Human Rights Protocol Considerations Research Group N. ten Oever
Internet-Draft University of Amsterdam
Intended status: Informational S. Couture
Expires: December 31, 2020 University de Montreal
G. Perez de Acha
Derechos Digitales
June 29, 2020
Freedom of Association on the Internet
draft-irtf-hrpc-association-05
Abstract
This document discusses the relationships between the Internet
architecture and the ability of people to exercise their right to
freedom of assembly and association online. The Internet
increasingly mediates our lives, our relationships and our ability to
exercise our human rights. As a global forum, the Internet provides
a public space, yet it is predominantly built on private
infrastructure. Since Internet protocols play a central role in the
management, development and use of the Internet, we analyse the
relationship between protocols and the rights to assemble and
associate in order to mitigate infringements upon those rights.
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 31, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
ten Oever, et al. Expires December 31, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft FoA June 2020
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
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. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. FAA definition and core treaties . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. FAA in the digital era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.3. Specific questions raised from the literature review . . 10
6. Cases and examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. Conversing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1.1. Mailing Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1.2. Multi-party video conferencing . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1.3. Internet Relay Chat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.2. Peer-to-peer networks and systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.2.1. Peer-to-peer system architectures . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.2.2. Version control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.3. Grouping together (identities) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.3.1. DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.3.2. Autonomous Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. Discussion: Establishing the relation . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. Discussion: Protocols and Platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
13. Research Group Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
14.1. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
14.2. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
1. Introduction
"In the digital age, the exercise of the rights of peaceful assembly
and association has become largely dependent on business enterprises,
ten Oever, et al. Expires December 31, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft FoA June 2020
whose legal obligations, policies, technical standards, financial
models and algorithms can affect these freedoms".
- Annual Report to the UN Human Rights Council by the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association (2019).
We shape our tools and, thereafter, our tools shape us. 
- John Culkin (1967)
The current draft continues the work started in "Research into Human
Rights Protocol Considerations" [RFC8280] by investigating the impact
of Internet protocols on a specific set of human rights, namely the
right to freedom of assembly and association. Taking into
consideration the international human rights framework regarding
freedom of assembly and association, the present document seeks to
deepen the relationship between this human right and Internet
architecture, protocols, and standards. In that way, we continue the
work of the Human Rights Protocol Consideration Research Group, as
laid out in its charter, where one of the research aims is "to expose
the relation between protocols and human rights, with a focus on the
rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly"
[hrpc-charter]. The conclusions may inform the development of new
guidelines for protocol developers.
2. Vocabulary used
Architecture The design of a structure
Autonomous System (AS) Autonomous Systems are the unit of routing
policy in the modern world of exterior routing [RFC1930].
Within the Internet, an autonomous system (AS) is a collection of
connected Internet Protocol (IP) routing prefixes under the
control of one or more network operators on behalf of a single
administrative entity or domain that presents a common, clearly
defined routing policy to the Internet [RFC1930].
The classic definition of an Autonomous System is a set of routers
under a single technical administration, using an interior gateway
protocol and common metrics to route packets within the AS, and
using an exterior gateway protocol to route packets to other ASs
[RFC1771].
Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) An inter-Autonomous System routing
protocol [RFC4271].
Connectivity The extent to which a device or network is able to
reach other devices or networks to exchange data. The Internet is
ten Oever, et al. Expires December 31, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft FoA June 2020
the tool for providing global connectivity [RFC1958]. Different
types of connectivity are further specified in [RFC4084]. The
combination of the end-to-end principle, interoperability,
distributed architecture, resilience, reliability and robustness
are the enabling factors that result in connectivity to and on the
Internet.
Decentralization Implementation or deployment of standards,
protocols or systems without one single point of control.
Distributed system A system with multiple components that have their
behavior co-ordinated via message passing. These components are
usually spatially separated and communicate using a network, and
may be managed by a single root of trust or authority.
[Troncosoetal]
Infrastructure Underlying basis or structure for a functioning
society, organization or community. Because infrastructure is a
precondition for other activities it has a procedural, rather than
static, nature due to its social and cultural embeddedness
[PipekWulf] [Bloketal]. This means that infrastructure is always
relational: infrastructure always develops in relation to
something or someone [Bowker].
Internet The Network of networks, that consists of Autonomous
Systems that are connected through the Internet Protocol (IP).
A persistent socio-technical system over which services are
delivered [Mainwaringetal],
A techno-social assemblage of devices, users, sensors, networks,
routers, governance, administrators, operators and protocols
An emergent-process-driven thing that is born from the collections
of the ASes that happen to be gathered together at any given time.
The fact that they tend to interact at any given time means it is
an emergent property that happens because they use the protocols
defined at IETF.
3. Research question
The research question of this document is: what are the
considerations of the right to freedom of assembly and association
for protocol development?
ten Oever, et al. Expires December 31, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft FoA June 2020
4. Methodology
The point of departure of the present work [RFC8280] is an initial
effort to expose the relationship between human rights and the
Internet architecture, specifically protocols and standards. As
such, [RFC8280] was inductive and exploratory in nature. The
methodology in this previous work was based on discourse analysis of
RFCs, interviews with Members of the IETF community and participant
observation in IETF working groups, with the goal of identifying
technical concepts related to human rights. This work resulted in
the proposal of guidelines to describe a relationship between the
right to freedom of assembly and association, and connectivity,
security, censorship resistance, anonymity, pseudonymity,
accessibility, decentralization, adaptability, and outcome
transparency.
In this document we deepen our exploration of human rights and
protocols by assessing one specific set of human rights: freedom of
association and assembly, abbreviated as FAA. Our methodology for
doing so is the following: first we provide a brief twofold
literature review addressing the philosophical and legal definitions
of FAA and how this right has already been interpreted or analysed in
relation to the digital. This literature review is not exhaustive
nor systematic but aims at providing some lines of questioning that
could later be used for protocol development. The second part of our
methodology looks at some cases of Internet protocols that are
relevant to the sub-questions highlighted in the literature review,
and analyses how these protocols facilitate and inhibit the right to
assembly and association.
