
   [HRPC-Research].  While this is a good basis for initial discovery,
   further analysis is needed on whether the hypotheses formed as a
   result of the case studies can be abstracted to general consideration
   statements.  Study is also needed to determine whether evidence for
   similar effects can be shown as a result of applying the general
   considerations to a wider set of protocols.  A full analysis also
   requires that some attempt be made to test any candidate
   considerations for other effects and for unintended consequences.



Doria (ed)             Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                HRPC - Report                   March 2016


5.  Possible areas for protocol considerations

   Using the definitions derived for the rights of freedom of expression
   and freedom of association and assembly, and the protocol attributes
   discovered in the use cases, a set of questions is being developed
   that enable a protocol designer to consider whether their design has
   any positive or negative effects on the human rights in question.
   The questions should also give guidance in terms of protocol
   atributes that can aid in creating new protocols that enable as
   opposed to hinder human rights.

   [HRPC-Research] includes a first take on such questions.  This work
   is still at an early stage.  There have been recommendations in the
   list that the form of the questions be based on best practices for
   questionnaire development.  The questions will need to be tested as
   outlined above in the section on methodological issues, to determine
   whether they are fit for general purpose in an engineering context.

5.1.  Emergent Issues/Questions

   This section records some of the question opened in discussion of the
   group that open broader questions that those centered on protocol
   considerations.  Often the question involved the manner in which the
   protocols are deployed or used.

   -  Can DDOS be considered freedom of expression when used for
      advocacy?  Even if it does, does this matter?  Is interruption of
      communication in the Internet such a negative aspect that it is
      never acceptable?  Is DDOS a moral equivalent to "capital"
      infractions in that its use is never permitted by Human Rights
      under any situation.  Or is it a valid method that can be used for
      advocacy?

   -  How do we differentiate between protocol effects that are inherent
      to the protocol and those that arise from implementation, misuse
      or from avoidance of non mandatory features.  This includes
      factoring for lack of proper maintenance or software updating.
      Differentiating these effects from each other is important in
      designing the considerations.

6.  Next Steps

   As discussed in the methodoloy section, a set of tests needs to be
   undertaken to determine whether the protocol attributes that have
   been isolated from the various use cases can be abstracted and tested
   in situation other than in those test cases.





Doria (ed)             Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                HRPC - Report                   March 2016


   Once this is done, the set of considerations can be drafted and
   discussed by the research group.

   The current revision of [HRPC-Research] includes a first set of
   possible considerations.

6.1.  Next steps for this document

   -  Continue to add discussions of various threortical work related to
      the issue

   -  Continue to report on the state of research.

   The document will next be udated after IETF 95.

7.  Acknowledgements

   A section that include the many contributors of text as as commenters
   and those who are assisitng this project in existing.  Some of the
   names: Niels ten Oever, Joana Varon, Catherine Cath, Daniel Kahn
   Gillmor, ... more to be added ... and the all the particpants in the
   research group.

8.  IANA considerations

   There shouldn't be any.

9.  Security Considerations

   There shouldn't be any.

10.  Informative References

   [Blumenthal]
              Blumenthal, M. and D. Clark, "Rethinking the design of the
              Internet The end-to-end arguments vs. the brave new
              world", ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, Vol. 1,
              No. 1, August 2001, pp 70-109. , 2001.

   [Cath]     Cath, C., "A case study of codeing rights", 2015.

   [Clark]    Clark, D., "The Design Philosophy of the DARPA Internet
              Protocols", Proc SIGCOMM 88, ACM CCR Vol 18, Number 4,
              August 1988, pp. 106-114. , 1988.

   [Denardis09]
              Denardis, L., "Protocol Politics", 2013.




Doria (ed)             Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                HRPC - Report                   March 2016


   [Denardis14]
              Denardis, L., "The Global War for Internet Goverance",
              2014.

   [HRPC-GLOSSARY]
              ten Oever, N., Doria, A., and D. Gillmor, "Human Rights
              Protocol Considerations Glossary", 2015,
              <https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-dkg-hrpc-glossary-00.txt>.

