IAB Barriers to Internet Access of Services (BIAS) Workshop Report
draft-iab-bias-workshop-report-00
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (iab) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Mirja Kühlewind , Dhruv Dhody , Mallory Knodel | ||
| Last updated | 2024-04-03 (Latest revision 2024-02-23) | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Architecture Board (IAB) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | IAB state | (None) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| IAB shepherd | Suresh Krishnan |
draft-iab-bias-workshop-report-00
Network Working Group M. Kühlewind
Internet-Draft
Intended status: Informational D. Dhody
Expires: 26 August 2024
M. Knodel
23 February 2024
IAB Barriers to Internet Access of Services (BIAS) Workshop Report
draft-iab-bias-workshop-report-00
Abstract
The “Barriers for Internet Access of Services (Bias)” workshop was
convened by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) from January 15-17,
2024 as a three-day online meeting. Based on the submitted position
papers, the workshop covered three areas of interest: the role of
community networks in Internet Access of Services; reports and
comments on the observed digital divide; and measurements of
censorship and censorship circumvention. This report summarizes the
workshop's discussion and serves as a reference for reports on the
current barriers to Internet Access.
Note that this document is a report on the proceedings of the
workshop. The views and positions documented in this report were
expressed during the workshop by participants and do not necessarily
reflect IAB's views and positions.
About This Document
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
The latest revision of this draft can be found at
https://intarchboard.github.io/draft-iab-bias-workshop-report/draft-
iab-bias-workshop-report.html. Status information for this document
may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-bias-
workshop-report/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/intarchboard/draft-iab-bias-workshop-report.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Kühlewind, et al. Expires 26 August 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BIAS Workshop Report February 2024
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 26 August 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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 carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. About this workshop report content . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Workshop Scope and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Session 1: Community Networks - Their Role in Internet
Access of Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.1. The Quality of Community Networks . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.2. Strengthening Community Networks . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.3. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Session 2: Digital Divide - Reports and Comments . . . . 6
2.2.1. Disparities in service provision . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.2. Lack of consistent acceptance of language scripts . . 7
2.2.3. Web Affordability and Inclusiveness . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3. Session 3: Censorship - Reports and Circumvention . . . . 8
2.3.1. Censorship Orders, Measurements, and Device
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3.2. Use of VPNs for Censorship Circumvents and user
expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3.3. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4. Key Take Aways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Position Papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix B. Workshop Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Kühlewind, et al. Expires 26 August 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BIAS Workshop Report February 2024
Appendix C. Workshop Program Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
IAB Members at the Time of Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
The Internet as part of the critical infrastructure affects many
aspects of our society significantly, although it impacts different
parts of society differently. The Internet is an important tool to
reach the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) [SDG] and to globally
support human rights. Consequently, the lack of meaningful access to
digital infrastructure and services is also a form of
disenfranchisement.
Solely having Internet access is not enough. At the same time as we
work to connect the next billion people and reduce the digital
divide, it is also important to understand persistent and novel
inequalities in the digital age when accessing content and services.
There are more and more barriers to meaningful access to the services
and applications that run on the Internet. Even if Internet
connectivity is available, information and service access may remain
challenged and unequal.
This IAB workshop has aimed
* to collect reports about barriers to accessing content and
services on the Internet, e.g. based on filtering, and blocking as
well as due to general inequality of technological capabilities,
like device or protocol limitations.
* to help the Internet community get a better understanding of how
the Internet functions in different parts of the world and which
technology or techniques need to be used to gain access to
content.
* to build an understanding of what “being connected” to the
Internet means: What is the Internet to users? What is needed to
be meaningfully connected? What are the minimum requirements to
be able to access certain parts of the content and services
provided over the Internet?
1.1. About this workshop report content
This document is a report on the proceedings of the workshop. The
views and positions documented in this report are expressed during
the workshop by participants and do not necessarily reflect IAB's
views and positions.
