IAB Barriers to Internet Access of Services (BIAS) Workshop Report
draft-iab-bias-workshop-report-02

Network Working Group                                       M. Kühlewind
Internet-Draft                                                          
Intended status: Informational                                  D. Dhody
Expires: 22 December 2024                                               
                                                               M. Knodel
                                                            20 June 2024

   IAB Barriers to Internet Access of Services (BIAS) Workshop Report
                   draft-iab-bias-workshop-report-02

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 22 December 2024                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft            BIAS Workshop Report                 June 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 22 December 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       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 22 December 2024                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft            BIAS Workshop Report                 June 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 22 December 2024                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft            BIAS Workshop Report                 June 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 22 December 2024                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft            BIAS Workshop Report                 June 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.  These existing known performance and
   management gaps 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
   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 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.  Also,
   there is a lack of operational inputs from community network
   operators in the IETF/IRTF.

Kühlewind, et al.       Expires 22 December 2024                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft            BIAS Workshop Report                 June 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 22 December 2024                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft            BIAS Workshop Report                 June 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 the proper solutions presented to decision-makers
   that put research and measurement not only in context but also in a

Kühlewind, et al.       Expires 22 December 2024                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft            BIAS Workshop Report                 June 2024

   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 22 December 2024                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft            BIAS Workshop Report                 June 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 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 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 (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 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.

Kühlewind, et al.       Expires 22 December 2024                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft            BIAS Workshop Report                 June 2024

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
   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.

Kühlewind, et al.       Expires 22 December 2024               [Page 10]
Internet-Draft            BIAS Workshop Report                 June 2024

   *  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 management and operations-related discussion can be taken to
      OPSAWG.  The community could also explore if a censorship (and its
      circumvention) focused group could be created.

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>.

Kühlewind, et al.       Expires 22 December 2024               [Page 11]
Internet-Draft            BIAS Workshop Report                 June 2024

   [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]     "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>.

Kühlewind, et al.       Expires 22 December 2024               [Page 12]
Internet-Draft            BIAS Workshop Report                 June 2024

   [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>.

   [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
   (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 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:

Kühlewind, et al.       Expires 22 December 2024               [Page 13]
Internet-Draft            BIAS Workshop Report                 June 2024

   Community Networks:

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

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

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

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

   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 [HOLZ]

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

   *  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 [HABIB]

   *  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 [SAMSUDIN]

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

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

   In addition to the submitted paper two invited talks were presented
   based on published papers:

Kühlewind, et al.       Expires 22 December 2024               [Page 14]
Internet-Draft            BIAS Workshop Report                 June 2024

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

   *  R.  Ramesh, A.  Vyas, R.  Ensafi: “All of them claim to be the
      best”: A multi-perspective study of VPN users and VPN providers

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

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

Authors' Addresses

   Mirja Kühlewind
   Email: [email protected]

   Dhruv Dhody
   Email: [email protected]

   Mallory Knodel

Kühlewind, et al.       Expires 22 December 2024               [Page 15]
Internet-Draft            BIAS Workshop Report                 June 2024

   Email: [email protected]

Kühlewind, et al.       Expires 22 December 2024               [Page 16]