wdiff rfc9707v1.txt rfc9707.txt

Internet Architecture Board (IAB) M. Kühlewind
Request for Comments: 9707
Category: Informational D. Dhody
ISSN: 2070-1721
M. Knodel
December 2024

Report from the IAB Workshop on Barriers to Internet Access of Services
(BIAS) Workshop Report

Abstract

The "Barriers to 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 access of Services, services, reports and
comments on the observed digital divide, and measurements of
censorship and censorship circumvention. This report summarizes the
workshop's discussions and serves as a reference for reports on the
current barriers to Internet Access. 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 the IAB's views and positions.

Status of This Memo

This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.

This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable to
provide for permanent record. It represents the consensus of the
Internet Architecture Board (IAB). Documents approved for
publication by the IAB are not candidates for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.

Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9707.

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
1.1. About the Content of This Workshop Report
2. Workshop Scope and Discussion
2.1. Session 1: Community Networks - Their Role in Internet
Access of Services
2.1.1. The Quality of Community Networks
2.1.2. Strengthening Community Networks
2.1.3. Discussion
2.2. Session 2: Digital Divide - Reports and Comments
2.2.1. Disparities in Service Provisioning
2.2.2. Lack of Consistent Acceptance of Language Scripts
2.2.3. Web Affordability and Inclusiveness
2.2.4. Discussion
2.3. Session 3: Censorship - Reports and Circumvention
2.3.1. Censorship Orders, Measurements, and Device Analysis
2.3.2. Use of VPNs for Censorship Circumvents Circumventions and User
Expectations
2.3.3. Discussion
2.4. Key Takeaways
3. IANA Considerations
4. Security Considerations
5. Informative References
Appendix A. Position Papers
Appendix B. Workshop Participants
Appendix C. Workshop Program Committee
IAB Members at the Time of Approval
Acknowledgments
Authors' Addresses

1. Introduction

The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) holds occasional workshops
designed to consider long-term issues and strategies for the
Internet, and to suggest future directions for the Internet
architecture. This long-term planning function of the IAB is
complementary to the ongoing engineering efforts performed by working
groups of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).

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 for
reaching the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) listed in [SDGs]
and for globally supporting 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 aimed to

* collect reports about barriers to accessing content and services
on the Internet, e.g., Internet. For example:

- based on filtering, and blocking as well as filtering.

- based on blocking.

- due to general inequality of technological capabilities, like e.g.,
device or protocol limitations.

* 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.

* 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 the Content of This Workshop Report

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 the IAB's
views and positions.

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.
access. Community Networks are self-organized networks wholly owned
by the community and thus provide an alternative mechanism to bring
connectivity and internet 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 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 documentation of
best practices in deploying Community Networks as well as careful
thought regarding 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] [TBB] were shared by the participants.

The inconsistent quality and performance of Satellite Internet result
in a connectivity gap for Community Networks that rely on non-
terrestrial networks (NTNs) for internet Internet access [HU].

2.1.2. Strengthening Community Networks

[BENSON] focused on the prohibitive cost of transit and Internet
services for Community Networks and argued for 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
the status of Project PANGEA [PANGEA] as well as legal and commercial
considerations related to such use of CDNs.

[HU] highlighted that Satellite Internet provided by advanced low-
Earth orbit (LEO) satellite Satellite constellations can play a pivotal role in
closing the connectivity gap in the urban-rural digital divide via
Satellite-dependent Community Networks. These existing known
performance and management gaps need to be focused on, to enable
Satellite Internet to resolve the divide. Further, research
directions such as multi-layer satellite Satellite networking, autonomous
maintenance, and integration between terrestrial networks and NTNs
were suggested.

[RENNO] called attention to the coveted 6 GHz (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 Community Networks (and small
ISPs). Spectrum allocations directly impact industries and market
access with ramifications for Community Networks. Further, there was
a discussion on geopolitical tensions because of it. these allocations.

2.1.3. Discussion

How can the technical community address the management gaps and
improve best practices for Community Networks? Is the increasing
complexity of the Internet making it more challenging to establish
secure connections, and should this be taken into account in the
design of the Internet? What steps need to be taken to make sure
Community Networks are secure? Should manageability considerations
be expanded to explicitly consider Community Networks? The Global
Access to the Internet for All (GAIA) Research Group [GAIA] 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. Also, there is
a lack of operational inputs from Community Network operators in the
IETF/IRTF.