Kühlewind, et al. Expires 26 August 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BIAS Workshop Report February 2024
Furthermore, the content of the report comes from presentations given
by workshop participants and notes taken during the discussions,
without interpretation or validation. Thus, the content of this
report follows the flow and dialogue of the workshop but does not
attempt to capture a consensus.
2. Workshop Scope and Discussion
The workshop was organized across three days with all-group
discussion slots, one per day. The following topic areas were
identified and the program committee organized paper submissions into
three main themes for each of the three discussion slots. During
each discussion, those papers were presented sequentially with open
discussion held at the end of each day.
2.1. Session 1: Community Networks - Their Role in Internet Access of
Services
The first day of the workshop focused on the role of Community
Networks [RFC7962] as a way to overcome the barriers to Internet
Access. Community Networks are self-organized networks wholly owned
by the community and thus provide an alternative mechanism to bring
connectivity and internet services to those places that lack
commercial interest.
Presentations ranged from highlighting the need for measuring Quality
of Experience (QoE) for Community Networks, to the potential role the
Content Delivery Network (CDN) can play in Community Networks, to the
role of Satellite Networks, and finally, to the vital role of the
spectrum in this space.
2.1.1. The Quality of Community Networks
[MARTINEZ] highlighted the need to address Quality of Experience
(QoE) in discussions around Community Networks. As a community-
driven deployment, the knowledge and involvement of individuals can
vary; therefore, there are no guarantees of connectivity or quality
of service. There is a need to focus on user expectations and how
they translate to measurable performance indicators. Further, it
asks for better documenting best practices in deploying community
networks as well as considering manageability considerations for
community networks in protocol development. [GUIFI] as an example
Community Network was discussed and some existing resources for
Community Networks ([APC], [ISOC], and [TBB]) were shared by the
participants.
Kühlewind, et al. Expires 26 August 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BIAS Workshop Report February 2024
The inconsistent quality and performance of Satellite Internet is a
gap for community networks that rely on non-terrestrial networks
(NTNs) for internet access [HU].
2.1.2. Strengthening Community Networks
[BENSON] focused on the prohibitive cost of the transit and Internet
service for Community Networks and argued for Content Delivery
Networks (CDNs) to provide transit-like and Internet services at no
more than at-cost in a mutually beneficial way. Community networks
still need backhaul to and from the CDN’s point of presence and
models for community-backhaul and open-source CDNs were highlighted.
Discussion included [PANGEA] project status as well as legal and
commercial considerations in such use of CDNs.
[HU] highlighted that Satellite Internet provided by advanced LEO
satellite constellations can play a pivotal role in closing the
connectivity gap in the urban-rural digital divide via Satellite-
dependent community networks. There existing known performance and
management gaps that need focus to enable Satellite Internet to
resolve the divide. Further, research directions such as multi-layer
satellite networking, autonomous maintenance, and integration between
Terrestrial and Non-Terrestrial networks were suggested.
[RENNO] called attention to the coveted 6GHz (part of the C-band with
a desirable mix of coverage and capacity) as a prime choice for
International Mobile Telecommunication (IMT) for 5G technology while
it is in common unlicensed use in the community networks (and small
ISPs). Spectrum allocations directly impact industries and market
access with ramifications for community networks. Further, there was
a discussion on the geopolitical tension because of it.
2.1.3. Discussion
How can the technical community address the management gap and
improve best practices for Community Networks? Is the increasing
complexity of the Internet making it more challenging to establish
connections, and should this be taken into account in the design of
the Internet? Should the manageability consideration be expanded to
explicitly consider Community Networks? Global Access to the
Internet for All (GAIA) [GAIA] research group could be a venue for
further discussion and research. Further discussion highlighted the
need for readily available knowledge and tools for community networks
as well as the tussle with market forces when commercial networks
compete with community networks.
