Network Working Group J. Guerra
Internet-Draft Derechos Digitales
Intended status: Informational M. Knodel
Expires: September 12, 2019 ARTICLE 19
March 11, 2019
Feminism and protocols
draft-guerra-feminism-00
Abstract
This document aims to describe how internet standrds and protocols
and its implementations may impact diverse groups and communities.
The research on how some protocol can be enabler for specific human
rights while possibly restricting others has been documented in
[RFC8280]. Similar to how RFC 8280 has taken a human rights lens
through which to view engineering and design choices by internet
standardisation, this document addreses the opportunities and
vulnerabilities embedded within internet protocols for specific,
traditionally maginalised groups.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 12, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
Guerra & Knodel Expires September 12, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Feminism March 2019
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Feminism and protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2. Intersectional feminism and diversity . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. Brief history of feminism and the internet . . . . . . . 3
1.4. 2. Expression as a framework of understanding . . . . . . 4
1.4.1. 2.1. Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4.2. 2.2. Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.5. 3. Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.5.1. 3.1. Access to information . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.5.2. 3.2. Usage of technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.6. 4. Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.6.1. 4.1. Free and open source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.6.2. 4.2. Power and centralisation . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.7. 5. Networked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.7.1. 5.1. Freedom of assocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.7.2. 5.2. Internet governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.8. 6. Embodiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.8.1. 6.1. Online violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.8.2. 6.2. Consent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.8.3. 6.3. Anonymity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.8.4. 6.4. Privacy and data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.8.5. 6.5. Memory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2. References not yet referenced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Feminism and protocols
1.1. 1. Introduction
The experiences and learnings of the feminist movement in the digital
age have extrapolated feminist discourse towards building a more just
world to invisioning a more just internet, namely one that recognizes
differences across a variety of lived experience and identity. The
framework that is used to analyse and research internet protocols and
standards through a feminist lens is a document called The Feminist
Principles of the Internet. In a series of 17 statements, drafted,
redrafted and revised by hundreds of activists, the Principles offer
Guerra & Knodel Expires September 12, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Feminism March 2019
a "gender and sexual rights lens on critical internet-related rights"
for the purpose of enabling women's rights movements to explore
issues related to internet technology. Likewise, this is an attempt
to bring a conversation on the intersection of feminism and internet
technology into the technical community.
Attempts have been made to highlight where terminology occurs in both
technical standards and feminist discourse and distinguish between
the two in a meaningful way. A concept like 'security', for example,
has differing contextual meanings in internet engineering and
feminism. Coming to a shared understanding of concepts and
terminology is one goal of this document. With a better
understanding of concepts and terms, together the technical and
feminist communities can attempt to recognize and discuss how the
technical decisions with regard to internet infraestructure,
standards and protocols, directly or indirectly may affect internet
users around the world.
The Principles, like this document, are not designed as a set of
rules or recommendations, but as an articulation of key issues with
feminist policies and approaches, in order to begin to investigate.
They express the kind of internet that feminists would like to have,
and with whom to collaborate and imagine.
1.2. Intersectional feminism and diversity
Why feminism and not gender? The gender and sexual rights lens on
critical internet-related rights has been built bottom up by the
feminist movement. Feminism treats most prominently people who are
negatively discriminated against on the basis of their gender and
sexuality, but not exclusively. Because the threats to women and
queer people, whose bodies and manifestations are already under
strong, albeit sometimes invisible, social, cultural and political
surveillance, a critical feminist analysis also applies to other
marginalised groups. Aiming to use a feminist framework to analyse
the impacts of internet protocols on society assumes that values are
inherent to technological design. What follows are specifics of how
those values can either support or create barriers for gender justice
and equity for internet users.
1.3. Brief history of feminism and the internet
It is significant to highlight the ways in which feminists have
understood, used and mobilised on the internet. Given myriad
expressions of feminism online and feminist movement building online,
one thread is perhaps instructive to this exercise. More about the
nature of the complex community that created the Feminist Principles
of the Internet can be found at feministinternet.org.
