[ih] A paper

[Bob Purvy]

"vigorously peer-reviewed" ? by whom? Other legal scholars?

There is definitely a way for a policy-maker to interact with technical
people who do things he or she doesn't understand. However, I don't think
you've found it.

On Sat, Jul 17, 2021 at 8:27 PM farzaneh badii via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> 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
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>