Kühlewind, et al. Expires 26 August 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BIAS Workshop Report February 2024
2.2. Session 2: Digital Divide - Reports and Comments
Critical internet infrastructure affects many aspects of our society
significantly, although differently, the inequitable aspects of which
are typically referred to as "digital inclusion" signifying that in
efforts to digitalise society, there are those left out due to what
is typically called the "digital divide", a related term specific to
access to the Internet. These concepts together demonstrate that
even if Internet connectivity is available, for some there will
remain challenges towards achieving equality. This becomes
especially significant as governments view the Internet as an
important tool to help them reach the Sustainable Development Goals
(SDG) [SDG] and to globally support human rights.
The second day of workshops was essential to understanding the nature
of the digital divide. Presentations of reports interrogated at
least three key aspects of the digital divide, though there is
recognition that there may be more technical aspects of the digital
divide that were not present. Those were: differences between
population demographics in the provision of online resources by
governments, inequality in the use of multilingualized domains and
email addresses, and increased costs for end-user downloads of
contemporary websites' sizes.
2.2.1. Disparities in service provision
Ralph Holz presented research that exposes the more limited DNS-
mediated access to government websites by indigenous communities in
Australia as compared to less disadvantaged users in the same
population in "Evidence for a digital divide? Measuring DNS
dependencies in the context of the indigenous population of
Australia". [HOLZ] DNS dependency trends were analysed between two
lists of domains serving Australian government sites for Indigenous
users and the general population. Researchers found, "evidence that
dependencies for the indigenous population are indeed differently
configured," indicative of a difference in service provisioning.
However qualitative follow-up research is needed to interrogate both
the potential reasons for these differences and whether the
differences contribute to a "digital divide" that is tangible for
Indigenous users.
Kühlewind, et al. Expires 26 August 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BIAS Workshop Report February 2024
2.2.2. Lack of consistent acceptance of language scripts
On the topic of availability of Internet services and content in
multiple languages "Universal Acceptance of Domain Names and Email
Addresses: A Key to Digital Inclusion" was presented by Sarmad
Hussain of ICANN. [HUSSAIN] The ICANN community has increased the
options for multilingual identifiers through the expansion of the
Internet’s DNS for use in domains and email addresses. However,
while the work of technical specification and policy recommendations
is complete, much work remains to deploy a multiligualized internet.
Today there are around 150 internationalised domain names (IDNs) but
the barriers to equal rollout of these scripts at the domain level
are hindered primarily by software and applications that do not yet
recognise these new scripts. "Universal Acceptance" is a programme
of action for the internet community at large that can ensure IDNs
are accepted and treated consistently.
2.2.3. Web Affordability and Inclusiveness
In "A Framework for Improving Web Affordability and Inclusiveness"
Rumaisa Habib presented research on the connection between website
size and cost to end users. [HABIB] This critical inquiry presents
access in terms of affordability and through measurement demonstrates
that the material costs to end users who pay for their connection
based on the volume of data they download and upload have risen as
the complexity of the web grows. Their research provides a framework
for optimisation based on end-user affordability. This framework is
anchored to reality: it proposes a fairness metric and suggests
systematic adaptations to Web complexity based on "geographic
variations in mobile broadband prices and income levels."
2.2.4. Discussion
These three reports discuss very different aspects of current
inequalities in Internet access in various parts of the world:
service provision, availability, and economic costs. Notably, the
reports discuss trends that exacerbate the digital divide beyond the
question of connectivity or whether users have access to the
Internet, potentially bringing concrete ways that the IETF community
can address digital inclusion within its remit.
Discussants noted that while there are some interesting aspects to
the problem of the digital divide, such as measurements and
frameworks, most of the work is getting this work to the right people
at the policy layer so there is an importance of communicating this
technical evidence to the right people. The IETF's role could be to
build consensus on what the proper solutions presented to decision
makers that put research and measurement not only in context but also
Kühlewind, et al. Expires 26 August 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft BIAS Workshop Report February 2024
in a consensus-driven solution space. Another method to better
communicate this research is by telling stories of end users in more
relatable and relevant terms, which is often a challenge for the
technical level and a role for more diverse stakeholders at the more
local level.