Guerra & Knodel Expires September 12, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Feminism March 2019
1.4. 2. Expression as a framework of understanding
With the popularization of the internet, the freedom of expression of
both women and other gender identities traditionally marginalized
from public life and social acceptance (whom we will refer to as
queer) has been greatly enhanced. In contexts where women do not
have their rights fully guaranteed, or where sexual and gender
diversity are socially condemned, the Web has served to meet,
organize and resist.
By adding content in formats like text, audio and video, these groups
have been able to connect with each other, as well as open spaces for
discussion and visibility of topics that previously seemed vetoed.
The web has become a space for activism, reclamation and protest
against injustice and gender inequality. It has allowed the
construction of international networks of solidarity, support and
mobilization, and with this, the strengthening of feminism and other
movements that fight for equal rights and for a fair recognition of
difference.
The political expression of gender has not been limited to voices,
but has made use of the body and its representation. However, the
use of body as a form of political expression on the internet implies
a series of risks and vulnerabilities for the people involved in
these movements, especially if they do not understand how internet
technology works. In this sense, it is important to recognize that
freedom of expression on the internet, and in general its use, is
determined by gender, along with other social, economic, political
and cultural conditions.
Where women and queer people have traditionally been marginalized,
their participation in the internet is rejected through different
forms of violence by other users, as well as institutions, platforms
and governments. But the effects of these violences, which are
nothing more than extensions of the traditional violence that these
groups and individuals face in social life, increase to the extent
that there is not enough technical knowledge to neutralize them, and
this is the case of most people who struggle for the recognition of
their gender difference.
These "use cases" must be known within the IETF, in order to join
efforts for the elimination of online gender-based violence, which
today seems to be a rule in digital environments. In order to
identify ways and strategies to contribute to this purpose, we review
below the ways in which both _safety_ and _gender_ have been
approached in IETF rfcs and drafts. The following sections consist
of a preliminary analysis of the terms used in the IETF drafts and
RFCs archive.
Guerra & Knodel Expires September 12, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Feminism March 2019
By filtering from specific terms, the analysis consists of
identifying patterns and regularities in the contexts in which these
terms are used. For example, if they are used as an example in "use
cases" or if they are part of a technical explanation, and if they
are normally accompanied by other terms. The analysis presented is
only an initial revision that must be completed and synthesized.
1.4.1. 2.1. Safety
For the last years, there has been criticism of the way in which
digital security accompaniments, advice and training are developed
for people who are not directly involved in the development of
information technology. It is worth mentioning that digital
security, unlike cybersecurity, is more geared towards internet users
[Comninos]. Some of these criticisms refer to the fact that the
approach to digital security is centred on tools and not on usage
practices, and "attacks", "adversaries" or "enemies" in a generic
way, without recognising the specific contexts in which different
information protection needs are generated.
Given the common incidents suffered by women and queer people, from a
gender perspective it has been preferred to use the term _safety_ to
recognize their main need to be able to inhabit digital environments
without being the target of attacks such as trolling, harassment,
stalking, threats, non-consensual dissemination of intimate images,
among others. When speaking of _safety_ rather than _security_,
their participation is recognized as users at the most surface level,
not as administrators, developers or generators of computer
knowledge. In recent years, feminist infrastructure projects have
begun to appear while the inclusion of women in developers
communities has been promoted. However, today there is still a huge
gender gap in the technical and political development of the
internet.
In [RFC4949] _safety_ is defined as "the property of a system being
free from risk of causing harm (especially physical harm) to its
system entities", which is compared to _security_ as the "system
condition in which system resources are free from unauthorized access
and from unauthorized or accidental change, destruction, or loss".
But _safety_ has traditionally, especially in the early years of the
IETF, been referred to human activities [RFC1244], [RFC2122],
[RFC2310] and human rights [RFC1746], [RFC1941], [RFC3694].
1.4.2. 2.2. Gender
As IETF is centered on "identifying, and proposing solutions to,
pressing operational and technical problems in the Internet" and as
according to the Tao of the IETF, "we believe in rough consensus and
Guerra & Knodel Expires September 12, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Feminism March 2019
running code", it is not supposed to concentrate on the particular
characteristics of internet users, but on the proper functioning of
the systems [Tao]. In addition, due to the characteristics of the
type of technologies that are designed in the IETF, many times the
the "use cases" or implementations refer to the way in which
companies arrange the infrastructure for their clients, not
necessarily to the way internet users interact with that
infrastructure.