2.2. Session 2: Digital Divide - Reports and Comments

Critical internet Internet infrastructure affects many aspects of our society
significantly, although differently, the it impacts different parts of society
differently. The inequitable aspects of which are typically referred to as
"digital inclusion" signifying inclusion"; these aspects signify that in efforts to
digitalize 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 for helping them
reach the SDGs listed in [SDGs] and for globally supporting 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 it is
recognized that there may be more technical aspects of the digital
divide that were not present. Those were addressed. Three of those aspects were:

* differences between population demographics in the provision of
online resources by
governments, governments.

* inequality in the use of multilingualized domains and email addresses, and
addresses.

* increased costs for end-user downloads from websites of
contemporary websites' sizes.

2.2.1. Disparities in Service Provisioning

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 analyzed 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.

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 specifications and policy recommendations
is complete, much work remains to deploy a multilingualized internet. Internet.
Today, there are around 150 internationalized domain names (IDNs),
but equal rollout of these scripts at the domain level is hindered
primarily by software and applications that do not yet recognize
these new scripts. "Universal Acceptance" is a program of action for
the internet Internet community at large that can ensure that 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 optimization based on end-user affordability. This framework is
anchored in reality: [HABIB] proposes a fairness metric and suggests
systematic adaptations to complexity of the Web 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 provisioning, 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 yielding 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 involves getting this work to the
appropriate people at the policy level; therefore, it is important to
communicate this technical evidence to the appropriate people. The
IETF's role could be to build consensus on the proper solutions
presented to decision-makers that put research and measurement not
only in context but also 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; this is
often a challenge at 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 in recent
years in different parts of the world; it also focused on the use of,
and expectations for, 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 reports highlighted legal frameworks and court actions
that put legal obligations on regional network providers to block
traffic. The discussion focused on Asia, specifically India, and
included Russia as an example where censorship practices have
recently undergone significant changes. 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 kinds of devices are used to configure the blocking rules and
where they are 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, and Vietnam) in the period from 1
July 2022 to 30 June 2023. The blocking was either confirmed by either
(1) Open Observatory of Network Interference (OONI) measurements for
existing blocking fingerprints, heuristics, i.e., fingerprints or heuristics (i.e., for new blocking
fingerprints as well as news reports of blocking orders, orders) or (2) 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 chosen IP address, a
bogon IP address (127.0.0.1), (e.g., 127.0.0.1), or an empty domain (NXDOMAIN) is
used. In the case of DNS tampering using a chosen IP address or HTTP
tampering, some countries provide a block page that exposes the
blocking; however, more transparency related to blocking is requested
by civil society organizations and the Internet Monitoring Action
Project (iMAP).

[GROVER] further focused the discussion on online censorship in
India, Pakistan, and Indonesia. In

As discussed in [Singh2020], 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 a total of 4379 blocked websites (based on court orders, user
reports, and publicly available or leaked government orders) on by using
DNS poisoning/
injection poisoning/injection or HTTP/SNI-based censorship. using censorship based on HTTP or the
Server Name Indication (SNI). The censorship techniques used and
websites blocked were different across ISPs. Multiple ISPs used two
different techniques (depending on the website), and all but one
provided censorship notices. A list of 4379 potentially blocked
websites was tested; 4033 of those websites appeared in at least one
ISP's blocklist. Providers blocked between 1892 and 3721 (of 4379) pages of the 4033
websites, with only 1115 pages websites (27.64%) blocked by all
ISPs [Singh2020]. six ISPs.

In contrast, in Pakistan, the government can also order the ISPs to
perform blocking, and blocking has even been observed in the past at
the Internet Exchange Point (IXP) level. Since 2020, there has also
been 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 ISPs to centralize DNS.
In Indonesia, a partial blocklist is publicly available, but without
any indication of why something is blocked [Grover2023].

[BASSO] reported that for Russia a large increase in additions to
Roskomnadzor's blocklist 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
blocklist has been observed as well.