2.3. Session 3: Censorship - Reports and Circumvention
This session focused on reports of censorship as observed during
recent years in different parts of the world, as well as on the use
of and expectation on censorship circumvention tools, mainly the use
of secure VPN services.
The censorship reports, with a focus on Asia, and specifically India,
as well as Russia, as an example where censorship has changed
significantly recently, discussed the legal frameworks and court acts
that put legal obligations on regional network providers to block
traffic. Further, measurements to validate the blocking as well as
analyses of how blocking is implemented were discussed, i.e. which
protocols are used but also which kind of devices are used to
configure the blocking rules and where are they deployed.
2.3.1. Censorship Orders, Measurements, and Device Analysis
[SAMSUDIN] reported on confirmed blocking from 10 countries
(Cambodia, Hong Kong (China), India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar,
Philippines, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Vietnam) in the period from 1
July 2022 to 30 June 2023. The blocking was either confirmed by OONI
measurements for existing blocking fingerprints, heuristics, i.e. for
new blocking fingerprints as well as news reports of blocking orders,
or user experiences. Most of these countries block specific content
such as porn, gambling, or certain news pages. Interestingly the
blocking in Hong Kong and Myanmar is focused on the military and
governmental pages of foreign countries. Blocking is often realized
by either DNS tampering or HTTP tampering. For DNS, either a decided
IP address, a bogon IP address (127.0.0.1), or an empty domain
(nxdomain) is used. In case of DNS tampering using a decided IP
address or HTTP tampering some countries provide a block page that
exposes the blocking, however, more transparency about blocking is
requested by civil society organizations and the iMAP project.
[GROVER] further focused the discussion on online censorship in
India, Pakistan, and Indonesia. In India, where providers are
responsible for implementing the blocking but no method is mandated,
the six major ISPs (covering 98.82% of all subscribers) were tested
on 4379 blocked websites (based on court orders, user reports, and
publicly available or leaked government orders) on DNS poisoning/
injection or HTTP/SNI-based censorship. Used censorship techniques
Kühlewind, et al. Expires 26 August 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft BIAS Workshop Report February 2024
and websites blocked were different across ISPs. Multiple ISPs used
two different techniques (depending on the website), and all but one
provided censorship notices. Providers blocked between 1892 to 3721
(of 4379) pages with only 1115 (27.64%) of pages blocked by all ISPs.
[Singh2020] In contrast, in Pakistan, the government can also order
the IPSs to perform blocking and blocking has even been observed in
the past on the IXP level. Since 2020, there has also a central Web
Monitoring System deployed at lines of international connectivity.
In Indonesia, initially, the government guided ISPs in how to perform
the blocking. The regulations were updated in 2020 to allow
Indonesian ISPs to block websites at their discretion. In 2022,
there was a proposal by internet service providers to centralise DNS.
In Indonesia, a partial block list is publicly available, but without
any indication of why something is blocked. [Grover2023]
[BASSO] reported that for Russia a high increase in additions to the
Roskomnadzor’s block list was observed in March 2022 as well as in
December 2022, foremost covering news pages but also covering human
rights organizations and social media, where more than 3500 blocking
orders were added to the list by an "Unknown body". Further,
blocking of domains that are not in the official Roskomnadzor’s list
has been observed as well.
An invited talk presented the work in [WANG] on locating censorship
devices by using HTTP and TLS traceroutes, identifying device vendors
through fingerprinting, and reverse-engineering censorship triggers
by the use of fuzzing. E.g. for the case of Azerbaijan and
Kazakhstan, they showed that a significant portion of measurements
from remote countries are blocked at the endpoint, indicating local
policies but connection resets are also happening in Belarus and
Russia. Further, they could identify a set of commercial network
devices (firewalls) that are used in these countries for censorship
and show how fuzzing can be used to fingerprint and cluster
behaviours as well as potentially circumvent the deployed methods.
All speakers called for more transparency by requiring blocking
messages as well as publication and auditing of blocklists.