In this sense, it seems not within the mandate of the IETF to imagine
the particular needs of users' gender, race or ethnicity. However,
in the drafts and RFCs archive there appear subjects with gender as
well as supposedly universal entities that sometimes represent
concrete functions of the systems, and other times the voluntary
actions of the operators. As a first step in imagining possible
gender considerations when designing internet protocols, below is a
very brief description of how gender appears in IETF documents. This
is also a very preliminary analysis, which could later be
complimented and added to the search for entities with cultural and
phenotypic characteristics that could make them vulnerable on the
internet.
1.5. 3. Access
Internet access is recognized as a human right [UNGA], but its
effective guarantee depends on different and unequal social,
cultural, economic and political conditions. In 2018, barely half of
the world's population has access to the internet and in 88% of
countries, men have more access than women [ITU]. Geographical
location, age, educational and income level, as well as gender,
significantly determine how people access to the internet
[WebFoundation].
The Feminist Principles of the Internet [FPI] enphasizes that access
must be to a universal, acceptable, affordable, unconditional, open,
meaningful and equal internet, which guarantees rights rather than
restricts them. As some bodies have always been subject to social
and cultural surveillance and violence because of their gender and
sexuallity, their access to internet is not satisfied with connected
devices, but with safety and useful digital enviroments [SmKee].
In this sense, access must be considered in several dimensions, in
addition to internet access as a possibility of being connected:
Guerra & Knodel Expires September 12, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Feminism March 2019
1.5.1. 3.1. Access to information
Information in one's own language is the first condition, as pointed
out with the cencept of 'Localization' [RFC8280], referred to the act
of tailoring an application for a different language, script, or
culture, and involves not only changing the language interaction but
also other relevant changes, such as display of numbers, dates,
currency, and so on.
But it is also necessary to be able to access relevant information,
related for example to sexual and reproductive health and rights,
pleasure, safe abortion, access to justice, and LGBTIQ issues. Some
goverments and ISPs block pages with this content or monitor online
activity by sexual and gender related terminology. Therefore the
considerations for anticensorship internet infrastructure
technologies also consider, and can possibly alleviate, a gendered
component to using the internet.
1.5.2. 3.2. Usage of technology
Beyond content, access implies the possibility to use, which means
code, design, adapt and critically and sustainably use ICTs. As
almost 75% of connected individuals are placed in the Global South
[WhoseKnowledge], technology is developped mainly in rich countries
where student quotas and jobs are filled mainly by men.
The concept of 'Internationalization' [RFC6365] refers to the
practice of making protocols, standards, and implementations usable
in different languages. This is a first step to democratize the
development of technology, allowing its implementation in non-
English-speaking countries.
However, there is still a long way to go in terms of inclusion of
more diverse populations in the spaces of technology development and
definition of protocoles and standards for the internet
infrastructure [RFC7704]. The presence of gendered subjects in the
IETF RFCs and drafts archive demonstrates stereotyped male and
feminine roles. On the other hand, the generalized mention of agents
- as universal subjects - in those documents, ignores the existence
of other corporealities, which includes non binary identities or with
a marked physical difference.
Building and engineering critical internet technology is a component
of 'usage'. There are challenge the cultures of sexism and
discrimination in all spaces, some of which can be found in existing
RFCs.
Guerra & Knodel Expires September 12, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Feminism March 2019
1.6. 4. Economy
1.6.1. 4.1. Free and open source
The digital gender gap has relegated women and other marginalized
groups to be internet users, adding content for the benefit of the
platform itself but without a deep understanding of how these
platforms work. Promoting transparency [RFC8280] and simplifying
technical terminology is necessary to bridge this gap. This requires
shared terminology upon which technology is created to enable
experimentation and values exchange. Not only that, but documenting,
promoting, disseminating, and sharing knowledge about technology is
at the heart of the long-standing free software community's ethos.
This aligns with a feminist approach to technology.
Given the established community of "free software", it is important
to note that freedom is not freedom for everyone, always. It is
important to identify different dimensions of freedom and how it is
expressed in different contexts.
