[ih] A paper

[farzaneh badii]

Well … seems like you did send the email to the list John. Mistakes
happpen. But that’s ok.

We were for two years getting this paper reviewed and polished. I think you
should read it. We were vigorously peer reviewed and got very helpful
technical feedback. If you read the paper you find out that we are arguing
against those who want to bake values into Internet architecture. We don’t
think the methods at  HRPC actually work. We argue that it is very
difficult if not impossible to bake these values into Internet
architecture, something that the Infrastructuralist  crowd want to do. I
have even written another paper called requiem for a dream that vigorously
criticizes the HRPC and enforcing human rights through Internet
architecture.

Many members of the Internet community have tried to dishearten me to leave
them alone in their echo chamber. But I will remain in my place. People
warned me about interacting with this mailing list, which is saying
something. But I do believe that we can benefit from each other’s point of
views. And I am grateful for those who took the time to read it. And I
invite others to send their feedback to this list. If being professionally
active in the Internet community as a legal and policy scholar has taught
me one thing, it is not to be intimidated.




On Saturday, July 17, 2021, John Levine via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Do you think I should send this to the list?
>
> This paper is embarassingly bad, but we've already seen that.
>
> R's,
> John
>
> From: John Levine <johnl at iecc.com>
> To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ih] A paper
> In-Reply-To: <CAN1qJvDVuyH3+y8gySA9aLeL8dzgSwM4Q9RA3qW2g55
> yTe+pjg at mail.gmail.com>
> Organization: Taughannock Networks
> Cc: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
>
> It appears that farzaneh badii via Internet-history <
> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> said:
> >Hi everyone,
> >
> >Filder and I have published a paper recently about Internet protocols and
> >human rights but had a historical look at WHOIS, BGP/EGP and DNS. We
> >greatly enjoyed the informative conversation about BGP and EGP on this
> list
> >and helped us a lot with providing a more complete background.
>
> I unfortunately also found the paper turgid to the point of unreadability.
>
> It missed how little the HRPC research group had to do with the actual
> activity of the IETF. The authors of RFC 8280 were both using the IETF
> as a topic for their PhD theses, in ten Oever's case putting himself
> into the IETF's processes and using the IETF as unwilling human
> research subjects in ways I found quite unethical. The HRPC RG had and
> still has a painfully cramped idea of "human rights" limited to issues
> of expression and anonymity. I stood up in a couple of their meetings,
> pointed out that they were paying attention to only two of the 28
> articles of the UDHR, so how about the other 26? What about attacks on
> honor and reputation (Art 12), or being arbitrarily deprived of their
> property (Art 17), both of which are big problems on the Internet? Oh,
> they're important too, said the chair, but nothing changed.
>
> Some of the HRPC members attempted to do "human rights considerations"
> reviews of proposed standards, which mostly revealed that they had no
> idea what they were reading. A spec about a technique to transmit
> credentials, e.g., for a chartered bank to register for a banking service,
> was misinterpreted as a mandatory way for oppressive governments to
> track their citizens. It was not a positive experience for anyone.
>
> I also can't help but note that the article gets the title of Tom
> Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" wrong in different
> ways in two different places which makes it appear that this piece has
> not been proofread or otherwise had meaningful review.
>
> R's,
> John
>
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


-- 
Farzaneh