An invited talk included a presentation of 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. For example,
in the case of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, they showed that a
significant portion of measurements from remote countries is blocked
at the endpoint, indicating local policies, but showed that
connection resets are also happening in Belarus and Russia. Further,
they could identify a set of commercial network devices (with
filtering techniques such as firewalls) that are used in these
countries for censorship and show how fuzzing can be used to
fingerprint and cluster behaviors 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 Circumventions and User Expectations

Further on in the session, the possibility and prevalence of using
VPNs for circumvention were discussed, including user expectations
and an analysis of security shortcomings of commercial VPN services.
The analysis presented in [RAMESH] [RAMESH-1] has shown various problems that
lead to data leaks leaks, such as (1) leakage of IPv6 traffic, non-browser (2) non-
browser traffic, or (3) tunnel failure, not upholding in addition to failing to
uphold user expectations, especially when used in authoritarian
regimes for censorship 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, was
discussed. For example, 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 censorship and
circumvents;
circumvention; however, continued work on protocol enhancements that
protect user privacy is essential.

2.4. Key Takeaways

Some key takeaways from the workshop are as follows:

* There is a need for the technical community to address the
management gaps in operating Community Networks.

* Work should be done to document best practices for operating
Community Networks.

* During the development of protocols, explicit manageability
considerations related to Community Networks should be carefully
thought out.

* 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 should be done to enhance protocols, ensuring that
user privacy is preserved.

* 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 the GAIA
Research Group, the Human Rights Protocol Considerations (HRPC)
Research Group, the Privacy Enhancements and Assessments Research
Group (PEARG), and the Measurement and Analysis for Protocols
Research Group (MAPRG), based on relevance to the research group.
Management-related and operations-related discussions can be taken
to the IETF Operations and Management Area Working Group (OPSAWG).
The community could also explore whether a group focused on
censorship (and its circumvention) could be created.

3. IANA Considerations

This document has no IANA actions.

4. Security Considerations

This document has no security considerations.

5. Informative References

[APC] "The Association for Progressive Communications (APC)",
<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-slide-how-internet-censorship-changed-in-
russia-during-the-1st-year-of-military-conflict-in-
ukraine-00.pdf>.

[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
(GAIA)", <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., "The infrastructure of censorship in Asia", in
"Eaten by the Internet", ed. Corinne Cath, pp. 75-81,
Internet Archive, Meatspace Press, October 2023,
<https://archive.org/details/eaten-by-the-internet/>.

[GUIFI] "guifi.net", <https://guifi.net/en>.

[HABIB] Habib, R., Tanveer, S., Inam, A., Ahmed, H., Ali, A.,
Uzmi, Z. A., Qazi, Z. A., and I. A. Qazi, "A Framework for
Improving Web Affordability and Inclusiveness", ACM
SIGCOMM '23, pp. 592-607, DOI 10.1145/3603269.3604872,
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>.

[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] Internet Society, "Connecting the Unconnected: Community
networks help bridge the connectivity gap",
<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>.

[OHLSEN] Ohlsen, L.Y., "BIAS workshop - M-Lab Position Paper
submission", December 2024, <https://www.ietf.org/slides/
slides-biasws-m-lab-position-paper-01.pdf>.

[OTT] Ott, J., Bartolomeo, G., Bese, M.M., Bose, R., Bosk, M.,
Guzman, D., Kärkkäinen, L., Kosek, M., Mohan, N., Trossen,
D., Welzl, M., and L. Vogel, "The Internet: Only for the
Fast?", January 2024, <https://www.ietf.org/slides/slides-
biasws-the-internet-only-for-the-fast-00.pdf>.

[PANGEA] Cloudflare, "Project Pangea: Helping underserved
communities expand access to the Internet for free",
<https://www.cloudflare.com/en-gb/pangea/>.

[RAMESH]

[RAMESH-1] 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>.

[RAMESH-2] Ramesh, R., Vyas, A., and R. Ensafi, ""All of them claim
to be the best": Multi-perspective study of VPN users and
VPN providers", 32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX
Security '23, August 2023,
<https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity23/
presentation/ramesh-vpn>.

[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/info/rfc7962>.

[SAMSUDIN] Samsudin, S., "iMAP (Internet Monitoring Action Project)
2023 Internet Censorship Report", January 2024,
<https://www.ietf.org/slides/slides-biasws-imap-internet-
monitoring-action-project-internet-censorship-report-
02.pdf>.