5. Literature Review
5.1. FAA definition and core treaties
The rights to freedom of association and assembly are defined and
guaranteed by many national laws and international treaties. Article
20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [UDHR] states for
instance that "Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly
and association" and that "No one may be compelled to belong to an
association". Article 23 further guarantees that "Everyone has the
right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his
interests". In the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights [ICCPR], article 21 stipulates that "The right of peaceful
assembly shall be recognised" and that "No restrictions may be placed
on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity
with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the
interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre
public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection
ten Oever, et al. Expires December 31, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft FoA June 2020
of the rights and freedoms of others" while article 22 states that
"Everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with others,
including the right to form and join trade unions". Other treaties
are sometimes cited as the source and framework to the right to
freedom of association and assembly. The Australian government
[Australia] refers for instance to Article 5 of the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination [CERD] which
stipulates that freedom of peaceful assembly and association should
be guaranteed "without discrimination as to race, colour, national or
ethnic origin"; Article 15 of the Convention on the Rights of the
Child [CRC] which recognises the right to child pending the
restrictions cited above; and Article 21 of the Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities [CRPD] which insists on usable
and accessible formats and technologies appropriate for persons with
different kinds of disabilities.
In a more philosophical perspective, Brownlee and Jenkins make some
interesting distinctions in regard to the concepts of association,
assembly and interaction. On one hand, "interaction" refers to any
kind of interpersonal and often incidental engagements in daily life,
like encountering strangers on a bus. Interaction is seen as a
"prerequisite" for association. "Assembly", on the other hand, has a
more political connotation and is often used to refer to activists,
protesters, or members of a group in a deliberating event. In
between the two, "association" refers to more "persistent
connections" that are not necessarily political in nature. The
authors thus distinguish between intimate associations, like
friendship, love or family, and collective associations like trade
union, commercial business, or "expressive associations" like civil
rights organizations or lgbtqia associations. For Brownlee and
Jenkins, the right to association is linked to different relative
freedoms: permission (to association or dissociate), claim-right (to
oppose others interfering with our conduct), power (to alter the
status of our association), and immunity (from other people
interfering in our right). Freedom of association and assembly thus
refers both to the individual right to join or leave a group and to
the collective right to form or dissolve a group and to organize
itself.
In international law, the right to freedom of assembly and
association protects any collective, gathered either permanently or
temporarily for "peaceful" purposes. It is important to highlight
the dimension of "freedom" because the right to freedom of
association and assembly is voluntary and uncoerced: anyone can join
or leave a group by choice, which in turn means one should not be
forced to either join, stay or leave. The difference between freedom
of assembly and freedom of association is merely one of degree: the
former tends to have an informal and ephemeral nature, whereas the
ten Oever, et al. Expires December 31, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft FoA June 2020
latter refers to established and permanent bodies with specific
objectives. Nonetheless, both are protected in the same way. Where
an assembly is an intentional and temporary gathering of a collective
in a private or public space for a specific purpose: demonstrations,
indoor meetings, strikes, processions, rallies or even sits-in
[UNHRC]; association has a more formal and established nature. It
refers to a group of individuals or legal entities brought together
in order to collectively act, express, pursue or defend a field of
common interests [UNGA]. Think of civil society organizations,
clubs, cooperatives, NGOs, religious associations, political parties,
trade unions or foundations.
Brownlee and Jenkins also more explicitly address the right to
exclude someone from an association, and the right to leave an
association. In all this, they insist that freedom of association
and assembly is never absolute. Parents, for instance, have limited
rights to exclude their underage children from the family household.
Excluding someone from an association based on their sex, race or
other individual characteristic is also often contentious if not
illegal. (Might go on to discuss other legitimate limits of FAA).
5.2. FAA in the digital era
The right to freedom of assembly and association is the subject of
increasing discussions and analysis. In 2016, the Council of Europe
published a report, "Report by the Committee of experts on cross-
border flow of Internet traffic and Internet freedom on Freedom of
assembly and association on the Internet" [MSI-INT], which notes that
while the Internet and technologies are not explicitly mentioned in
international treaties, these treaties nevertheless apply to "the
online environment". The report argues that the "Internet is the
public sphere of the 21st century", something demonstrated by the
fact that informal associations can be gathered at scale in a matter
of hours on the Internet, and that digital communication tools often
serve to facilitate, publicize and otherwise enable presential
associations or assemblies, like protests or demonstrations. The
report also notes the negative ways in which the Internet can also be
used to promote or facilitate terrorism, urban violence and hate
speech, thus insisting on the "extremely important and urgent" need
to fight online terrorist activities such as recruitment or
mobilization, while at the same time respecting the right to peaceful
assembly and association of other users. The report mentions the
following cases that could help further our reflection:
- Instances of network shutdowns in the Arab Spring, to prevent
people from organising or assembling
ten Oever, et al. Expires December 31, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft FoA June 2020
- California's Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) shutdown of mobile
phone service, to avoid protester violence and disruption of
service
- The wholesale blocking of Google as a violation of freedom of
expression
- Telus, a telecom company which blocked customers' access to
websites critical of Telus during a Telecommunications Workers
Union strike against it
- The targeting of social media users who call for or organise
protests though the Internet in Turkey's Gezi Park protests
- Mass surveillance or other interferences with privacy in the
context of law enforcement and national security
- Use of VPNs (Virtual Private Networks) to the TOR network to
ensure anonymity
- Distributed Denial of Service attacks (DDoS) as civil
disobedience.
More recently, the 2019 Annual Report addressed to the UN Human
Rights Council by the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of
peaceful assembly and of association, also notes the opportunities
and challenges posed by digital networks to the rights to freedom of
peaceful assembly and of association. The report recommends that
international human rights norms and principles should also be used
as a framework "that guides digital technology companies' design,
control and governance of digital technologies". The report states
that "technical standards" in particular can affect the freedom of
association and assembly, and makes some recommendations of which the
following could be relevant to our discussion:
- "[Undertake] human rights impact assessments which incorporate the
rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association when
developing or modifying their products and services,"
- "increase the quality of participation in and implementation of
existing multi-stakeholder initiatives,"
- "collaborate with governments and civil society to develop
technology that promotes and strengthens human rights,"
- "support the research and development of appropriate technological
solutions to online harassment, disinformation and propaganda,
ten Oever, et al. Expires December 31, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft FoA June 2020
including tools to detect and identify State-linked accounts and
bots," and
- "adopt monitoring indicators that include specific concerns
related to freedom of peaceful assembly and association."