1.6.2. 4.2. Power and centralisation
A feminist approach to technology requires a strong critique of
capitalist power, centralisation of services and the logic of
vertical integration while holding nuance for the tensions between
trust, reliability and diversity. Centralisation of services is a
current discussion in the IETF that should be informed by feminist
critique of capitalist structures [Arkko].
1.7. 5. Networked
1.7.1. 5.1. Freedom of assocation
Given the shrinking of civic space offline, the internet provides a
global public space, albeit one that relies on private infrastructure
[tenOever]. For social causes that push for equality, it is
therefore critical that the internet be maintained as a space for
alignment, protest, dissent and escape. In the scope of this
document, this is a call to maintain and enable the creation of
spaces for sustained feminist movement building. Elements of freedom
of assocation as explained in the UDHR include individual and
collective rights to privacy and anonymity, as discussed in more
detail below. At the same time, the internet provides new and novel
ways for communities to come together across borders and without
limits of geolocation. However this positive aspect of internet
communications is threatened by centralised systems of control and
cooptation, specifically surveillance and other online repression.
Guerra & Knodel Expires September 12, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Feminism March 2019
Association of system architectures is a concept that overlaps neatly
with the ideals of real-world associations of organisations and
communities. "The ultimate model of P2P is a completely
decentralized system, which is more resistant to speech regulation,
immune to single points of failure and have a higher performance and
scalability [tenOever]."
1.7.2. 5.2. Internet governance
While there is no agreement regarding the ability of the internet to
negatively or positively impact on social behaviors, or shape
desirable practices [RFC8280], more women and diverse populations'
participation in technical development and decision-making spaces
will lead to greater possibilities for ICTs to reflect greater
inclusiveness and enable less risky and harmful interactions
[RFC7704].
It is critical for groups who represent civil society interests,
social change and the larger public interest to challenge processes
and institutions that govern the internet. This requires the
inclusion of more feminists and queers at the decision-making table,
which can be achieved through democratic policy making. Greater
effect will be possible through diffuse ownership of and power in
global and local networks.
1.8. 6. Embodiment
Most of the threats women and non binary people face on line, occur
on the user levels of application and content. Most adversaries are
other users, but also include institutions, platforms and
governments.
For a long time, perhaps since the internet became popular, its use
ceased to be a functional matter and became emotional. The access to
chat rooms to connected with people at huge distances, the
possibility of having personal e-mails, the appearance of social
networks to share music, photos and then video, determined not only
the social use of a new tool but also the configuration of digital
sensitivities, understood by some as sensory extensions of the body.
The internet connections embedded have also meant a radical
transformation in the way people access the internet. Much more,
considering that today most internet connections, especially in the
global south, are mobile connections. People build their own public
digital identities, use private communications to disseminate
information, explore their sexuality in text, image and video, share
their initmity with others. In internet-connected devices, it has
Guerra & Knodel Expires September 12, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Feminism March 2019
become much easier for leisure and work to mix, which implies
different risks for users.
Sharing personal information, and often sensitive data, through
platforms that are synchronized with email accounts and other
platforms where information considered non-sensitive is published,
implies losing control over such information. Much more, considering
that each platform hosts the information of its users according to
their own terms and conditions in the treatment of data. For women
and other groups marginalized by race or gender, these risks are
greater.
Just as the internet connection can be considered an extension of the
body, social problems such as discrimination and exclusion have been
projected into the digital environment- sometimes intensified,
sometimes reconfigured. And once again, women, queers, racialized
people are the most vulnerable. Most of the threats they face on
line, occur in the user level. Most of their "adversaries" are other
users, who also act at the user level, with technical or social
skills that threaten participation and expressions. Institutions,
platforms and governments who are adversarial have great advantage.
At this point, what level of autonomy do these people have as
internet users?
1.8.1. 6.1. Online violence
The security considerations to counter online violence are critical.
There is opportunity in a connected world for those who would
perpetuate violence against women and other marginalised groups
through the use of internet-enabled technologies, from the home to
the prison.
Privacy is a critical component of security for populations at risk.
The control of information is linked to privacy. Where some would
like privacy in order to live privately, others need privacy in order
to access information and circumvent censorship and surveillance.
The protection of privacy is critical for those at risk to prevent
vicimisation through extortion, doxxing, and myriad other threats.