Potentially even standardization could help.
2.3.2. Use of VPNs for Censorship Circumvents and user expectations
Further on in the session, the possibility and prevalence of using
VPNs for circumvention has been discussed including user expectations
and an analysis of security shortcomings of commercial VPN services.
The analysis presented in [RAMESH] has shown various problems that
lead to data leaks such as leakage of IPv6 traffic, non-browser
traffic, or tunnel failure, not upholding user expectations,
especially when used in authoritarian regimes for censorship
Kühlewind, et al. Expires 26 August 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft BIAS Workshop Report February 2024
circumvention or private communication.
The question of how common the use of VPNs for circumvention is and
its legal implications, as VPNs are illegal in a few countries, has
been discussed. E.g. VPNs are not officially banned in India but
VPN providers need to store log data and those, who haven’t complied,
stopped serving India. However, more data on VPN use and blocking
might be needed.
2.3.3. Discussion
After all, there is a cat-and-mouse game between censors and
circumvents, however, continued work on protocol enhancements that
protect user privacy is essential.
2.4. Key Take Aways
Some key takeaways from the workshop are -
* There is a need for the technical community to address the
management gaps in operating Community Networks.
* Work should be done in documenting best practices for operating
Community Networks.
* During the development of protocols, explicit manageability
considerations related to Community Networks should be considered.
* Build consensus on solutions that have the most significant impact
in fostering digital inclusion. Further, promoting these
solutions ensures that efforts to bridge the digital divide are
effective and inclusive.
* Further work to enhance protocols ensuring user privacy should
continue.
* Develop further protocols (or extensions to existing protocols)
that enable more transparency on filtering and promote their use
and deployment.
* Develop new VPN-like services and potentially support measurements
to understand their deployment and use.
* Further discussion of these topics could happen in GAIA, HRPC,
PEARG, and MAPRG based on the relevance to the research group.
The community could also explore if a censorship (and its
circumvention) focused group could be created.
Kühlewind, et al. Expires 26 August 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft BIAS Workshop Report February 2024
3. Informative References
[APC] "The Association for Progressive Communications (APC)",
n.d., <https://www.apc.org/>.
[BASSO] Basso, S., "How Internet censorship changed in Russia
during the 1st year of military conflict in Ukraine",
January 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/
interim-2024-biasws-03/materials/slides-interim-2024-
biasws-03-sessa-online-censorship-in-india-pakistan-and-
indonesia-00>.
[BENSON] Benson, T. A. and M. Fayed, "A ‘C’ in CDN - Access service
to and from the Internet at cost for community networks",
January 2024, <https://www.ietf.org/slides/slides-biasws-
a-c-in-cdn-access-service-to-and-from-the-internet-at-
cost-for-community-networks-00.pdf>.
[GAIA] "Global Access to the Internet for All Research Group",
n.d., <https://www.irtf.org/gaia.html>.
[GROVER] Grover, G., "Online censorship in India, Pakistan and
Indonesia", January 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2024-biasws-
03/materials/slides-interim-2024-biasws-03-sessa-online-
censorship-in-india-pakistan-and-indonesia-00>.
[Grover2023]
Grover, G. and C. Cath, "The infrastructure of censorship
in Asia", October 2023,
<https://archive.org/details/eaten-by-the-internet/>.
[GUIFI] "Guifi.net", n.d., <https://guifi.net/en>.
[HABIB] Habib, R., Tanveer, S., Inam, A., Ahmed, H., and A. Ali,
"A Framework for Improving Web Affordability and
Inclusiveness", September 2023,
<https://www.ietf.org/slides/slides-biasws-a-framework-
for-improving-web-affordability-and-inclusiveness-00.pdf>.
[HOLZ] Holz, R., Nazemi, N., Tavallaie, O., and A. Y. Zomaya,
"Evidence for a digital divide? Measuring DNS dependencies
in the context of the indigenous population of Australia",
2023, <https://www.ietf.org/slides/slides-biasws-evidence-
for-a-digital-divide-measuring-dns-dependencies-in-the-
context-of-the-indigenous-population-of-australia-00.pdf>.