(Possible gap looking at FAA and interoperability) In one of their
"training kits", the Association of Progressive Communications
(APC) addressed different impacts of the Internet on association
and assembly and raised three particular issues worthy of note:
1. Organisation of protests. Internet and social media is an
enabler of protests, such as was seen in the "Arab Spring". Some
of these protests - such as online petitions and campaigns - are
similar to offline association and assembly, but other forms of
protest are inherent to the Internet like hacking andDDoS, and
are subject to controversy within the Internet community, some
people finding it legitimate, and others not.
2. Surveillance. While the Internet facilitates association,
association in turn leaves of a lot of traces which can be used
by law enforcement but also for repressing political dissent. As
APC notes, even the threat of surveillance can deter association.
3. Anonymity and pseudonymity can be useful protection mechanisms
for those who would like to attend legitimate associations
without facing retribution. On the other hand, anonymity can be
used to harm society, such as in online fraud or sexual
predation. [APC1]
(TBD) [Sauter]
Online association and assembly are the starting point of group
mobilization in modern democracies, and even more so where physical
gatherings have been impossible or dangerous [APC2]. Throughout the
world - from the Arab Spring to Latin American student movements and
the #WomensMarch - the Internet has played a crucial role by
providing means for the fast dissemination of information otherwise
mediated by the press, or even forbidden by the government [Pensado].
According to Hussain and Howard, the Internet helped to "build
solidarity networks and identification of collective identities and
goals, extend the range of local coverage to international broadcast
networks" and served as a platform for contestation for "the future
of civil society and information infrastructure" [HussainHoward].
The IETF itself, defined as a 'open global community' of network
designers, operators, vendors, and researchers [RFC3233], is also
protected by freedom of assembly and association. Discussions,
comments and consensus around RFCs are possible because of the
collective expression that freedom of association and assembly
ten Oever, et al. Expires December 31, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft FoA June 2020
allows. The very word "protocol" found its way into the language of
computer networking based on the need for collective agreement among
network users [HafnerandLyon].
RFC8280 is a paper on Internet protocols and human rights and in turn
discusses issues of FAA, specifically:
- The expansion of DNS for generic namespace as enabler of
association for minorities.
- The difficulty to compare DDoS with offline protestation as not
everyone participates willingly in DDoS. It is in particular
suggested that IETF "should try to ensure that their protocols
cannot be used for DDoS attacks"
- Freedom of association can be threatened by the denial of access
of certain services, or by surveillance.
- Connectivity can impact freedom of assembly and association
(6.2.2)
- "Open, secure, and reliable connectivity is necessary (although
not sufficient) to exercise human rights such as freedom of
expression and freedom of association"
5.3. Specific questions raised from the literature review
Here are some questions raised from the literature review that can
have implications for protocol design:
1. As a general matter, what are the features of protocols that
enable freedom of association and assembly? Can protocols
facilitate agency of membership in associations, assemblies and
interactions? Where in the stack do we care for FAA?
2. Does protocol development sufficiently consider the enabling of
freedom of association without discrimination as to race, colour,
national, ethnic origin?
3. Does protocol development sufficiently consider usable and
accessible formats and technologies appropriate for persons with
different kinds of disabilities?
4. Is it possible to distinguish "peaceful" and "non-peaceful"
association from the perspective of protocol development? If
yes, can and should protocols be designed to limit "non-peaceful"
association?
ten Oever, et al. Expires December 31, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft FoA June 2020
5. In particular, should protocols be designed to enable legitimate
limitations on association in the interests of "national security
or public safety, public order, the protection of public health
or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of
others", as stated in the ICCPR article 21?
6. Can a protocol be designed to legitimately exclude someone from
an association?
7. In general, what kind of human rights impact assessments should
be made to incorporate the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly
and of association when developing protocols?
6. Cases and examples
As the Internet mediates collective action and collaboration, it
impacts on freedom of association and assembly. To answer our
research question regarding how internet architecture enable and/or
inhibits such human right, we researched several independent and
typical cases related to protocols that have been either adopted by
the IETF, or are widely used on the Internet. Our goal is to figure
out whether they facilitate freedom of assembly and association, or
whether they inhibit it through their design or implementation. We
also indicate, per case, the interrelation with issues in [RFC8280].
6.1. Conversing
An interactive conversation between two or more people forms the
basis to organize and associate. According to Anderson "the
relationship between political conversation and engagement in the
democratic process is strong." [Anderson]. A conversation is
inherently of social nature. Therefore, by these definitions the
core of the "political" is essentially assembly or association: a
basis for the development of social cohesion in society.
6.1.1. Mailing Lists
Since the beginning of the Internet mailing lists have been a key
site of assembly and association [RFC0155] [RFC1211]. In fact,
mailing lists were one of the Internet's first functionalities
[HafnerandLyon].
In 1971, four years after the invention of email, the first mailing
list was created to talk about the idea of using Arpanet for
discussion. What had initially propelled the Arpanet project forward
as a resource sharing platform was gradually replaced by the idea of
a network as a means of bringing people together [Abbate]. More than
45 years after, mailing lists are pervasive and help communities to
ten Oever, et al. Expires December 31, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft FoA June 2020
engage, have discussions, share information, ask questions, and build
ties. Even as social media and discussion forums grow, mailing lists
continue to be widely used [AckermannKargerZhang] and are still a
crucial tool to organise groups and individuals around themes and
causes [APC].
Mailing lists' pervasive use are partly explained because they allow
for "free" association: people subscribe (join) and unsubscribe
(leave) as they please. Mailing lists also allow for association of
specific groups on closed lists. Furthermore, the archival function
of mailinglists allows for posterior accountability and analysis.
The downsides of mailinglists are similar to the ones generally
associated with e-mail, except that end-to-end encryption such as
OpenPGP [RFC4880] and S/MIME [RFC5751] are not possible because the
final recipients are not known. There have been experimental
solutions to address this issue such as Schleuder [Schleuder], but
this has not been standardized or widely deployed.
This case relates to the following considerations in [RFC8280]: -
Security - Privacy - Decentralization - Censorship Resistance - Open
Standards - Confidentiality
6.1.2. Multi-party video conferencing
Multi-party video conferencing protocols like WebRTC [RFC6176]
[RFC7118] allow for robust, bandwidth-adaptive, wideband and super-
wideband video and audio discussions in groups. 'The WebRTC protocol
was designed to enable responsive real-time communications over the
Internet, and is instrumental in allowing streaming video and
conferencing applications to run in the browser. In order to easily
facilitate direct connections between computers (bypassing the need
for a central server to act as a gatekeeper), WebRTC provides
functionality to automatically collect the local and public IP
addresses of Internet users (ICE or STUN). These functions do not
require consent from the user, and can be instantiated by sites that
a user visits without their awareness. The potential privacy
implications of this aspect of WebRTC are well documented, and
certain browsers have provided options to limit its behavior.'