Lack of privacy leads to risks such as stalking, monitoring and
persistent harrassment.
While making public otherwise private details about a person can
consitute a form of abuse, the converse is also a risk: Being erased
from society or having one's online identity controlled by another is
a form of control and manipulation. Censorship, misinformation and
coersion may consitute violence online. Other forms of non-
consensual manipulation of online content includes platform "real
Guerra & Knodel Expires September 12, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Feminism March 2019
name policies", sharing of intimate images and sexual abuse,
spreading false accusations, flamming and other tactics.
Key to mitigating these threats is the element of consent.
1.8.2. 6.2. Consent
Some elements of consent online include but are not limited to the
following list of issues, which should be elaborated on:
- Data protection * Exposure of personal data
- Culture, design, policies and terms of service of internet
platforms
- Agency lies in informed decisions * Real name policies
- Public versus private information * Dissemination of personal or
intimate information * Exposure of intimacy * Unauthorized use of
photos
1.8.3. 6.3. Anonymity
While anonymity is never just about technical issues but users
protection activities, it becomes more necessary to strenghten the
design and functionality of networks, by default. There are several
considerations for internet infrastructure related to enabling
anonymity for online users. This is particularly important for
marginalised groups and can be ennumerated, and expanded upon,
thusly:
- Right to anonymity
- Enables other rights like freedom of expression * Censorship *
Defamation, descredit * Affectations to expression channels
- Breaking social taboos and heteronormativity * Hate Speech,
discriminatory expressions
- Discrimination and safety from discrimination
1.8.4. 6.4. Privacy and data
While mentioned at the intersection of previous issues outlined
above, this section is particularly critical for women, queers and
marginalised populations who are already at greater risk of control
and surveillance:
Guerra & Knodel Expires September 12, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Feminism March 2019
- Right to privacy
- Data protection
- Profit models
- Surveillance and patriarchy by states, individuals, private
sector, etc. Those that enable surveillance, eg spouseware.
1.8.5. 6.5. Memory
One's consent and control of the information that is available to
them and about them online is a key aspect of being a fully empowered
individual and community in the digital age. There are several
considerations that deserve deeper inspection, such as:
- Right to be forgotten
- Control over personal history and memory on the internet
- Access all our personal data and information online
- Delete forever
2. References not yet referenced
In plain sight, on sexuality, rights and the internet in India, Nepal
and Sri Lanka https://www.genderit.org/articles/plain-sight-
sexuality-rights-and-internet-india-nepal-and-sri-lanka
Human Rights and Internet Protocols: Comparing Processes and
Principles https://www.apc.org/sites/default/files/
ISSUE_human_rights_2.pdf
Principles of Unity for Infraestructuras Feministas
https://pad.kefir.red/p/infraestucturas-feministas Feminist
Principles of the Internet https://feministinternet.org The UX Guide
to Getting Consent https://iapp.org/resources/article/the-ux-guide-
to-getting-consent
From steel to skin https://fermentos.kefir.red/english/aco-pele
Responsible Data https://responsibledata.io
Impact for what and for whom? Digital technologies and feminist
movement building internet https://www.genderit.org/feminist-talk/
impact-what-and-whom-digital-technologies-and-feminist-movement-
building
Guerra & Knodel Expires September 12, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Feminism March 2019
Design Justice https://docs.google.com/presentation/
d/1J3ZWBgxe0QFQ8OmUr-QzE6Be8k_sI7XF0VWu4wfMIVM/
edit#slide=id.gcad8d6cb9_0_198
Design Action Collective Points of Unity
https://designaction.org/about/points-of-unity
CODING RIGHTS; INTERNETLAB. Violencias de genero na internet:
diagnostico, solucoes e desafios. Contribuicao conjunta do Brasil
para a relatora especial da ONU sobre violencia contra a mulher. Sao
Paulo, 2017. https://www.codingrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/
Relatorio_ViolenciaGenero_v061.pdf
Barrera, L. y Rodriguez, C. La violencia en linea contra las mujeres
en Mexico. Informe para la Relatora sobre Violencia contra las
Mujeres Ms. Dubravka Šimonović. 2017.
https://luchadoras.mx/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/
Informe_ViolenciaEnLineaMexico_InternetEsNuestra.pdf
Sephard, N. Big Data and Sexual Surveillance. APC issue papers.