Kühlewind, et al. Expires 26 August 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft BIAS Workshop Report February 2024
[HU] Hu, P., "Closing the Performance and Management Gaps with
Satellite Internet - Challenges, Approaches, and Future
Directions", January 2024, <https://www.ietf.org/slides/
slides-biasws-closing-the-performance-and-management-gaps-
with-satellite-internet-challenges-approaches-and-future-
directions-01.pdf>.
[HUSSAIN] Hussain, S., "Universal Acceptance of Domain Names and
Email Addresses - A Key to Digital Inclusion", 2023,
<https://www.ietf.org/slides/slides-biasws-universal-
acceptance-of-domain-names-and-email-addresses-a-key-to-
digital-inclusion-01.pdf>.
[ISOC] "Community networks help bridge the connectivity gap",
n.d., <https://www.internetsociety.org/action-plan/
community-networks/>.
[MARTINEZ] Martínez-Cervantes, L. M. and R. Guevara-Martínez,
"Community Networks and the Quest for Quality", January
2024, <https://www.ietf.org/slides/slides-biasws-
community-networks-and-the-quest-for-quality-00.pdf>.
[PANGEA] "Project Pangea from Cloudflare", n.d.,
<https://www.cloudflare.com/en-gb/pangea/>.
[RAMESH] Ramesh, R., "Investigating the VPN Ecosystem through the
lens of Security, Privacy, and Usability", January 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2024-biasws-
03/materials/slides-interim-2024-biasws-03-sessa-
investigating-the-vpn-ecosystem-through-the-lens-of-
security-privacy-and-usability-00>.
[RENNO] Rennó, R., "Maximising Connectivity - The Spectrum's Vital
Role in Technology Access", January 2024,
<https://www.ietf.org/slides/slides-biasws-position-paper-
by-raquel-renno-01.pdf>.
[RFC7962] Saldana, J., Ed., Arcia-Moret, A., Braem, B.,
Pietrosemoli, E., Sathiaseelan, A., and M. Zennaro,
"Alternative Network Deployments: Taxonomy,
Characterization, Technologies, and Architectures",
RFC 7962, DOI 10.17487/RFC7962, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7962>.
[SAMSUDIN] Samsudin, S., "iMAP (Internet Monitoring Action Project)
2023 Internet Censorship Report", January 2024,
<https://www.ietf.org/slides/slides-biasws-position-paper-
by-raquel-renno-01.pdf>.
Kühlewind, et al. Expires 26 August 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft BIAS Workshop Report February 2024
[SDG] "Sustainable Development Goals", n.d.,
<https://sdgs.un.org/goals>.
[Singh2020]
Singh, K., Grover, G., and V. Bansal, "How India Censors
the Web", July 2020,
<https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3394231.3397891>.
[TBB] "Tribal Broadband Bootcamp", n.d.,
<https://tribalbroadbandbootcamp.org/>.
[WANG] Raman, R. S., Wang, M., Dalek, J., Mayer, J., and R.
Ensafi, "Network Measurement Methods for Locating and
Examining Censorship Devices", November 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2024-biasws-
03/materials/slides-interim-2024-biasws-03-sessa-online-
censorship-in-india-pakistan-and-indonesia-00>.
Appendix A. Position Papers
19 position papers were submitted to the workshop call for papers. 11
were selected for publication. Papers that were not published either
(2) only provided a very prelimited analysis of an idea that was felt
to be incomprehensive for discussion at the workshop, or addressed
problems that were beyond the scope as dedicated for the workshop
discussion e.g. discussing cyber security threads as a barrier for
participation or implication of technology in regulation that imposes
blocking. Both of these topics pose a potentially severe risk on the
open Internet, however, these risks might provide a high risk for all
Internet users but do not necessarily imply an unbalance.