[AndersonGuarnieri].
Even though some multi-party video conferencing tools facilitate
freedom of assembly and association, their own configuration might
might pose concrete risks for those who use them. One the one hand
WebRTC is providing resilient channels of communications, but on the
other hand it also exposes information about those who are using the
tool which might lead to increased surveillance, identification and
the consequences that might be derived from that. This is especially
ten Oever, et al. Expires December 31, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft FoA June 2020
concerning because the usage of a VPN does not protect against the
exposure of IP addresses [Crawford].
The risk of surveillance is also true in an offline space, but this
is generally easy to analyze for the end-user. Security and privacy
expectations of the end-user could be either improved or made
explicit. This in turn would result in a more secure and/or private
exercise of the right to freedom of assembly or association.
This case relates to the following considerations in [RFC8280]: -
Security - Privacy - Decentralization - Censorship Resistance - Open
Standards - Anonymity - Confidentiality
6.1.3. Internet Relay Chat
Internet Relay Chat (IRC) is an application layer protocol that
enables communication in the form of text through a client/server
networking model [RFC2810]. In other words, a chat service. IRC
clients are computer programs that a user can install on their
system. These clients communicate with chat servers to transfer
messages to other clients.
For order to be kept within the IRC network, special classes of users
become "operators" and are allowed to perform general maintenance
functions on the network: basic network tasks such as disconnecting
(temporary or permanently) and reconnecting servers as needed
[RFC2812]. One of the most controversial power of operators is the
ability to remove a user from the connected network by 'force', i.e.,
operators are able to close the connection between any client and
server [RFC2812].
IRC servers may deploy different policies for the ability of users to
create their own channels or 'rooms', and for the delegation of
'operator'-rights in such spaces. Some IRC servers support SSL/TLS
connections for security purposes [RFC7194] which helps stop the use
of packet sniffer programs to obtain the passwords of IRC users, but
has little use beyond this scope due to the public nature of IRC
channels. TLS connections require both client and server support
(that may require the user to install TLS binaries and IRC client
specific patches or modules on their computers). Some networks also
use TLS for server to server connections, and provide a special
channel flag (such as +S) to only allow TLS-connected users on the
channel, while disallowing operator identification in clear text, to
better utilize the advantages that TLS provides.
This case relates to the following considerations in [RFC8280]: -
Security - Privacy - Censorship Resistance
ten Oever, et al. Expires December 31, 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft FoA June 2020
6.2. Peer-to-peer networks and systems
At the organizational level, peer production is one of the most
relevant innovations from Internet mediated social practices.
According to [Benkler] these networks imply 'open collaborative
innovation and creation, performed by diverse, decentralized groups
organized principally by neither price signals nor organizational
hierarchy, harnessing heterogeneous motivations, and governed and
managed based on principles other than the residual authority of
ownership implemented through contract.' [Benkler].
In his book The Wealth of Networks, Benkler significantly expands on
his definition of commons-based peer production. In his view, what
distinguishes commons-based production is that it doesn't rely upon
or propagate proprietary knowledge: "The inputs and outputs of the
process are shared, freely or conditionally, in an institutional form
that leaves them equally available for all to use as they choose at
their individual discretion." [Benkler] To ensure that the knowledge
generated is available for free use, commons-based projects are often
shared under an open license.
6.2.1. Peer-to-peer system architectures
Peer-to-peer (P2P) is essentially a model of how people interact in
real life because "we deal directly with one another whenever we wish
to" [Vu]. Usually if we need something we ask our peers, who in turn
refer us to other peers. In this sense, the ideal definition of P2P
is that "nodes are able to directly exchange resources and services
between themselves without the need for centralized servers" where
each participating node typically acts both as a server and as a
client [Vu]. RFC 5694 has defined it as peers or nodes that should
be able to communicate directly between themselves without passing
intermediaries, and that the system should be self-organizing and
have decentralized control [RFC5694]. With this in mind, the
ultimate model of P2P is a completely decentralized system, which is
more resistant to speech regulation, immune to single points of
failure and has a higher performance and scalability. Nonetheless,
in practice some P2P systems are supported by centralized servers and
some others have hybrid models where nodes are organized into two
layers: the upper tier servers and the lower tier common nodes [Vu].
Since the ARPANET project, the original idea behind the Internet was
conceived as what we would now call a peer-to-peer system [RFC0001].
Over time it has increasingly shifted towards a client/server model
with "millions of consumer clients communicating with a relatively
privileged set of servers" [NelsonHedlun].
ten Oever, et al. Expires December 31, 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft FoA June 2020
Whether for resource sharing or data sharing, P2P systems are
enabling freedom of assembly and association. Not only do they allow
for effective dissemination of information, but they leverage
computing resources by diminishing costs allowing for the formation
of open collectives at the network level. At the same time, in
completely decentralized systems the nodes are autonomous and can
join or leave the network as they want -a characteristic that makes
the system unpredictable: a resource might be only sometimes
available, and some other resources might be missing or incomplete
[Vu]. Lack of information might in turn makes association or
assembly more difficult.
Additionally, when architecturally assessing the role of P2P systems
we could say that: "the main advantage of centralized P2P systems is
that they are able to provide a quick and reliable resource locating.
Their limitation, however, is that the scalability of the systems is
affected by the use of servers. While decentralized P2P systems are
better than centralized P2P systems in this aspect, they require a
longer time in resource locating. As a result, hybrid P2P systems
have been introduced to take advantage of both centralized and
decentralized architectures. Basically, to maintain the scalability,
similar to decentralized P2P systems, there are no servers in hybrid
P2P systems. However, peer nodes that are more powerful than others
can be selected to act as servers to serve others. These nodes are
often called super peers. In this way, resource locating can be done
by both decentralized search techniques and centralized search
techniques (asking super peers), and hence the systems benefit from
the search techniques of centralized P2P systems." [Vu]
This case relates to the following considerations in [RFC8280]: -
Security - Privacy - Decentralization - Censorship Resistance - Open
Standards - Anonymity - Heterogeneity Support - Integrity -
Authenticity - Adaptability
6.2.2. Version control
Ever since developers needed to collaboratively write, maintain and
discuss large code basis for the Internet there have been different
approaches of doing so. The easiest approach has been discussing
code through mailing lists even though this has proven to be hard
when maintaining the most recent versions, which is why version
control systems ultimately make sense.