2016. https://www.apc.org/sites/default/files/
BigDataSexualSurveillance_0_0.pdf
3. Security Considerations
As this document concerns a research document, there are no security
considerations.
4. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
5. Informative References
[Arkko] Arkko, J., "Considerations on Internet Consolidation and
the Internet Architecture.", 2018,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/
draft-arkko-iab-internet-consolidation>.
[Comninos]
Alex Comninos, ., "A cyber security Agenda for civil
society: What is at stake?", 2013,
<https://www.apc.org/sites/default/files/
PRINT_ISSUE_Cyberseguridad_EN.pdf>.
[FPI] Association for Progressive Communications, "The Feminist
Principles of the Internet", n.d.,
<https://feministinternet.org>.
Guerra & Knodel Expires September 12, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Feminism March 2019
[ITU] International Telecommunications Union (ITU),
"Statisctics. Global, Regional and Country ICT Data.",
2018, <https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/stat/
default.aspx>.
[RFC1244] Holbrook, J. and J. Reynolds, "Site Security Handbook",
RFC 1244, DOI 10.17487/RFC1244, July 1991,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1244>.
[RFC1746] Manning, B. and D. Perkins, "Ways to Define User
Expectations", RFC 1746, DOI 10.17487/RFC1746, December
1994, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1746>.
[RFC1941] Sellers, J. and J. Robichaux, "Frequently Asked Questions
for Schools", FYI 22, RFC 1941, DOI 10.17487/RFC1941, May
1996, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1941>.
[RFC2122] Mavrakis, D., Layec, H., and K. Kartmann, "VEMMI URL
Specification", RFC 2122, DOI 10.17487/RFC2122, March
1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2122>.
[RFC2310] Holtman, K., "The Safe Response Header Field", RFC 2310,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2310, April 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2310>.
[RFC3694] Danley, M., Mulligan, D., Morris, J., and J. Peterson,
"Threat Analysis of the Geopriv Protocol", RFC 3694,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3694, February 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3694>.
[RFC4949] Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2",
FYI 36, RFC 4949, DOI 10.17487/RFC4949, August 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4949>.
[RFC6365] Hoffman, P. and J. Klensin, "Terminology Used in
Internationalization in the IETF", BCP 166, RFC 6365,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6365, September 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6365>.
[RFC7704] Crocker, D. and N. Clark, "An IETF with Much Diversity and
Professional Conduct", RFC 7704, DOI 10.17487/RFC7704,
November 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7704>.
[RFC8280] ten Oever, N. and C. Cath, "Research into Human Rights
Protocol Considerations", RFC 8280, DOI 10.17487/RFC8280,
October 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8280>.
Guerra & Knodel Expires September 12, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Feminism March 2019
[SmKee] Jac Sm Kee, ., "Imagine a Feminist Internet.", 2018,
<http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41301-017-0137-2>.
[Tao] Internet Engineering Task Force, "The Tao of the IETF.",
n.d., <https://www.ietf.org/about/participate/tao>.
[tenOever]
ten Oever, N., "Freedom of Association on the Internet",
n.d., <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/
draft-tenoever-hrpc-association-05.txt>.
[UNGA] United Nations General Assembly, "The promotion,
protection and enjoyment of human rights on the
Internet.", 2012, <https://documents-dds-
ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/G12/147/10/PDF/
G1214710.pdf?OpenElement>.
[WebFoundation]
Web Foundation, "Advancing Women's Rights Online: Gaps and
Opportunities in Policy and Research.", 2018,
<http://webfoundation.org/docs/2018/08/Advancing-Womens-
Rights-Online_Gaps-and-Opportunities-in-Policy-and-
Research.pdf>.
[WhoseKnowledge]
Whose Knowledge, "Decolonizing the Internet, Summary
Report.", 2018, <https://whoseknowledge.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/10/DTI-2018-Summary-Report.pdf>.
Authors' Addresses
Juliana Guerra
Derechos Digitales
EMail: juliana@derechosdigitales.org
Mallory Knodel
ARTICLE 19
EMail: mallory@article19.org
Guerra & Knodel Expires September 12, 2019 [Page 15]