All accepted papers are available at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/biasws/materials/
This is the list of all published papers:
Community Networks:
* L. M. Martínez-Cervantes, R. Guevara-Martínez: Community
Networks and the Quest for Quality
* T. Benson, M. Fayed: A ‘C’ in CDN: Access service to and from
the Internet for community networks at-cost
* P. Hu: Closing the Performance and Management Gaps with Satellite
Internet: Challenges, Approaches, and Future Directions
Kühlewind, et al. Expires 26 August 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft BIAS Workshop Report February 2024
* R. Rennó: Maximising Connectivity: The Spectrum's Vital Role in
Technology Access
Digital Divide:
* R. Holz, N. Nazemi, O. Tavallaie, A.Y. Zomaya: Evidence for a
digital divide? Measuring DNS dependencies in the context of the
indigenous population of Australia
* S. Hussain: Universal Acceptance of Domain Names and Email
Addresses: A Key to Digital Inclusion
* R. Habib, S. Tanveer, A. Inam, H. Ahmed, A. Ali, Z.A. Uzmi,
Z.A. Qazi, I.A. Qazi: A Framework for Improving Web
Affordability and Inclusiveness
* J. Ott, G. Bartolomeo, M.M. Bese, R. Bose, M. Bosk, D.
Guzman, L. Kärkkäinen, M. Kosek, N. Mohan: The Internet: Only
for the Fast (and Furious)?
* L.Y. Ohlsen: BIAS workshop - M-Lab Position Paper submission
Censorship:
* S. Nurliza Samsudin: iMAP (Internet Monitoring Action Project)
2023 Internet Censorship Report
* G. Grover: The infrastructure of censorship in Asia
* S. Basso: How Internet censorship changed in Russia during the
1st year of military conflict in Ukraine
In addition to the submitted paper two invited talks were presented
based on published papers:
* R. Sundara Raman, M. Wang, J. Dalek, J. Mayer, R. Ensafi:
Network Measurement Methods for Locating and Examining Censorship
Devices
* R. Ramesh, A. Vyas, R. Ensafi: “All of them claim to be the
best”: A multi-perspective study of VPN users and VPN providers
Kühlewind, et al. Expires 26 August 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft BIAS Workshop Report February 2024
Appendix B. Workshop Participants
The workshop participants were Arnaud Taddei, Carlos Pignataro,
Carsten Bormann, Cindy Morgan, Colin Perkins, Cory Myers, Dan Sexton,
David Guzman, David Millman, David Schinazi, Dhruv Dhody, Gurshabad
Grover, Hanna Kreitem, Jane Coffin, Jiankang Yao, Jörg Ott, Juan
Peirano, Lai Yi Ohlsen, Luis Martinez, Mallory Knodel, Marwan Fayed,
Matthew Bocci, Michael Welzl, Michuki Mwangi, Mirja Kühlewind, Mona
Wang, Peng Hu, Ralph Holz, Raquel Renno, Reethika Ramesh, Rumaisa
Habib, Sarmad Hussain, Simone Basso, Siti Nurliza Samsudin, Suresh
Krishnan, Theophilus Benson, Tirumaleswar Reddy, Tommy Pauly, Vesna
Manojlovic, and Wes Hardaker.
Appendix C. Workshop Program Committee
The workshop program committee members were Christopher Wood (IAB,
Cloudflare), Dhruv Dhody (IAB, Huawei), Mallory Knodel (IAB, Center
for Democracy and Technology), Mirja Kühlewind (IAB, Ericsson), and
Tommy Pauly (IAB, Apple).
IAB Members at the Time of Approval
Internet Architecture Board members at the time this document was
approved for publication were: TODO
Acknowledgments
TODO acknowledge.
Authors' Addresses
Mirja Kühlewind
Email: ietf@kuehlewind.net
Dhruv Dhody
Email: dd@dhruvdhody.com
Mallory Knodel
Email: mknodel@cdt.org
Kühlewind, et al. Expires 26 August 2024 [Page 15]