A version control system is a piece of software that enables
developers on a software team to work together and also archive a
complete history of their work [Sink]. This allows teams to be
working simultaneously on updated versions. According to Sink,
broadly speaking, the history of version control tools can be divided
ten Oever, et al. Expires December 31, 2020 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft FoA June 2020
into three generations. In the first one, concurrent development
meant that only one person could be working on a file at a time. The
second generation tools permit simultaneous modifications as long as
users merge the current revisions into their work before they are
allowed to commit. The third generation tools allow merge and commit
to be separated [Sink].
Interestingly no version control system has ever been standardized in
the IETF whereas the version control systems like Subversion and Git
are widely used within the community and working groups. There has
been a spirited discussion on whether working groups should use
centralized forms of the Git protocol, such as those offered by
Gitlab or Github. Proponents argue that this simplifies the workflow
and allows for more transparency. Opponents argue that the reliance
on a centralized service which is not merely using the Git protocol
but also uses non-standardized options like an Issue-Tracker, makes
the process less transparent and reliant on a third party.
The IETF has not made a decision on the use of centralized instances
of Git, such as Github or Gitlab. There have been two efforts to
standardize the workflow vis a vis these third party services, but
these haven't come to fruition: [Wugh] [GithubIETF].
This case relates to the following considerations in [RFC8280]: -
Security - Decentralization - Open Standards - Heterogeneity Support
- Integrity - Authenticity - Adaptability
6.3. Grouping together (identities)
Collective identities are also protected by freedom of association
and assembly. According to Melucci these are 'shared definitions
produced by several interacting individuals who are concerned with
the orientation of their action as well as the field of opportunities
and constraints in which their action takes place.' [Melucci] In
this sense, assemblies and associations are an important base in the
maintenance and development of culture, as well as preservation of
minority identities [OSCE].
6.3.1. DNS
Domain names allow hosts to be identified by human parsable
information. Whereas an IP address might not be the expression of an
identity, a domain name can be and often is. The grouping of certain
identities under specific domains or even Top Level Domains are
risky: connecting an identity to a hierarchically structured
identifier systems creates a central attack surface which allows for
an easier surveillance of the services running on the domain, domain
based censorship [RFC7754], or impersonation of the domain through
ten Oever, et al. Expires December 31, 2020 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft FoA June 2020
DNS cache poisoning. The use of a centralized authority always makes
censorship through a registry or registrar possible, as well as by
using a fake resolver or using proposed standards such as DNS
Response Policy Zones [RPZ]. Several technologies have been
developed in the IETF to mitigate these risks such as DNS over TLS
[RFC7858], DNSSEC [RFC4033], DNS over HTTPS [RFC8484]. When these
mitigations are implemented, censorship will not be made impossible
but it will be made visible.
The structuring of DNS as a hierarchical authority structure also
brings about a specific characteristic, namely the possibility of
centralized policy making vis-a-vis the management and operation of
Top Level Domains, which is what happens partly at ICANN. The impact
of ICANN processes on human rights will not be discussed here.
This case relates to the following considerations in [RFC8280]: -
Security - Privacy - Decentralization - Censorship Resistance -
Anonymity - Heterogeneity Support - Integrity - Authenticity -
Adaptability - Outcome Transparency
6.3.2. Autonomous Systems
In order for edge-users to connect to the Internet, they need to be
connected to an Autonomous System (AS) which, in turn, has peering or
transit relations with other AS'es. This means that in the process
of accessing the Internet, edge-users need to accept the policies and
practices of the intermediary that provides them access to the other
networks. In other words, for users to be able to join the 'network
of networks', they always need to connect through an intermediary.
While accessing the Internet through an intermediary, the user is
forced to accept the policies, practices and principles of a network.
This could impede the rights of the edge-user, depending on the
implemented policies and practices on the network and how (if at all)
they are communicated to them. For example: filtering, blocking,
extensive logging, slowing down connection or specific services, or
other invasive practices that are not clearly communicated to the
user.
In practice, the user must accept policies of ASes he has no
relationship with, and didn't choose. For instance, there is no way
to direct the packets to avoid the Five Eyes, not even to know after
the fact where the packet went. [FiveEyes] [SchengenRouting]
(Traceroutes give you an idea but the path may change before and
after the traceroute.) Given that it is not trivial for an edge-user
to operate an AS and engage in peering relation with other ASes,
there might not be another way for the edge-user to connect to the
network of networks. In this case, users are forced into accepting
ten Oever, et al. Expires December 31, 2020 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft FoA June 2020
the policies of a specific network. Such design, combined with the
increased importance of the Internet to make use of basic services,
forces edge-users to associate with a specific network without
consenting -or even knowing- the policies of the network.
Additionally, it can be noted that there is no standard and deployed
way for the edge-user to choose the routes her packets will go
through. [RFC0791] section 3.1 standardized "source routing" and
"record route" but neither were deployed, mainly because of serious
security issues.
This case relates to the following considerations in [RFC8280]: -
Security - Privacy - Decentralization - Censorship Resistance -
Anonymity - Heterogeneity Support - Integrity - Authenticity -
Adaptability - Outcome Transparency
7. Discussion: Establishing the relation
The case studies show that the Internet infrastructure, the
combination of architecture and protocols, facilitates freedom of
association and assembly, by allowing groups of people to converse,
collaborate, exchange, and build and maintain identities in both
structural and occasional manners. The structural forms of group
activities are more related to freedom of association, whereas
freedom of assembly often has a more incidental nature. The
difference between the two, as mentioned, is a gradual one. This is
equally true to the infrastructural mediations of these rights.
Whereas we established that the Internet infrastructure facilitates
freedom of association and assembly, by its very technical and
material nature, it both creates and limits the spaces for it. This
is an interesting tension because juridically only lawful limitations
to the rights are allowed, and even then only if they are necessary,
and proportionate. This exposes legal implications of the
characteristics of the Internet infrastructure.