[SDGs] United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs -
Sustainable Development, "The 17 Goals",
<https://sdgs.un.org/goals>.

[Singh2020]
Singh, K., Grover, G., and V. Bansal, "How India Censors
the Web", WebSci '20: Proceedings of the 12th ACM
Conference on Web Science, pp. 21-28,
DOI 10.1145/3394231.3397891, July 2020,
<https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3394231.3397891>.
<https://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.08590>.

[TBB] "Tribal Broadband Bootcamp",
<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-network-
measurement-methods-for-locating-and-examining-censorship-
devices-00.pdf>.

Appendix A. Position Papers

Nineteen position papers were submitted to the workshop call for
papers. Eleven Twelve were selected for publication. Papers that were not
published either (1) only provided a very prelimited analysis of an
idea that was felt to be incomprehensive for discussion at the
workshop or (2) addressed problems that were considered "beyond
scope" as dedicated for beyond the
scope of the workshop discussion, discussions, e.g., discussing cybersecurity
threats as a barrier to participation or implication of technology in
a regulation that imposes blocking. Both of these
topics scenarios pose a
potentially severe risk for the open Internet; however,
these risks they might
pose 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:

* Martínez-Cervantes, L. M. and R. Guevara-Martínez: Community
Networks and the Quest for Quality [MARTINEZ]

* Benson, T. A. and M. Fayed: A 'C' in CDN: Access service to and
from the Internet at cost for community networks [BENSON]

* Hu, P.: Closing the Performance and Management Gaps with Satellite
Internet: Challenges, Approaches, and Future Directions [HU]

* Rennó, R.: Maximising Connectivity: The Spectrum's Vital Role in
Technology Access [RENNO]

Digital Divide:

* 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 [HOLZ]

* Hussain, S.: Universal Acceptance of Domain Names and Email
Addresses: A Key to Digital Inclusion [HUSSAIN]

* Habib, R., Tanveer, S., Inam, A., Ahmed, H., Ali, A., Uzmi, Z. A.,
Qazi, Z. A., and I. A. Qazi: A Framework for Improving Web
Affordability and Inclusiveness [HABIB]

* Ott, J., Bartolomeo, G., Bese, M.M., Bose, R., Bosk, M., Guzman,
D., Kärkkäinen, L., Kosek, M., Mohan, N., Trossen, D., Welzl, M.,
and N. Mohan: L. Vogel: The Internet: Only for the Fast (and Furious)? Fast? [OTT]

* Ohlsen, L.Y.: BIAS workshop - M-Lab Position Paper submission
[OHLSEN]

Censorship:

* Samsudin, S.: iMAP (Internet Monitoring Action Project) 2023
Internet Censorship Report [SAMSUDIN]

* Grover, G.: The infrastructure of censorship in Asia [Grover2023]

* Basso, S.: How Internet censorship changed in Russia during the
1st year of military conflict in Ukraine [BASSO]

In addition to the submitted papers, two invited talks were included,
based on published papers:

* Raman, R. S., Wang, M., Dalek, J., Mayer, J., and R. Ensafi:
Network Measurement Methods for Locating and Examining Censorship
Devices [WANG]

* Ramesh, R., Vyas, A., and R. Ensafi: "All of them claim to be the
best": Multi-perspective study of VPN users and VPN providers
[RAMESH-2]

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 Rennó, Reethika Ramesh, Rumaisa
Habib, Sarmad Hussain, Simone Basso, Siti Nurliza Samsudin, Suresh
Krishnan, Theophilus Benson, Tirumaleswar Reddy.K, 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), NYU),
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

Matthew Bocci
Alissa Cooper
Roman Danyliw
Dhruv Dhody
Wes Hardaker
Cullen Jennings
Suresh Krishnan
Mirja Kühlewind
Tommy Pauly
Alvaro Retana
David Schinazi
Christopher Wood
Qin Wu

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Arnaud Taddei for helpful suggestions to improve this
report.

Authors' Addresses

Mirja Kühlewind
Email: ietf@kuehlewind.net

Dhruv Dhody
Email: dd@dhruvdhody.com

Mallory Knodel
Email: mknodel@cdt.org Mallory.knodel@nyu.edu