[routing-wg] routing based on AS values

Dear Routing WG,

Recent public debates on the ethics and social implications of digital technology, as well as the feedback I received on my presentation at RIPE77 [0], have stimulated me to think more about how value frameworks can inform routing decisions. 

Based on the analysis of several discussions in the IETF community [1], the ICANN community [2], and the recent book by David Clarke [3], I thought a voluntary declaration of values might be relevant for discussion in the RIPE community. A way of doing this could be the discussion of the introduction of two AS-SET objects in the routing database. This could enable Autonomous Systems to declare the values frameworks they adhere to. An example of possible objects would be:

[object0]
as-set: AS-GDPR
remarks: members of this set declare to be compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation of the European Union
mbrs-by-ref: ANY
[/object0]

[object1]
as-set: AS-UNGP
remarks: members of this set declare to have adopted and implemented the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
mbrs-by-ref: ANY
[/object1]

Members of these sets would declare to live up to these values. Based on these sets, other AS-es could, for example, choose to preferentially route via AS-es that are member of (one of) these sets. 

These value frameworks (the GDPR and UNGPs) were chosen because these are widely known and adopted standards in our community [4], so the understanding of these values should not be subject to a lot of interpretation and discussion. 

Do you think this would be a reasonable approach, and if so, in what ways could these objects be used to route traffic? Or would there be better ways to route traffic based on the values of AS-es?

Looking forward to hear what you think.

Best,

Niels

PS I posted a similar e-mail to the database WG to discuss the implications for the database. Please accept my apologies if this is considered as cross-posting, but I thought both aspects of this proposal might be interesting to discuss.

[0] https://ripe77.ripe.net/archives/video/2113/
[1] For instance in the discussions on RFC1958, RFC3935, RFC6873, RFC7258, and RFC8280
[2] Most notably resulting in the addition of a commitment to human rights during the IANA transition, but of course as well during the extensive WHOIS discussions
[3] https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/designing-internet
[4] For instance SIDN has engaged in a Human Rights Impact Assessment https://www.sidn.nl/a/over-sidn/mensenrechten-daar-voldoen-we-toch-aan , and Cisco, Ericsson, Google, NTT, Orange, AT&T, IBM and many others have adopted the UNGPs https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/cisco-systems-0
 - Cisco https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/cisco-systems-0?keywords=cisco
 - Ericsson https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/ericsson-0?keywords=ericsson#a117755
 - Google https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/google-0?keywords=google
 - NTT https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/nippon-telegraph-and-telephone-ntt-group-0 http://www.ntt.co.jp/csr_e/report.html
 - Orange https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/orange-0
 - AT&T https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/att-0?keywords=AT&T
 - IBM https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/ibm-0?keywords=IBM 

-- 
Niels ten Oever
Researcher and PhD Candidate
Datactive Research Group
University of Amsterdam

PGP fingerprint	   2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488  
                   643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3