These preliminary finding suggest that the properties and
characteristic through which the Internet infrastructure enables and
inhibits freedom of assemblies and association should also be
analyzed from a legal lens. The case studies have pointed out
several caveats in implementations, that might not necessarily be
understood by people while exercising their right to association of
assembly, and which thus should either be mitigated, or at least, be
communicated to the rights holders.
ten Oever, et al. Expires December 31, 2020 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft FoA June 2020
8. Discussion: Protocols and Platforms
Whereas the Internet is a network of networks, and can therefore be
understood as an assembly, applications on top of the Internet do not
necessarily inherit the same structure. Quite the opposite, the
Internet increasingly becomes a vehicle for commercial, proprietary
and non-interoperable platforms. This lack of interoperation is
harming the ability of people to set or negotiate their own terms on
which they would like to assemble or associate, or host their own
interoperating services.
Even though the Internet has always allowed for (partially) closed-
off networks, the current trend shows the rise of a small number of
very large non-interoperable platforms. Chat has moved from XMPP and
IRC to Facebook Messenger, Whatsapp and WeChat and there has been a
strong rise of social media networks with large numbers of users,
such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. A similar trend can be
found among e-mail providers, with the significant difference that
e-mail is interoperable.
Often these non-interoperable platforms are built on open-protocols
but do not allow for inter-operability or data-portability. In the
case of large private platforms, this in turn leads to strong network
externalities also know as a network effect; because the users are
there, users will be there. Even though social-media platforms have
enabled groups to associate, they have also led to a 'tactical
freeze' because of the inability to change the platforms [Tufekci].
Whereas these networks are a ready-to-hand networked public sphere,
they do not allow their inhabitants to change or fully understand
their workings. In a near future, this could potentially impact
infrastructure itself and the distributed nature of the Internet
[RFC1287].
9. Conclusions
Communities, collaboration and joint action lie at the heart of the
Internet. Even at at linguistical level, the words "networks" and
"associations" are close synonyms. Both interconnected groups and
assemblies of people depend on "links" and "relationships" [Swire].
Taking legal definitions given in international human rights law
jurisprudence, we could assert that the right to freedom of assembly
and association protect collective expression. These rights protect
any collective, gathered either permanently or temporarily for
"peaceful" purposes. It is voluntary and uncoerced.
Given that the Internet itself was originally designed as a medium of
communication for machines that share resources with each other as
ten Oever, et al. Expires December 31, 2020 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft FoA June 2020
equals [RFC0903], the Internet is now one of the most basic
infrastructures for the right to freedom of assembly and association.
Since Internet protocols and the Internet architecture play a central
role in the management, development and use of the Internet, we
established the relation between some protocols and the right to
freedom of assembly and association.
After reviewing several typical representative cases, we can conclude
that the way in which infrastructure is designed and implemented
impacts people's ability to exercise their freedom of assembly and
association. This is because different technical designs come with
different properties and characteristics. These properties and
characteristics on the one hand enable people to assemble and
associate, but on the other hand also adds limiting, or even
potentially endangering, characteristics. More often than not, this
depends on the context. A clearly identified group for open
communications, where messages are sent in cleartext and where
peoples persistent identities are viisble, can help to faciliate an
assembly and build trust, but in other context the same configuration
could pose a significant danger. Endangering characteristics should
be mitigated, or at least clearly communicated to the users of these
technologies.
Lastly, the increasing shift towards closed and non-interoperable
platforms in chat and social media networks have a significant impact
on the distributed and open nature of the Internet. Often these non-
interoperable platforms are built on open-protocols but do not allow
for inter-operability or data-portability. The use of social-media
platforms has enabled groups to associate, but is has also rendered
users unable to change platforms, therefore leading to a sort of
"forced association" that inhibits people to fully exercise their
freedom of assembly and association.
10. Acknowledgements
- Fred Baker, Jefsey, and Andrew Sullivan for work on Internet
definitions.
- Stephane Bortzmeyer for several concrete text suggestions that
found their way in this document (such as the AS filtering
example).
- Mark Perkins and Gurshabad for finding a lot of typos.
- Gurshabad Grover and an anonymous reviewer for a full review.
- The hrpc mailinglist at large for a very constructive discussion
on a hard topic.
ten Oever, et al. Expires December 31, 2020 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft FoA June 2020
11. Security Considerations
As this draft concerns a research document, there are no security
considerations.
12. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
13. Research Group Information
The discussion list for the IRTF Human Rights Protocol Considerations
Research Group is located at the e-mail address hrpc@ietf.org [1].
Information on the group and information on how to subscribe to the
list is at https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc [2]
Archives of the list can be found at: https://www.irtf.org/mail-
archive/web/hrpc/current/index.html [3]
14. References
14.1. Informative References
[Abbate] Janet Abbate, ., "Inventing the Internet", Cambridge: MIT
Press (2013): 11. , 2013,
<https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/inventing-internet>.
[AckermannKargerZhang]
Ackerman, M., Karger, D., and A. Zhang, "Mailing Lists:
Why Are They Still Here, What's Wrong With Them, and How
Can We Fix Them?", Mit. edu (2017): 1. , 2017,
<https://people.csail.mit.edu/axz/papers/
mailinglists.pdf>.
[Anderson]
Andersson, E., "The political voice of young citizens
Educational conditions for political conversation - school
and social media", Utbildning & Demokrati: Tidskrift foer
Didaktik och Utbildningspolitik, Volume 21, Number 1,
2012, pp. 97-119(23) , 2012,
<http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/
doaj/11026472/2012/00000021/00000001/art00006>.
ten Oever, et al. Expires December 31, 2020 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft FoA June 2020
[AndersonGuarnieri]
Anderson, C. and C. Guarnieri, "Fictitious Profiles and
WebRTC's Privacy Leaks Used to Identify Iranian
Activists", 2016,
<https://iranthreats.github.io/resources/webrtc-
deanonymization/>.
[APC] Association for Progressive Communications and . Gayathry
Venkiteswaran, "Freedom of assembly and association online
in India, Malaysia and Pakistan. Trends, challenges and
recommendations.", 2016,
<https://www.apc.org/es/system/files/
FOAA_online_IndiaMalaysiaPakistan.pdf>.
[APC2] Gayathry Venkiteswaran, . and Association for Progressive
Communications, "Freedom of assembly and association
online in India, Malaysia and Pakistan. Trends, challenges
and recommendations.", 2016,
<https://www.apc.org/es/system/files/
FOAA_online_IndiaMalaysiaPakistan.pdf>.