   [HRPC-Method]
              Varon, J. and C. Cath, "Human Rights Protocol
              Considerations Methodology", 2015,
              <https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-varon-hrpc-methodology-
              00.txt>.

   [HRPC-Research]
              ten Oever, N. and C. Cath, "Research into Human Rights
              Protocol Considerations", 2015, <https://www.ietf.org/
              internet-drafts/draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-00.txt>.

   [Liddicoat]
              Liddicoat, J. and A. Doria, "Human Rights and Internet
              Protocols", n.d., <https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/human-
              rights-and-internet-protocols-comparing-proc>.

   [Netmundial]
              "NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement", 2014,
              <http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/
              NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf>.

   [Ostrum]   Ostrum,, E., "Governing the Commons", 1990.

   [Post]     Post, D., "Internet Infrastructure and IP Censorship",
              2015, <http://www.ipjustice.org/digital-rights/
              internet-infrastructure-and-ip-censorship-bydavid-post/>.

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

   [RFC1984]  IAB and , "IAB and IESG Statement on Cryptographic
              Technology and the Internet", BCP 200, RFC 1984,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1984, August 1996,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1984>.

   [RFC2026]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
              3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026>.



Doria (ed)             Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                HRPC - Report                   March 2016


   [RFC2639]  Hastings, T. and C. Manros, "Internet Printing
              Protocol/1.0: Implementer's Guide", RFC 2639,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2639, July 1999,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2639>.

   [RFC2919]  Chandhok, R. and G. Wenger, "List-Id: A Structured Field
              and Namespace for the Identification of Mailing Lists",
              RFC 2919, DOI 10.17487/RFC2919, March 2001,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2919>.

   [RFC3365]  Schiller, J., "Strong Security Requirements for Internet
              Engineering Task Force Standard Protocols", BCP 61,
              RFC 3365, DOI 10.17487/RFC3365, August 2002,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3365>.

   [RFC5890]  Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
              Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework",
              RFC 5890, DOI 10.17487/RFC5890, August 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5890>.

   [RFC5891]  Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names in
              Applications (IDNA): Protocol", RFC 5891,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5891, August 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5891>.

   [RFC5892]  Faltstrom, P., Ed., "The Unicode Code Points and
              Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA)",
              RFC 5892, DOI 10.17487/RFC5892, August 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5892>.

   [RFC5893]  Alvestrand, H., Ed. and C. Karp, "Right-to-Left Scripts
              for Internationalized Domain Names for Applications
              (IDNA)", RFC 5893, DOI 10.17487/RFC5893, August 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5893>.

   [RFC6162]  Turner, S., "Elliptic Curve Algorithms for Cryptographic
              Message Syntax (CMS) Asymmetric Key Package Content Type",
              RFC 6162, DOI 10.17487/RFC6162, April 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6162>.

   [RFC6783]  Levine, J. and R. Gellens, "Mailing Lists and Non-ASCII
              Addresses", RFC 6783, DOI 10.17487/RFC6783, November 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6783>.








Doria (ed)             Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 16]

Internet-Draft                HRPC - Report                   March 2016


   [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>.

   [RFC7230]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
              RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.

   [RFC7231]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.

   [RFC7232]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Conditional Requests", RFC 7232,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7232, June 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7232>.

   [RFC7234]  Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
              Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching",
              RFC 7234, DOI 10.17487/RFC7234, June 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7234>.

   [RFC7235]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication", RFC 7235,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7235, June 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7235>.

   [RFC7236]  Reschke, J., "Initial Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)
              Authentication Scheme Registrations", RFC 7236,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7236, June 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7236>.

   [RFC7237]  Reschke, J., "Initial Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)
              Method Registrations", RFC 7237, DOI 10.17487/RFC7237,
              June 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7237>.

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

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




Doria (ed)             Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 17]

Internet-Draft                HRPC - Report                   March 2016


   [Zittrain]
              Zittrain, J., "The Future of the Internet And How to Stop
              It", 2008.

Author's Address

   Avri Doria
   APC

   EMail: avri@apc.org









































Doria (ed)             Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 18]