



Internet Architecture Board (IAB)                           M. Kühlewind
Request for Comments: 9707                                              
Category: Informational                                         D. Dhody
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                         
                                                               M. Knodel
                                                           February 2025


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

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 of 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.

   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.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2025 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
     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 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 -- for example, based on filtering or on blocking,
      or due to general inequality of technological capabilities, 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.  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 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 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 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 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 regarding the use of unlicensed
   spectrum and commercial interest in new spectrum usage.

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 infrastructure affects many aspects of our society
   significantly, although it impacts different parts of society
   differently.  The inequitable aspects are typically referred to as
   "digital 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 addressed.  The three aspects presented and
   discussed 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 from websites of contemporary 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.
   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 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 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 confirmed by (1) Open
   Observatory of Network Interference (OONI) measurements for existing
   blocking fingerprints, (2) heuristics (i.e., for new blocking
   fingerprints as well as news reports of blocking orders), or (3) 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 (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 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) by using DNS
   poisoning/injection or 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.  Providers blocked between 1892 and 3721 (of
   4379) pages with only 1115 pages (27.64%) blocked by all ISPs
   [Singh2020].

   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 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-1] highlights various issues that
   lead to data leaks -- such as the leakage of IPv6 traffic, non-
   browser traffic, or failures in tunneling -- resulting in a failure
   to meet user expectations, particularly in scenarios involving
   censorship circumvention or private communication in authoritarian
   regimes.

   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 censorship and
   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 is a workshop report and does not impact the security
   of the Internet.

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-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://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.  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 the
   scope as dedicated for the workshop discussion, e.g., discussing
   cybersecurity threats as a barrier to participation or implication of
   technology in a regulation that imposes blocking.  Both of these
   topics pose a potentially severe risk for the open Internet; however,
   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 L. Vogel: The Internet: Only for the 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), 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:

      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: Mallory.knodel@nyu.edu