[Australia]
Australian Government, Attorney-General's Department,
"Right to freedom of assembly and association", 2020,
<https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/human-
rights-and-anti-discrimination/human-rights-scrutiny/
public-sector-guidance-sheets/right-freedom-assembly-and-
association#topofpage>.
[Benkler] Benkler, Y., "Peer Production and Cooperation", 2009,
<http://www.benkler.org/
Peer%20production%20and%20cooperation%2009.pdf>.
[Bloketal]
Blok, A., Nakazora, M., and B. Winthereik,
"Infrastructuring Environments", Science as Culture 25:1,
1-22. , 2016.
[Bowker] Bowker, G., "Information mythology and infrastructure",
In: L. Bud (Ed.), Information Acumen: The Understanding
and use of Knowledge in Modern
Business,Routledge,London,1994,pp.231-247 , 1994.
[CERD] Wikipedia, ., "Lorum", 2000, <Sit.amet>.
ten Oever, et al. Expires December 31, 2020 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft FoA June 2020
[Crawford]
Crawford, D., "The WebRTC VPN "Bug" and How to Fix", 2015,
<https://www.bestvpn.com/the-webrtc-vpn-bug-and-how-to-
fix-it/>.
[CRC] Wikipedia, ., "Lorum", 2000, <Sit.amet>.
[CRPD] Wikipedia, ., "Lorum", 2000, <Sit.amet>.
[FiveEyes]
Wikipedia, ., "Five Eyes", 2018,
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes>.
[GithubIETF]
Thomson, M. and A. Atlas, "Using GitHub at the IETF",
2017.
[Haas] Haas, P., "Introduction: epistemic communities and
international policy coordination", International
Organization, special issue: Knowledge, Power, and
International Policy Coordination, Cambridge Journals. 46
(1): 1-35. , 1992.
[HafnerandLyon]
Hafnerand, K. and M. Lyon, "Where Wizards Stay Up Late.
The Origins of the Internet", First Touchstone Edition
(1998): 93. , 1998, <https://doi.org/10.1111/misr.12020>.
[hrpc-charter]
Wikipedia, ., "Lorum", 2000, <Sit.amet>.
[HussainHoward]
Hussain, M. and P. Howard, "What Best Explains Successful
Protest Cascades? ICTs and the Fuzzy Causes of the Arab
Spring", Int Stud Rev (2013) 15 (1): 48-66. , 2013,
<https://doi.org/10.1111/misr.12020>.
[ICCPR] United Nations General Assembly, "International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights", 1966,
<http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/
CCPR.aspx>.
ten Oever, et al. Expires December 31, 2020 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft FoA June 2020
[Mainwaringetal]
Mainwaring, S., Chang, M., and K. Anderson,
"Infrastructures and Their Discontents: Implications for
Ubicomp", DBLP Conference: Conference: UbiComp 2004:
Ubiquitous Computing: 6th International Conference,
Nottingham, UK, September 7-10, 2004. Proceedings , 2004,
<http://www.dourish.com/classes/readings/Mainwaring-
Infrastructure.pdf>.
[Melucci] Melucci, A., "The Process of Collective Identity", Temple
University Press, Philadelphia , 1995.
[Mosco] Mosco, V., "The Digital Sublime: Myth, Power, and
Cyberspace", 2005,
<https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/digital-sublime>.
[MSI-INT] Wikipedia, ., "Lorum", 2000, <Sit.amet>.
[NelsonHedlun]
Minar, N. and M. Hedlun, "A Network of Peers: Models
Through the History of the Internet", Peer to Peer:
Harnessing the Power of Disruptive Technologies, ed: Andy
Oram , 2001, <http://library.uniteddiversity.coop/
REconomy_Resource_Pack/
More_Inspirational_Videos_and_Useful_Info/Peer_to_Peer-
Harnessing_the_Power_of_Disruptive_Technologies.pdf>.
[OSCE] OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights,
"Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly", page 24 ,
2010, <https://www.osce.org/odihr/73405?download=true>.
[Pensado] Jaime Pensado, ., "Student Activism. Utopian Dreams.",
ReVista. Harvard Review of Latin America (2012). , 2012,
<http://revista.drclas.harvard.edu/book/student-activism>.
[PipekWulf]
Pipek, V. and W. Wolf, "Infrastructuring: Towards an
Integrated Perspective on the Design and Use of
Information Technology", Journal of the Association for
Information Systems (10) 5, pp. 306-332 , 2009.
[RFC0001] Crocker, S., "Host Software", RFC 1, DOI 10.17487/RFC0001,
April 1969, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1>.
[RFC0155] North, J., "ARPA Network mailing lists", RFC 155,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0155, May 1971,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc155>.
ten Oever, et al. Expires December 31, 2020 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft FoA June 2020
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.
[RFC0903] Finlayson, R., Mann, T., Mogul, J., and M. Theimer, "A
Reverse Address Resolution Protocol", STD 38, RFC 903,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0903, June 1984,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc903>.
[RFC1211] Westine, A. and J. Postel, "Problems with the maintenance
of large mailing lists", RFC 1211, DOI 10.17487/RFC1211,
March 1991, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1211>.
[RFC1287] Clark, D., Chapin, L., Cerf, V., Braden, R., and R. Hobby,
"Towards the Future Internet Architecture", RFC 1287,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1287, December 1991,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1287>.
[RFC1771] Rekhter, Y. and T. Li, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-
4)", RFC 1771, DOI 10.17487/RFC1771, March 1995,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1771>.
[RFC1930] Hawkinson, J. and T. Bates, "Guidelines for creation,
selection, and registration of an Autonomous System (AS)",
BCP 6, RFC 1930, DOI 10.17487/RFC1930, March 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1930>.
[RFC1958] Carpenter, B., Ed., "Architectural Principles of the
Internet", RFC 1958, DOI 10.17487/RFC1958, June 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1958>.
[RFC2810] Kalt, C., "Internet Relay Chat: Architecture", RFC 2810,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2810, April 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2810>.
[RFC2812] Kalt, C., "Internet Relay Chat: Client Protocol",
RFC 2812, DOI 10.17487/RFC2812, April 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2812>.
[RFC3233] Hoffman, P. and S. Bradner, "Defining the IETF", BCP 58,
RFC 3233, DOI 10.17487/RFC3233, February 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3233>.
[RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
RFC 4033, DOI 10.17487/RFC4033, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4033>.
ten Oever, et al. Expires December 31, 2020 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft FoA June 2020
[RFC4084] Klensin, J., "Terminology for Describing Internet
Connectivity", BCP 104, RFC 4084, DOI 10.17487/RFC4084,
May 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4084>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC4880] Callas, J., Donnerhacke, L., Finney, H., Shaw, D., and R.
Thayer, "OpenPGP Message Format", RFC 4880,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4880, November 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4880>.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
[RFC5694] Camarillo, G., Ed. and IAB, "Peer-to-Peer (P2P)
Architecture: Definition, Taxonomies, Examples, and
Applicability", RFC 5694, DOI 10.17487/RFC5694, November
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5694>.
[RFC5751] Ramsdell, B. and S. Turner, "Secure/Multipurpose Internet
Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 3.2 Message
Specification", RFC 5751, DOI 10.17487/RFC5751, January
2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5751>.
[RFC6176] Turner, S. and T. Polk, "Prohibiting Secure Sockets Layer
(SSL) Version 2.0", RFC 6176, DOI 10.17487/RFC6176, March
2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6176>.
[RFC7118] Baz Castillo, I., Millan Villegas, J., and V. Pascual,
"The WebSocket Protocol as a Transport for the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 7118,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7118, January 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7118>.
[RFC7194] Hartmann, R., "Default Port for Internet Relay Chat (IRC)
via TLS/SSL", RFC 7194, DOI 10.17487/RFC7194, August 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7194>.
[RFC7754] Barnes, R., Cooper, A., Kolkman, O., Thaler, D., and E.
Nordmark, "Technical Considerations for Internet Service
Blocking and Filtering", RFC 7754, DOI 10.17487/RFC7754,
March 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7754>.
ten Oever, et al. Expires December 31, 2020 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft FoA June 2020
[RFC7858] Hu, Z., Zhu, L., Heidemann, J., Mankin, A., Wessels, D.,
and P. Hoffman, "Specification for DNS over Transport
Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 7858, DOI 10.17487/RFC7858, May
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7858>.
[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>.
[RFC8484] Hoffman, P. and P. McManus, "DNS Queries over HTTPS
(DoH)", RFC 8484, DOI 10.17487/RFC8484, October 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8484>.
[RPZ] Vixie, P. and V. Schyver, "DNS Response Policy Zones
(RPZ)", 2017,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-rpz-00>.
[Sauter] Wikipedia, ., "Lorum", 2000, <Sit.amet>.
[SchengenRouting]
Wikipedia, ., "Schengen Routing", 2018,
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Routing>.
[Schleuder]
Nadir, "Schleuder - A gpg-enabled mailinglist with
remailing-capabilities.", 2017,
<https://schleuder.nadir.org/>.
[SeawrightGerring]
Seawright, J. and J. Gerring, "Case Selection Techniques
in Case Study Research: A Menu of Qualitative and
Quantitative Options", Political Research Quarterly,
61(2), 294-308. , 2008, <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/
pdf/10.1177/1065912907313077>.
[Sink] Sink, E., "Version Control by Example", 2011,
<http://ericsink.com/vcbe/>.
[Star] Star, S., "The Ethnography of Infrastructure", American
Behavioral Scientist, Volume 43 (3), 377-391. , 1999,
<http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/
abs/10.1177/00027649921955326>.
[StarRuhleder]
Star, S. and K. Ruhleder, "Steps toward an ecology of
infrastructure: Design and access for large information
spaces", Information Systems Research 7 (1) (1996)
111-134. , 1996.
ten Oever, et al. Expires December 31, 2020 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft FoA June 2020
[Swire] Peter Swire, ., "Social Networks, Privacy, and Freedom of
Association: Data Empowerment vs. Data Protection", North
Carolina Law Review (2012) 90 (1): 104. , 2012,
<https://ssrn.com/abstract=1989516 or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1989516>.
[Tocqueville]
de Tocqueville, A., "Democracy in America", 1840,
<http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/
De_tocqueville_alexis/
democracy_in_america_historical_critical_ed/
democracy_in_america_vol_2.pdf p. 304>.
[Troncosoetal]
Troncoso, C., Isaakdis, M., Danezis, G., and H. Halpin,
"Systematizing Decentralization and Privacy: Lessons from
15 Years of Research and Deployments", Proceedings on
Privacy Enhancing Technologies ; 2017 (4):307-329 , 2017,
<https://www.petsymposium.org/2017/papers/issue4/
paper87-2017-4-source.pdf>.
[Tufekci] Tufekci, Z., "Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and
Fragility of Networked Protest", 2017,
<https://www.twitterandteargas.org/>.
[UDHR] United Nations General Assembly, "The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights", 1948,
<http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/>.
[Undertake]
Wikipedia, ., "Lorum", 2000, <Sit.amet>.
[UNGA] Hina Jilani, ., "Human rights defenders", A/59/401 , 2004,
<http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/
view_doc.asp?symbol=A/59/401 para. 46>.
[UNHRC] Maina Kiai, ., "Report of the Special Rapporteur on the
rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of
association", A/HRC/20/27 , 2012,
<http://freeassembly.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/A-HRC-
20-27_en-annual-report-May-2012.pdf>.
[Vu] Vu, Quang Hieu, ., Lupu, Mihai, ., and . Ooi, Beng Chin,
"Peer-to-Peer Computing: Principles and Applications",
2010, <https://www.springer.com/cn/book/9783642035135>.
ten Oever, et al. Expires December 31, 2020 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft FoA June 2020
[Weiser] Weiser, L., "The Computer for the 21st Century",
Scientific American Ubicomp Paper after Sci Am editing ,
1991, <https://web.archive.org/web/20141022035044/
http://www.ubiq.com/hypertext/weiser/SciAmDraft3.html>.
[Wugh] Nottingham, M., "Using Third Party Services for IETF
Work", 2017, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-
nottingham-wugh-services/>.
14.2. 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
Niels ten Oever
University of Amsterdam
EMail: mail@nielstenoever.net
Stephane Couture
University de Montreal
EMail: stephane.couture@umontreal.ca
Gisela Perez de Acha
Derechos Digitales
EMail: gisela@derechosdigitales.org
ten Oever, et al. Expires December 31, 2020 [Page 29]
